Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Dr. Ed 2]

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
-- Ronald Reagan

Are we still fighting for freedom, or have we given up?

[NvEric]

I'm still alive and I'm not for sale.
10 months before an "election" of note which will light us down in honor for our Republic ! ... ?

[John F. Carr]

I will survive!
As long as I know how to vote I know I'll stay alive!

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Gloria Gaynor or Cake?

[Sarcastr0]

Gaynor.

I love Cake, but that is not a song for random syncopation.

[Randal]

Are we still fighting for freedom, or have we given up?

MAGA gave up, throwing in with a corrupt petty tyrant.

Everyone else is still fighting for freedom.

[Michael P]

Your side: It became necessary to destroy democracy in order to save it!

This followed destroying freedom in order to save DEI.

[Randal]

My side? It's the Republican primary, Republicans filed the lawsuit.

My side wants Trump on the ballot, he'll be by far the easiest for Biden to beat. Haley would win in a landslide: young, moderate, woman, not Trump or Biden.... hell I might even vote for her!

Anyway, the only way Trump will be disqualified is if his own Supreme Court nominees pull the trigger.

[Michael P]

CREW filled the lawsuit and is not a Republican group. CREW found a half-dozen useful idiots to put their names on the lawsuit, only some of whom are Republicans.

[Sarcastr0]

CREW is not every Democrat.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, that's what makes a group Republican? That not every single Democrat is a member?

[Sarcastr0]

It doesn't make the lawsuits by Republicans sekretly Democratic lawsuits.

Neither party is a monolith.

The work you are putting in to make the parties pro- and anti-Trump is fucked up, Brett; we are not a monarchy.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's just the old notion that you can make a Democratic initiative meaningfully bipartisan by achieving even the most minimal Republican involvement. Only updated to claiming that said minimal Republican involvement makes it Republican, rather than bipartisan.

CREW is supported by ACTBLUE, which is hardly typical of Republican endeavors.

[Sarcastr0]

There are plenty of other lawsuits by Republicans to get Trump off the ballot, they just didn't go anywhere.

Your thesis seems to be gatekeeping the GOP for those who don't like Trump. As though these Republicans are not 'real' in some way.

That is a cult of personality you're working towards. Maybe realize your party is diverse in it's points of view.

[Nige]

Given the current Republian terror of being seen consorting with the enemy, a minimal Republican involvement IS bipartisan.

[Bob from Ohio]

"lawsuits by Republicans "

Fronts for CREW. So gaslighters can say they are lawsuits by Republicans

[Sarcastr0]

No True Republican isn't slavishly loyal to Trump.

[Bob from Ohio]

See, it worked.

[Michael P]

Neither did every Republican file the lawsuit.

What the ever-loving fuck kind of point did you think you were making?

[Sarcastr0]

Great job wrecking that strawman argument no one made.

[Kleppe]

"My side wants Trump on the ballot, he’ll be by far the easiest for Biden to beat."

Why are they falling over themselves to remove him from the ballot?

[Sarcastr0]

I think because that isn't true and you don't know what's going on.

[Bwaaah]

Because their principle of last resort is to win at any cost.

This time around, there's not a peep about "disenfranchised voters."

Neither party, Republican or Democrat, has principles. Only one pretends it does, and yet, can't understand why their credibility is shrinking precipitously.

What crime? What inflation? What 10,000 Democrat-legalized border crossings DAILY?

Democracy is under attack! The racists took down Claudine Gay! You don't know what Donald Trump would do if he were President!

LOL

[Sarcastr0]

Love to see those endorsing Jan 06 and defending Trump's attempts to overturn the election talk about how the other guys are the ones who are into winning a all costs.

Do you really think the Dems have a well thought out plan to take this to the Supreme Court who seems super into kicking Trump off the ballot? Or is this more Republican state-level stuff like it appears?

What crime? What inflation? What 10,000 Democrat-legalized border crossings DAILY?
None of these are true things. Crime stats are low, inflation is low, and the third thing is some new nonsense I've not yet heard of.

[Bwaaah]

Me (parroting many Democrats): "What crime? What inflation? What 10,000 Democrat-legalized border crossings DAILY?"

Sarcastr0: "None of these are true things. Crime stats are low, inflation is low, and the third thing is some new nonsense I’ve not yet heard of."

[Sarcastr0]

So Democrats say true things, and you refuse to engage?

[Bwaaah]

I was wrong about border crossings. It's only 8,000 per day, per U.S. Customs and Border Protection:

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters

Sorry for my error.

[Bwaaah]

Here's a picture of some lined up to sign in, on December 7, in Lukeville Arizona:

https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-560w,f_auto,q_auto:best/rockcms/2023-12/231215-Lukeville-al-1425-580a35.jpg

Here's NBC News, sympathetic to your "side," with a recent look at what's going on:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/border-crossing-lukeville-arizona-closed-too-many-migrants-rcna130003

[Sarcastr0]

1. Nothing here about democrat-legalized.
"The legal border crossing in this tiny Arizona town has been closed indefinitely because there are too many migrants" does not support anything being legalized by anyone.

2. You dropped your bullshit about inflation and crime, I see.

You come off as smarter than this.

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: You're a great listener, and I really appreciate how sincerely you grasp and represent my arguments.

Thanks for noticing that I said nothing about crime or inflation, and inferring what I meant by that. Having considered your compelling argument that they are non-existing problems, I changed my mind. I now disregard my observations of crime in my neighborhood and prices in the stores. I, like you, am no longer one of the many millions of stupid people who believe that they are problems. (not that *you* ever were one of those stupid people)

Again...thanks for taking the time to sincerely understand my position. Others would simply dismiss it as total B.S.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes back to anecdotes in the face of statistics.

All the best partisan attacks are based on your bubble.

[Bwaaah]

You can't even tell the difference between a personal attack and a partisan one.

[Sarcastr0]

You're making an attack on Dems based on your personal vibes.

There's a great quote about where that thinking takes you:

“I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.”

[Kleppe]

"Love to see those endorsing Jan 06 and defending Trump’s attempts to overturn the election talk about how the other guys are the ones who are into winning a all costs."

Believing an election had fatal improprieties and trying to address those through the legal process =/= believing the election was free and fair but trying to overturn it anyway because we disagree with the outcome.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Because while Trump is the one candidate who might be able lose to Biden, Biden is one of the few candidates who might be able to lose to him.

[Bored Lawyer]

And yet both parties seem determined to nominate each of them.

It's like a stable master determined to run a lame horse in the next race. Puzzling, no?

[Frank Drackman]

Who's trying to remove Parkinsonian Joe from the ballot?

[Zarniwoop]

Randal notes:

My side wants Trump on the ballot, he’ll be by far the easiest for Biden to beat. Haley would win in a landslide: young, moderate, woman, not Trump or Biden…. hell I might even vote for her!

This is absosmurfly correct. The notion that it will somehow help Biden to have Trump disqualified by [waves hands and gesticulates at all crap] this is frankly laughable.

Haley would cruise to a victory over Biden with numbers that Trump would hesitate to even lie about (but he probably would lie about in the end).

[David Nieporent]

I don't think it's even a little bit right.

1) Nobody who cares about the U.S. and has a longer memory than a goldfish wants Trump on the ballot. He might indeed be the easiest for Biden to beat (though given DeSantis's campaign trail performance, I'm not sure about that), but he still could win. And that would be the biggest threat to the future of the American project we've seen since 1861.

In 2016 there were a bunch of fools who said, "Yeah, Trump's terrible but he can't win in November, so I'd prefer that Hillary face him rather than _____." Guess what? He could win! He did! And he was as bad as we feared. He'd be even worse this time. But he can't win the election if he doesn't win the nomination. Which means the top priority has to be to defeat him for the nomination.

2) Even thinking about it purely about the election itself and not considering the potential consequences, Trump getting the nomination but being disqualified from some states' general election ballots would be better than him getting the nomination and being on every state's ballot. Right now, for instance, he's ineligible for Maine's ballot, where he won 1 electoral vote in each of 2016 and 2020.

[Sarcastr0]

SCOTUS isn't going to keep Trump off the ballots.

Partially because of where their bread is buttered.

But also because political legitimacy is an exercise of perception (in contrast to legal legitimacy).

It'd be as damaging to the Republic for Trump to be kept off the ballot, legally legitimate though that may be, as for him to win the General.

It sucks living in a Republic with a critical mass of delusional people; MAGA's alternative facts should not be appeased, except for when they have to be.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Perhaps SCOTUS will refrain from interfering in how a state selects its presidential electors. Although there didn't seem to be much refraining in Bush v Gore.

[Kenneth Almquist]

If there is a political case (as opposed to a legal case) for keeping Trump on the ballot, the 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to act.

[Sarcastr0]

The power, but not the ability.

Sometimes the Court gotta deal with what it is.

[SimonP]

While I think you make a fair point, it would require the more brain-addled commenters to believe that Democrats would choose a greater chance of losing to Haley (or another non-Trump Republican) over a lesser chance of losing to Trump, given the stakes.

I think they'd have a hard time thinking that's plausible.

[Sarcastr0]

I'd like Haily in the General over Trump, even if she is more electable.

[Mr. Bumble]

" And he was as bad as we feared. "

In what way was he as bad as [we?] feared?
Lower gas prices, low inflation, lower border crossings, lower taxes, no involvement in new conflicts don't seem "bad".

[Randal]

Well... he did lead an insurrection. That wasn't great, for a President, to do.

[David Nieporent]

He also called a pandemic a hoax and caused millions of his worshippers not to take it seriously, thus leading to massive numbers of deaths before vaccines were developed.

[Randal]

I don’t think it’s even a little bit right.

It's right when you're looking at it through partisan goggles, which was the original set-up.

Me and Zarniwoop observed that even if all you care about is the partisan calculus, Republicans want Trump off the ballot far more than Democrats do.

Your point is that partisan goggles aren't the best way to view Trump. Both can be true. And are!

[Commenter_XY]

David, I have a separate question about the CO-SC case. Last month, former AG Barr had one comment that caught my eye:

I disagree with the court's ability to make those findings. The core finding here is the denial of due process. To deprive somebody of the right to hold public office requires due process. It requires an adjudication of two core issues. One, was there an insurrection? Did the public disturbance rise to the level of insurrection? And Second, what was the role of the individual in there? What is engagement? Did they do something to break your oath of office? Those are complicated facts, and this was denied due process. It was a five-day hearing, there was no jury, it was before for the judge. They are not able to subpoena witnesses and compel the attendance of witnesses. They relied on the January 6th hearings which is mostly hearsay. There was no right to cross-examine during those hearings, and so forth. By the way, the three Democratic judges that dissented, their opinions I think are masterful. As they said, the process here was procedural Frankenstein.

Just from a 'big picture' POV, is AG Barr wrong in his legal assessment? Especially about the need for a formal process, like a trial with a jury in an adversarial proceeding, to actually disqualify someone from being on a ballot? Don't you have to be 'actually guilty'?

Didn't we have a trial already...Impeachment II? Wasn't incitement to insurrection actually a named charge in POTUS Trump's second impeachment? He was not removed from office by the Senate. I suppose impeachment is a political, not legal act, and the two are different. Still though, there was a formal process and there was no sanction taken by the Senate.

Where do you think AG Barr might be off base in his legal assessment here.

[Nelson]

To start with, he's Bill Barr. He's proven that his legal opinions are completely subordinate to his personal and professional interests. He isn't a reliable source of impartial analysis.

[Randal]

There was a formal, adversarial process. There wasn't a jury. Is a jury required? If so I haven't seen any decent explanation as to why.

Everything else Barr mentioned is irrelevant compared to the jury question. (The judge is competent to evaluate the evidentiary value of the Jan 6 hearings, for instance.)

[Drewski]

As the Supreme Court has noted on numerous occasions, the core of due process is notice and the opportunity to be heard. Barr wants more than that, which Congress probably could require but the Constitution does not, at least facially. The Court might find emanations of penumbras that require such, which is fine if they don't pretend it's textualism and tradition.

[Brett Bellmore]

That may be the core of due process, but it's not the total extent of it. As noted, he couldn't call witnesses, the main basis for there having been an insurrection and Trump being implicated in it was the January 6th committee, which didn't even pretend to have any adversarial process.

[Sarcastr0]

The Supreme Court can so decree. You don't really have that ability.

And plenty of factual evidence doesn't go through an adversarial process; that's not really an issue.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're not aiming for due process here, you're aiming for as little process as you can possibly hope to get away with.

That's transparently obvious at this point.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Brett. What I am doing is telling you the state of the law.

I'm not trying to get away with anything. You and I both want Trump to remain on the ballot, I just pay attention to reality not just what I think reality should be.

[not guilty]

"That may be the core of due process, but it’s not the total extent of it. As noted, he couldn’t call witnesses, the main basis for there having been an insurrection and Trump being implicated in it was the January 6th committee, which didn’t even pretend to have any adversarial process."

You are lying, Brett. Donald Trump could and did call witnesses in the five day bench trial before Judge Wallace.

[David Nieporent]

As noted, he couldn’t call witnesses,

Yes, he could.

[Nelson]

"As noted, he couldn’t call witnesses"

That's not true. He didn't call any witnesses, nor did he dispute the evidence of insurrection, but he could have done both. The complaint about witnesses, I believe, revolves around whether he had enough time or subpoena power outside of Colorado (lawyers, correct me if I'm wrong on that).

[Nelson]

I stand corrected. Apparently he did call witnesses, so you are extra wrong.

[A Thinking Mind]

Didn't the Republican Party of Colorado argue against the petition in the Colorado case? Didn't they even say that if the state removes Trump from the ballot, they're going to hold a caucus instead of being involved with the primary?

It seems like Republicans mostly want Trump on the ballot, but a Democrat Secretary of state and 4 liberal justices, appointed by Democrat governors, are the ones making these determinations.

Just seems grossly dishonest to claim this is "Republicans" doing this.

[Nelson]

Awesome. Trump is the only possibility that the Rs lose the White House and they are so toxic, policy-wise, that it's really important that they lose until sanity re-establishes itself in the GOP.

[Martinned]

Your side: It became necessary to destroy democracy in order to save it!

Coming from the "side" that tried to prevent the Senate from counting the electoral votes, and that has spent the time since adopting countless laws that aimed to reduce turnout among Democratic voters, that's a bit rich.

[Michael P]

Nobody tried to stop the Senate from counting electoral votes. Also, no laws have had the intent you allege, much less that effect. Georgia's election reforms, for example, led to record-high turnout.

[Nelson]

"Nobody tried to stop the Senate from counting electoral votes."

Wow. Believing that takes an impressive combination of mental gymnastics, ignoring evidence, and partisanship. 10 out of 10 for blind loyalty to the party, Michael.

[IAdmitIAmCrazy]

Amen!

[David Nieporent]

No, he's right; they didn't want to stop the senate from counting electoral votes. They just wanted to cause the senate to count fake electoral votes, thereby throwing out the votes of 81 million Americans.

[Nelson]

That was what Trump wanted to happen when he put that portion of his plot to steal an election into place.

Jan.6th was an attempt to stop Mike Pence from certifying the Electoral College votes.

I understand the confusion. Trump tried so many illegitimate things to try to stop the results of a free and fair election from being implemented that it's hard to keep them all straight.

[Ed Grinberg]

.

destroying freedom in order to save DEI

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/how-to-fix-politics-in-america/inequality/pass-an-anti-racist-constitutional-amendment/

Leftists hate freedom. They hate the United States, which is the embodiment of freedom, thanks to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution they gave us. Leftists (of all colors) are using blacks (with their racial grievances) as a wedge to destroy our Constitution, our country, and, most importantly, our freedom.

[Nige]

The people who think 'the blacks' are coming for them think 'the blacks' have racial grievances.

[edemilsonmattoso]

If the geriatric traitor in the white house is your idea of "freedom," I'd love to know what you consider tyranny.

[Martinned]

Someone who attacks the right to vote and the independence of the judiciary?

[Frank Drackman]

AlGore? but he's been irreverent for years now

[Michael P]

I'm glad we agree that Democrats are serious threats of that sort, then. See below for an example of Rep. Jamie Raskin attacking the independence of the judiciary (in addition to this thread on their threat to voting rights).

[Randal]

Right... telling people not to vote for Trump is attacking the judiciary.

You guys are getting wildly desperate over there.

[BrianL.]

So if you are anti-Trump that means you are pro-Biden? I don't like either of them. Someone (can't remember who) wrote an article a few months ago saying Biden should offer Trump a "Grand Bargain", which would be: 1. Biden stops the federal trials/pardons Trump. 2. Trump agrees not to run for President. 3. Biden agrees not to run for President.

I would love for this to happen, but Biden would never offer it and I doubt Trump would accept it.

[A Thinking Mind]

Just out of principle, I've long thought that Biden should pardon Trump. Without any deal attached. It would potentially be good optics, though it would certainly cost him with his base.

[Voize]

Commutation yes but a pardon can be misinterpreted as recognition of actual innocence.

[Nelson]

I agree with commutation, since a pardon (I believe) requires Trump to admit his guilt and he'll never do that. Commutation comes after conviction.

[David Nieporent]

Trump is never going to be sentenced to prison, because (a) he is 80; and (b) the security concerns would be unmanageable. If he's convicted, he'll be sentenced to some form of house arrest. As such, I think a commutation would be inappropriate.

[Nelson]

"I’d love to know what you consider tyranny."

The geriatric traitor who got beat in 2020. He's already said he would be a dictator on Day 1, but that he'll stop after that. I believe the first part. History says the second part is ... unlikely.

[Moderation4ever]

I think that people continue the fight for freedom. People fight unjust laws that would restrict voting by certain group. People continue the fight for woman's access to reproductive health. There are plenty of people fighting for freedom if you just look. Part of the problem is that freedom is a broad term that can mean different things to different people. For some parents, freedom is defined as being able to choose the books their children read, other parents may think that freedom means that books are available for their children to read.

I would ask you how would Ronald Reagan's ideas of freedom play in the world of woke and MAGA?

[Bob from Ohio]

"reproductive health"

Why the deceptive euphemism if its a proud fight for freedom?

[LawTalkingGuy]

The anti-abortion and anti-birth control crowd uses and used deceptive euphemisms all the time. The vast majority of "pro-life" people aren't pro-life in any meaningful sense. (You are a exhibit A: you countenance and support mass death a lot) Yet they push it non-stop. You can't really complaint about branding when the anti-abortion movement was only as successful as it was due to branding. Now that the policy results are real everyone is realizing how deceptive the branding from conservatives was.

[Frank Drackman]

Llike "WHAM!" said, "Choose Life"

[Nelson]

"Why the deceptive euphemism if its a proud fight for freedom?"

It isn't a euphemism, since it embodies more than just abortion. Reproductive health includes such things as contraception as well as medical processes like IVF.

An example of a euphemism is "pro-life", since many who claim that label don't apply it post-birth.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, I'm only for executing babies after they've been born (and done something worthy of Execution)

[Magister]

one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.

Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

Republicans are still hyperventilating over imaginary socialists 60 years later.

[Nelson]

Imaginary things are the core of GOP beliefs and policies these days. It's not your parents' Republican party any more.

That's the tragedy of today's politics.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump has filed his reply brief in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208584455.0_1.pdf The gist of the brief is repetition of Trump's question begging claim that a former president's immunity from civil suits for damages for official conduct, recognized in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982), extends to immunity from criminal prosecution. This contention cannot withstand scrutiny.

No member of SCOTUS opined in Fitzgerald that such immunity extends to criminal prosecution. Justice Powell's opinion of the Court, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Rehnquist, Stevens and O'Connor, observed that "The Court has recognized before that there is a lesser public interest in actions for civil damages than, for example, in criminal prosecutions." 457 U.S. at 754, n.37. Chief Justice Burger -- whose vote was essential to the 5-4 decision, wrote in a separate concurrence that "The dissents are wide of the mark to the extent that they imply that the Court today recognizes sweeping immunity for a President for all acts. The Court does no such thing. The immunity is limited to civil damages claims." Id., at 759.

Justice White, in a dissent joined by Justices Brennan, Marshall and Blackmun, opined, "But there is no contention that the President is immune from criminal prosecution in the courts under the criminal laws enacted by Congress or by the States for that matter. Nor would such a claim be credible. . . . Similarly, our cases indicate that immunity from damages actions carries no protection from criminal prosecution." Id., at 780.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that officials who enjoy absolute immunity from civil suits for damages are nevertheless subject to criminal prosecution. For example, "Judges are immune from § 1983 damages actions, but they are subject to criminal prosecutions as are other citizens." Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 31 (1980). "[W]e have never held that the performance of the duties of judicial, legislative, or executive officers, requires or contemplates the immunization of otherwise criminal deprivations of constitutional rights. . . . On the contrary, the judicially fashioned doctrine of official immunity does not reach "so far as to immunize criminal conduct proscribed by an Act of Congress." O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 503 (1974).

In affording absolute immunity for civil damages actions to state prosecutors, SCOTUS opined, "This Court has never suggested that the policy considerations which compel civil immunity for certain governmental officials also place them beyond the reach of the criminal law." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 429 (1976). The Speech or Debate Clause confers immunity from suit upon members of Congress for their legislative acts, but "Article I, § 6, cl. 1, as we have emphasized, does not purport to confer a general exemption upon Members of Congress from liability or process in criminal cases. Quite the contrary is true." Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 626 (1972).

[Brett Bellmore]

I see multiple arguments, not just one.

1) Only Congress can rule on disputed Presidential qualifications, not state courts.

2) Section 3 is NOT "self-executing", but requires enabling legislation.

3) "Even if section 3 does not require enforcement legislation to have effect, the lack of such legislation deprives the courts of judicially manageable standards. "

4) Section 3 is inapplicable to Presidents.

5) Trump is factually innocent of insurrection.
a: January 6th was not an insurrection.
b: And Trump did not engage in it.

6) The CO supreme court violated the state's election statutes in several ways.

7) Section 3 does not extend to disqualification from the ballot, running for office, being voted for, or even winning. Only holding office.

[not guilty]

Brett, I am talking about the Trump reply brief in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the D.C. criminal prosecution, which is not a disqualification case.

[edemilsonmattoso]

I wouldn't think SCOTUS would have the authority to rule on 6.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, if they did so, it was in regards to a federal position, so arguably they would.

#3 seems like the sort of argument that the current Court would love. I can't see them going for #4. I could see some possibility of any of the others being persuasive.

[CountmontyC]

Of course they can. It would be an equal protection issue.

[Stephen Lathrop]

A problem with each of 1–7 is that Trump's case can't be disposed of without either constructively rewriting the text of the Constitution, or overturning long-standing procedural norms.

Which leaves the question whether SCOTUS will do it anyway. I think they ought to do it. They have precedent. They ought to assert it as a mere extension of the set of judicial powers exampled by the major questions doctrine, and writing the Militia Clause out of the Constitution. Call those powers the PSPs—Penumbra Shadow Powers.

Nagging textualist constraints have too long burdened this co-equal branch of government. It is a mockery and an outrage to pretend the Judicial Branch is co-equal, when the other branches enjoy policy making powers, and SCOTUS does not. Cut that Gordian Knot, and give this nation a fully empowered judiciary.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Plus, you'd get to crow about how the Court had abandoned its originalist philosophy to get Trump off.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ONS, you are mistaken about that. This Court does not hew to an originalist philosophy. It relies instead on a cephalopod philosophy, to deploy clouds of distractions behind which it can sneak away unmolested to get its tentacles on preferred outcomes. Originalism, to this Court, is squid ink.

[Joe_dallas]

Stephen Lathrop 8 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"....and writing the Militia Clause out of the Constitution. Call those powers the PSPs—Penumbra Shadow Powers."

Lathrop - Scotus did not write the militia clause out the constitution. The right to form a Militia clause wasnt before the court, only the individual right was what was before the court. So any misinterpretation of the meaning of the militia clause was moot. fyi - as a historical analysis expert, there is zero historical evidence that the militia clause served as a limitation.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Joe_Dallas, there is no point arguing whether the Militia Clause served as a limitation. As a matter of history, it was there to say what the 2A guaranteed. The 2A was not put there either to empower self-defense, or to prevent self-defense. It was silent on self-defense, presumably deliberately so.

Self-defense questions were left to the states, which granted such rights variously. Because no consensus about self-defense gun rights existed among the states, the issue could not earn national consensus, and thus went appropriately unaddressed by a national convention. You will search the historical record in vain to show any evidence to the contrary.

But to understand that, you have to understand that evidence which does exist of a state right to armed self-defense, or assertion of a natural right to armed self-defense, is not historical evidence to show the purpose of the 2A.

At the very least, anything which asserts any purpose to apply to the 2A must pass the test of a historical record to support national consensus that a need existed to put that specific interpretation into a national constitution. The Militia Clause passes that test easily. Nothing else does.

That does not amount to a historical limitation on self-defense gun rights. Nor does it amount to a historical endorsement of them. Nor does it support historically-based legal claims that the federal government can or cannot regulate armed self-defense.

And by the way, I do not hold myself out as an expert on historical analysis. I seem to have got more training on how to do it than most others on this blog. If any of those others want better advice than I can provide, I am delighted to refer them to sources who wrote with genuine professional depth and insight about proper methods to do historical analysis. I have offered such referrals repeatedly.

[Absaroka]

"Because no consensus about self-defense gun rights existed among the states"

(citation needed)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Citation not needed. But you are free yourself to note the contrasting language various state constitutions enacted.

It suffices to note that Southern states would never have ratified a Constitution which nationalized an armed self-defense right which did not explicitly exclude blacks. Northern states would never have ratified a Constitution which nationalized an armed self-defense right which did explicitly exclude blacks.

Management of regional differences on policy related to slavery was a repeated thread of contention throughout the Convention. The contention only increased afterward.

[Absaroka]

So, which state(s) didn't allow armed self defense?

[Stephen Lathrop]

So, which state(s) didn’t allow armed self defense?

Absaroka, given the topic I have discussed, that is an irrelevant question. If the answer were, "All of them did allow armed self-defense," that would add nothing at all to elucidate the purpose of the federal 2A. That Pennsylvania, for instance, enumerated armed self-defense in its constitution is not competent historical evidence even to suggest the federal constitution did likewise.

To answer the more broadly focused question—broader because it would admit actual historical experience as evidence to illuminate the understood meanings of legal texts touching on gun rights—would require a shelf of books to answer. The research would be done place by place, and time by time, across the entire geography and era of the late colonies and early states.

But even so broad a hypothetical question can get a summary answer. I already gave it, and will repeat it now in other words: with one exception there was no agreement about gun rights which applied alike nearly everywhere, and equally to all people. The exception was the militia purpose. And when the militia purpose gets closer examination, the appearance of unified meaning across all the states falls apart with regard to it too.

Some people wanted militias empowered principally to suppress slave rebellions and other expected threats to public order. Those included threats from rebellious whites. (Note the influence in Virginia's history of Bacon's rebellion. Note the national influence manifested strongly at the Philadelphia convention of Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts.)

Other people, quite a few of them, wanted to formally empower militias—whether or not they contemplated ever using them—to provide rhetorical ammunition to thwart expensive proposals for a standing federal army. That was a popular position in Massachusetts.

None of the back-and-forth about militias and their purposes connects in any way historically with modern insistence that there was a federal guarantee of a right to use a gun for self-defense. No such connection ever happened.

If you think otherwise, first consider educating yourself about what constitutes competent historical evidence. Then research the historical record and show that evidence. You will become famous and celebrated if you succeed where so many previous attempts have failed.

But a word of practical caution. If even one founding era citation could be found to show what gun enthusiasts insist—that the 2A was written with a founder's eye to guaranteeing a right of personal self-defense with a gun—why would that not have been the leading exhibit in Heller, when Scalia reached so far and wide to try to overwhelm by suggestion what he could not prove with even a single example? You know the answer already. The proof was never there to find.

Of course, none of this would matter at all, except for insistence by gun rights advocates that their cause is—by a shape-shifting process so protean it evades scrutiny—somehow sanctified by history. If they want to make sense, gun advocates ought to insist instead that modern politics fully justifies the rights they demand, and leave history out of it.

Problem is, that would make vulnerable another claim dear to the pro-gun community—their insistence that durable majority political support exists for extremist gun policies. Alas, the pro-gun community suspects that to put any such proposition to the test of politics would make the modern public queasy. They suppose, maybe accurately, that their insistence can only be answered reliably by imaginary history, enforced as policy, by a Court untethered from political accountability.

Absaroka, does that seem to you like a reliable basis upon which to support gun rights for the indefinite future?

[Absaroka]

"with one exception there was no agreement about gun rights which applied alike nearly everywhere"

That's interesting to hear. Since armed self defense wasn't acceptable everywhere, perhaps you could share one state where it was not acceptable? Just one?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka, I apologize. I may have misunderstood your question. Or I was unclear. The exception mentioned was not in reference to an exceptional state. It was to an exceptional purpose—exceptional because it was the only gun rights purpose all the states could agree to ratify. That was the militia purpose.

Other purposes, especially including armed self-defense, may have been supported everywhere, but could not command political support to be enforced alike—an obstacle among politicians keenly aware that they were writing standards that would be uniformly enforced, or attacked as illegitimate if they were not.

The gun liberty protected in Pennsylvania's constitution was thus too broad to command political support in Virginia, where leaders answered to a constituency perpetually panicked by the notion that blacks might get their hands on guns. It was Virginia's particular pleasure to protect a militia purpose, useful to suppress not only blacks, but also lower-status white people.

Thus, if we attempt to recast the discussion to answer the question as you frame it, the discussion goes off the rails. It does not matter at all to an accurate historical understanding of the 2A whether one state, or every state, allowed armed self-defense in one form or another.

Until someone shows with historical evidence the allowance was done nationwide, more or less uniformly, as a matter of federal constitutional law—and not done locally and variously, as a result of state constitutional law, or as a matter of common law—there can be no historically legitimate argument that the 2A was written to protect armed self defense.

No such evidence has ever been found. Thus, we must conclude that history tells us the 2A was written for the militia purpose, and only for the militia purpose—for which abundant evidence is well known. Historical rigor insists firmly that you do not just make stuff up, and then reference it as explanatory or causative. That's how you get into Bellesiles territory.

I suppose having considered that you and others might reply, "But we are not making it up, there is plenty of evidence of folks practicing armed self-defense throughout the states during the founding era." I agree. But history routinely concerns itself with inferences about agency, change, causation, purpose, and results. Experience with historical research has shown that none of that kind of inference can be relied upon, if the argument becomes in effect, everything which existed explains everything else.

There will never be too much insight into historical context, and context critically affects meaning. Context cannot, however, be presumed to be causative, or to account for contingent purposes. To do that would spawn mutually exclusive narratives, which attribute contradictory results to the same causes. History done that way would deliver great quantities of obvious nonsense. Hence, a rigorous requirement to show more particular evidence to support conclusions about purpose, agency, change, causation, and results.

Perhaps that ought to end the discussion. But I have one last observation to offer, about a critical point affecting every historical endeavor. Where historical questions arise about purpose, agency, change, causation, and results, there too you will find intellectual quicksand. That infirmity is due to the hazard of present-minded analysis.

People today do not think alike with those of previous eras about those considerations—the considerations of purpose, agency, change, causation, and results. Stark differences in customary attitudes about those is perhaps the most salient among factors which make the past seem unfamiliar to us—viewing in retrospect and applying different premises as we do.

What we now judge purposeful, or causative, will not be alike, and often not even similar, compared to what some founding era figure would conclude. We practice scientific medicine. They were more likely to attribute epidemics to God's will. We practice mathematical economics. They had barely scratched the surface of that art, and entertained no notion of a professional economist. We know of ice ages, genetics, and natural selection. None of that was known to them. We practice instantaneous world-wide communications, a practice with implications which would have baffled everyone during the founding era. The list of contrasts is endless. Each of them illuminates contrasts on the issue of evolving insights into causation, etc.

Thus, if what you seek from history is insight about what happened, you cannot find it by applying the notions of causality, purpose, and results which come most readily to the modern mind. For accurate insight into the past, you must rely instead for testimony about purposes, causes, and results, on specific utterances of those who made those judgments then. In short, get your testimony about purposes directly from the historical record, or your own present-minded inferences will make nonsense of any claims to historical insight.

[Absaroka]

"Until someone shows with historical evidence the allowance was done nationwide, ..."

No.

You frequently do this: conjure up a set of facts congenial to the result you want to reach, and then assert everyone must agree to your preferred facts unless they can be disproved beyond any doubt whatsoever.

I get why you would like your preferences elevated in that way, but I fail to understand why you think anyone else would play along with such a biased scheme.

So, again, I submit to you: it's easy to disprove the notion that the colonies/states didn't universally allow armed self defense - a single counterexample will suffice. Just one.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka in a nutshell:

“Wah, wah, wah, I’ve got a right to any present-minded historical past I want. Professional historians can’t use their tricks to take it away from me. The Supreme Court said so.”

Which is right, as far as it goes. You need not, “play along.” But do not delude yourself. Doing it that way tells you nothing about what happened in the past.

As for your demand for counter examples, I refused that bait. It really does invite time wasting on irrelevant arguments. But if by, “. . . didn’t universally allow armed self defense,” you mean to encompass instances of gun rights denial, targeting particular people or groups judged dangerous by a magistrate, or even by law, on the basis of class, status or even local custom, then you will find such examples in court records in multiple colonies I know of, and maybe in all of them. And they will not be just cases involving blacks, slaves, or Indians, but white people besides.

But once again, none of that evidence, however interesting and informative, is relevant to the narrower question whether the 2A was purposed to protect self-defense with guns.

[Armchair]

Please properly cite the criminal law at issue here and the bill that Congress passed on the criminal law, so the original intent can properly be analyzed.

[Sarcastr0]

Good news, Armchair, it's in the indictment!

18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2) and 1512(k)
18 U.S.C. § 371
18 U.S.C. § 241

People on here do not ask you for things they are not prepared to provide themselves.

[Armchair]

Please link to the original congressional bill that was used to pass this law, so the proper intent of Congress can be determined.

Please also link to the relevant section of the Congressional record where they discuss it.

[Sarcastr0]

No need, Armchair.
With statutes the text is sufficient absent any ambiguity.

I hope this helps your forthcoming important legal analysis!

[Armchair]

There is a need, especially with these laws.

[Sarcastr0]

Burden is on you to establish ambiguity.

With the text and the indictment you have all the info you need to make that argument should you care to.

[not guilty]

Armchair, what provision(s) of the charged statutes, if any, do you contend are ambiguous so as to need to resort to legislative history to resolve any ambiguity?

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Armchair.

[Armchair]

All of these statues should be looked at in the context of their original laws, in order to determine if they are appropriately being applied.

It's why I asked you for the original laws that applied to these charges. And some seem in error. You had cited (among others) Pub. L. 99–646, § 61 as a relevant law to these charges. But that concerns "Killing Witnesses". And I'm unaware of any way the charges against Trump could encompass that.

But perhaps you can enlighten me.

[not guilty]

Have you read the indictment, Armchair? https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.1.0_8.pdf

[Armchair]

Please link to the original congressional bill that was used to pass this law, so the proper intent of Congress can be determined.

Please also link to the relevant section of the Congressional record where they discuss it.

The particulars of the law are important, in order to determine whether the Congress intended for the President to be affected by this law.

[Martinned]

Have you considered doing your own homework instead of delegating it to others?

[Armchair]

I often do, but in this case NG has previously demanded cites to laws and such. So, I'm asking the same of him.

[Armchair]

Of course, when I ask, there's a point, as it changes the analysis.

[not guilty]

How so? Please be specific.

[Armchair]

All of these statues should be looked at in the context of their original laws, in order to determine if they are appropriately being applied...

It’s why I asked you for the original laws that applied to these charges. And some seem in error. You had cited (among others) Pub. L. 99–646, § 61 as a relevant law to these charges. But that concerns “Killing Witnesses”. And I’m unaware of any way the charges against Trump could encompass that.

But perhaps you can enlighten me.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"It’s why I asked you for the original laws that applied to these charges."

No, you asked because you're consistently destroyed by ng's responses to you, so you're attempting to troll via sealioning.

That is precisely why you've offered no analysis, and only criticisms of the evidence you've asked for that you could have found for yourself.

You aren't fooling anyone, moron.

[not guilty]

An analysis of legislative history considers the statute as a whole. 18 U.S.C. § 1512 criminalizes a plethora of acts, including killing witnesses. Subsection (c)(2) of the statute prohibits corruptly obstructing, influencing or impeding an official proceeding or attempting to do so. Subsection (k) of the statute prohibits conspiring to commit any offense under the statute.

Any analysis of legislative history would consider the statute as a whole, with different parts having been enacted at different times, in order to show how more recently enacted provisions interact with pre-existing provisions.

[Armchair]

But what is the CONTEXT for the 18 U.S.C. § 1512 Subsection (c)(2). What was the law that it was passed under? Why did Congress pass that subsection in particular?

Again, these are critical questions that you continually avoid answering. Why?

[Sarcastr0]

Everyone keeps telling you, Armchair, they are not critical questions.

You are coming at statutes like they are the Constitution.
Statutes are written differently and treated differently.

But you, who were asked for a source once, are trying to recapture how frustrated you were back then.
It's just making you look dumb.

Except to Life of Brian, who I think is getting off on defending the indefensible.

[not guilty]

Section 1512(c)(2) was enacted as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. It expanded the scope of who could be charged with evidence tampering by defining the new crime very broadly.

[Armchair]

Ohh...

Just for the rest of the peanut gallery here, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was a law designed for public accounting and finance. Here's the entire text

https://pcaobus.org/About/History/Documents/PDFs/Sarbanes_Oxley_Act_of_2002.pdf

Here are the main titles.
TITLE I—PUBLIC COMPANY ACCOUNTING OVERSIGHT BOARD
TITLE II—AUDITOR INDEPENDENCE
TITLE III—CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY
TITLE IV—ENHANCED FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES
TITLE V—ANALYST CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
TITLE VI—COMMISSION RESOURCES AND AUTHORITY
TITLE VII—STUDIES AND REPORTS
TITLE VIII—CORPORATE AND CRIMINAL FRAUD ACCOUNTABILITY
TITLE IX—WHITE-COLLAR CRIME PENALTY ENHANCEMENTS
TITLE X—CORPORATE TAX RETURNS
TITLE XI—CORPORATE FRAUD AND ACCOUNTABILITY

But hidden deep within that text are a couple lines about evidence tampering.

And now...for the first time in 20 years, these two lines about evidence tampering are being used to prosecute a president over messages he made during a public riot? I suppose there are similar examples of it being applied from before 2021? No?

Nothing at all even vaguely related to corporate finance or physical evidence or anything of the sort? Nope....

This is why context of the law matters. Congress in no way could have possibly intended for these two lines to be interpreted in such a broad manner, so far outside the purpose of the law. Congress does not hide elephants in mouseholes.

Again....interpret the law within the context of the original law in which it was passed.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Section 1512 of title 18, United States Code, is amended— (1) by redesignating subsections (c) through (i) as subsections (d) through (j), respectively; and (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection: ‘‘(c) Whoever corruptly— ‘‘(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or ‘‘(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.’’."

Uh oh, Armchair's wrong yet again.

Bummer.

[not guilty]

Armchair, don’t forget Molly Ivins’ first rule of holes: STOP DIGGING! The full text of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) reads:

(c) Whoever corruptly—

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

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

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

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the case of three January 6 defendants as to whom the District Court dismissed the § 1512(c)(2) counts of the indictments, reasoning that the word “otherwise” in (c)(2) limits the scope thereof to conduct similar to that listed in (c)(1) with regard to a record, document, or other object. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, opining that “Under the most natural reading of the statute, § 1512(c)(2) applies to all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding, other than the conduct that is already covered by § 1512(c)(1).” United States v. Fischer, 64 F.4th 329, 336 (D.C. Cir. 2023).

Even if SCOTUS reinstates the District Court’s opinions, the prosecution of Donald Trump for conspiring and attempting to obstruct or impede the Electoral Count by Congress is unlikely to be affected, in that the indictment alleged corrupt fabrication of documents submitted to the National Archives and to Congress by the fake electors in coordination with Trump and his co-conspirators. That is corrupt conduct with regard to records or documents.

The Trump indictment alleges at ¶ 53:

As the Defendant’s attempts to obstruct the electoral vote through deceit of state officials met with repeated failure, beginning in early December 2020, he and co-conspirators developed a new plan: to marshal individuals who would have served as the Defendant’s electors, had he won the popular vote, in seven targeted states—Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—and cause those individuals to make and send to the Vice President and Congress false certifications that they were legitimate electors. Under the plan, the submission of these fraudulent slates would create a fake controversy at the certification proceeding and position the Vice President—presiding on January 6 as President of the Senate—to supplant legitimate electors with the Defendant’s fake electors and certify the Defendant as president.

At ¶ 66 the indictment avers:

On the same day, at the direction of the Defendant and Co-Conspirator 1, fraudulent electors convened sham proceedings in the seven targeted states to cast fraudulent electoral ballots in favor of the Defendant. In some states, in order to satisfy legal requirements set forth for legitimate electors under state law, state officials were enlisted to provide the fraudulent electors access to state capitol buildings so that they could gather and vote there. In many cases, however, as Co-Conspirator 5 had predicted in the Fraudulent Elector Instructions, the fraudulent electors were unable to satisfy the legal requirements.

Per ¶ 67:

Nonetheless, as directed in the Fraudulent Elector Instructions, shortly after the fraudulent electors met on December 14, the targeted states’ fraudulent elector certificates were mailed to the President of the Senate, the Archivist of the United States, and others. The Defendant and co-conspirators ultimately used the certificates of these fraudulent electors to deceitfully target the government function, and did so contrary to how fraudulent electors were told they would be used.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/8a7503af-fde7-4061-818c-7d7e0ee06036.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_5

Even according to the narrow reading of § 1512(c)(2) championed by Judge Nichols, Donald Trump is in deep shit.

[Randal]

That's obviously a lie since you've provided no analysis, to wit, identification of an ambiguity needing resolution.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Armchair, you trying to engage in a battle of legal wits with notguilty is the equivalent of bringing a banana to a gun fight. Don't do it. Just ask sensible questions and learn something. Anything else and you're just embarrassing yourself as these exchanges demonstrate, painfully.

It's been repeatedly pointed out one, of several, reasons why your requests for legislative history, etc., are pointless. Doubtless, you'll just run away. Please run far.

[Armchair]

You seem to have a propensity to insult, rather than engage in meaningful discussion.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You are complaining about the lack of meaningful discussion when you, in bad faith, keep asking for authorities after it has been repeatedly explained that, for any such relevant evidence to be identified, you have to identify what ambiguity requires resort to evidence of congressional intent.

But you conspicuously fail to substantively engage, apparently thinking that just asking for citations is clever or, worse, laboring under the misconception that when not guilty asks, he also is trying to avoid engaging the substance of the question. In fact, as his many detailed comments with copious citations indicate, he typically is eager to engage in substance.

So, yes, you deserve the insults because your shtick in this thread has been an insult to everyone reading it.

(Also, note, the last time you complained about my insult, I demonstrated why you were wrong on the substance, and, true to form, when you couldn't reply, you ran away. It's what you do. We've all noticed.)

[Armchair]

Apologies your last comment in that discussion indicated you were tired of the discussion, after repeated back and forth.

But I've answered your comment about the purposes of firearms.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"But I’ve answered your comment about the purposes of firearms."

Only to the extent you affirmed that it is essential to the purpose of owners of firearms that they kill. Hence, firearms are (generally) designed and owned with the purpose of being good at killing.

You leaned into the semantics of "most gun owners don't want to kill" so, in that sense, their purpose isn't to kill and in that sense their purpose in owning a gun is not to kill. Which is entirely not responsive to the purpose for which guns were invented and are designed, and it is those purposes which make them uniquely dangerous and uniquely with little other actual utility (which makes them categorically different from hammers and bleach and automobiles, which was the point that started that comment thread).

On this thread, you just keep autistically repeating "citation for congressional history" without engaging with the fact that such citations are irrelevant unless and until you demonstrate an ambiguity in the text of the statute which you resolutely refuse to do, most likely because you realize there is no ambiguity. But, in a cowardly fashion, you don't acknowledge that, but just keep trolling.

[Sarcastr0]

You're cargo culting legal and logical arguments and it's the best thing, Armchair.

You don't understand what you're being asked, so when you try and come back and hit people with the same thing, it ends up garbled and hilarious.

[Nelson]

The particulars of any law are.in the law. That's how a court knows that jaywalking isn't an element of tax evasion.

They gave you the statutes. You bluffed and got called. Build a bridge and get over it.

[Armchair]

The original intent of Congress is critical in analyzing the law.

This is why this information is critical, and needs to be presented.

[Nelson]

No, this is just your weak attempt to pretend there's some sort of uncertainty in the situation.

The law says what the law says, regardless of whether some Jim Jordan analogue made a specious complaint about it when it was passed.

You always have a series of fallback positions that are increasingly ridiculous, which is saying a lot since your starting point is usually ridiculous.

Can't you just engage on the substance and stop with the specious "yeah, but" nonsense?

[mse326]

That is literally the exact opposite of the texualist position that is dominant on the Court particularly among the "right"

[Zarniwoop]

MSE326 astutely asserted:

That is literally the exact opposite of the texualist position that is dominant on the Court particularly among the “right”

We have a thread winner!

Everyone else can stop arguing now, come back for Monday's open thread.

[Armchair]

Textualism and Originalism are not necessarily opposed to one another, and often go hand in hand.

Perhaps you're thinking of Purposivism and Textualism.

[Nelson]

No, most people seem to be pointing out that the contrast is between correct and incorrect, with Not Guilty being the former and you being the latter.

[Sarcastr0]

Originalism is not for statutes, Armchair.

You try so hard, and fail so bad.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Armchair, you don't seem to realize that original intent originalism has been superseded by original public meaning originalism.

Moreover, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, if a statutory text is unambiguous, the work is done and there is no reason to get into what people said about the law at the time of his passage.

[Nelson]

Ah, but anything that Armchair doesn't want to accept is automatically ambiguous. Regardless of how clear the text is.

[Stephen Lathrop]

This is Armchair doing a pathetic imitation of Not Guilty, who has been deviling him by demanding specifics. Armchair has concluded his only refuge is to go full sea lion.

Now I see that just before I posted the above, Armchair confessed.

[NOVA Lawyer]

What a tool, Armchair is.

[Kazinski]

If you are going to do an imitation of not guilty demanding statutory authorities, then by definition it has to be a pathetic imitation, or it wouldn't be true to the original.

[Armchair]

We're waiting ng....

Please cite the relevant Congressional bills and the Congressional Record pages where the laws are discussed.

[not guilty]

18 U.S.C. § 241:

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(a), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7018(a), (b)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(a), title XXXII, §§ 320103(a), 320201(a), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(A), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)

18 U.S.C. § 371:

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 701; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

18 U.S.C. § 1512:

(Added Pub. L. 97–291, § 4(a), Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1249; amended Pub. L. 99–646, § 61, Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3614; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7029(a), (c), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4397, 4398; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, § 321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60018, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(O), (U), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1975, 2148; Pub. L. 104–214, § 1(2), Oct. 1, 1996, 110 Stat. 3017; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 604(b)(31), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3508; Pub. L. 107–204, title XI, § 1102, July 30, 2002, 116 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title III, § 3001(a), (c)(1), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1803, 1804; Pub. L. 110–177, title II, § 205, Jan. 7, 2008, 121 Stat. 2537.)

Feel better, Armchair?

[Frank Drackman]

wow, you can cut and paste!

[Life of Brian]

I can't imagine such a sage practitioner would genuinely believe that a barf-cloud of cites to pieces of the enacted legislation would satisfy a request for "the relevant Congressional bills" and "the Congressional Record pages where the laws are discussed."

Will that be forthcoming, or were you just hoping nobody would notice that your ponderous spray of text didn't actually contain anything responsive?

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, LoB. ng is the one to take issue with here.

[Life of Brian]

Yes, he fancies himself to be a better man, so I'll cheerfully hold him to a higher standard.

[Nelson]

Well, he reached that bar. The fact that you don’t like the way he delivered the information that Armchair disingenuously demanded is a you problem, not a him problem.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Armchair has no real interest in obtaining information, he's just trolling. A barf-cloud of cites is the appropriate response.

[Life of Brian]

That's certainly a position many in this thread have candidly taken. But NG is the only one I've seen who chose to skip the candor and instead disingenuously act as if he was actually answering the question.

[Nelson]

How much of Armchair's research do you need him to do before he achieves your expectations?

[not guilty]

LoB, where do you think "the relevant Congressional bills" are catalogued? Hint: it's called Statutes at Large.

And what would you know of what "a sage practitioner would genuinely believe"? Have you ever tried a lawsuit?

[Life of Brian]

Holy smokes, my friend. If you don't know the difference between a bill and a statute, I'd strongly suggest some remedial Schoolhouse Rock.

It's ironically amusing how often you make elementary gaffes like this right in the midst of puffing up your chest and playing Big Bad Lawyer.

[Nelson]

I could be wrong, but from the context I believe that the record he references is the history of all statutes throughout the process of becoming a law.

Do you really think he doesn't understand the difference between a bill and a law? Is it even possible to be that clueless?

[Life of Brian]

.

I could be wrong, but from the context I believe that the record he references is the history of all statutes throughout the process of becoming a law.

No, that's the problem, and when I pointed it out he just doubled down. The Statutes at Large he referenced is an annual publication of all laws actually enacted that year (which then get rolled up into a new version of the US Code every 6 years). The underlying bills, on the other hand (including earlier iterations, committee reports, etc.) are available through various online databases (e.g., GovInfo), and floor debates are memorialized in the Congressional Record (as Armchair referenced a few times).

Is it even possible to be that clueless?

Dunno if it's that, or if he's just too dug in at this point and is trying to bluster his way through.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Armchair seems especially disaffected lately. Is it the culture war in general, the mounting problems for Trump, Prof. Volokh's approaching departure date from the UCLA faculty, the performances of DeSantis and Haley, something Gateway Pundit or Stormfront just posted, or something else?

[Armchair]

I do need to wonder...did you actually read all these laws? Did you actually examine them for their relevance to the charges against Trump?

Because, in reviewing them, several do not appear to have any relevance to the charges against Trump. "Killing Witnesses" in Pub. L. 99–646, § 61 ? How is that relevant?

[not guilty]

That is part of the legislative history of 18 U.S.C. § 1512, which, among other provisions, prohibits killing witnesses.

[Armchair]

We asked for the relevant laws to the charges against Trump.

Are you saying that isn't relevant?

Did you actually read the laws you posted?

[Armchair]

Did you actually read all the laws you posted?

[Sarcastr0]

Armchair, maybe Google '18 U.S.C. § 1512 Trump'.

Or think of what ongoing legal matter regarding Trump might have included obstruction of justice.

Or be a very lazy asshole in public.

[Voize]

You are the one asserting that the debates are relevant, so you are the one who owes specifics.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Armchair, before your next riposte to not guilty, do yourself some good and Google, "Dunning–Kruger." Reflect slowly on what you read.

[Commenter_XY]

Speaking of Dunning–Kruger and the need to reflect slowly....my, my.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I have done my reflection. The birds will fly north in the autumn before you catch me taking on not guilty on a point of law.

[not guilty]

"The particulars of the law are important, in order to determine whether the Congress intended for the President to be affected by this law."

Under what conceivable construction of the relevant statutes is a president exempted from the scope thereof? Please show your work.

[Armchair]

Sure.

"Questions (1) and (2) don’t have a definitive answer. Department of Justice policy is that the president is immune from criminal prosecution while he remains in office but is subject to prosecution thereafter. The federal courts have not weighed in definitively.

As to (3), whether a particular case is or is not brought is a question for a grand jury, and the finding of a no true bill does not preclude a subsequent grand jury from finding a true bill. The Attorney General and United States Attorneys retain “broad discretion” to enforce the Nation’s criminal laws. In the ordinary case, “so long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion.” United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996), quoting Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978)."

Look familiar?

[not guilty]

That answer is completely unresponsive, Armchair. If a president is or is not immune from criminal prosecution, that is not a matter of statutory construction.

Under what conceivable construction of the three statutes charged in the D.C. indictment is a president exempted from the scope thereof? Do you even know what statutory construction means? How is the president immune from prosecution under these particular statutes if they are construed in one way, but not immune if construed another way?

[Armchair]

"That answer is completely unresponsive, "

Well, now you know how I feel when you responded the same way to a similar question.

[not guilty]

Again, how is the president immune from prosecution under these particular statutes if they are construed in one way, but not immune if construed another way?

[David Nieporent]

.

Please link to the original congressional bill that was used to pass this law, so the proper intent of Congress can be determined.

What language is this written in?

[OtisAH]

As an aside I’d like to congratulate Armchair on losing the “Lawyer” appellation. Great move, buddy! You’re far more believable as an inanimate object that absorbs farts and stains and probably causes back pain than you are believable as someone capable of analyzing and applying the law *from* a fart and stain-soaked back-wrecking piece of furniture.

[Reallynotbob]

For those who understand hypotheticals better than legal analysis, try this on:

Hypothetically... Trump wins the immunity argument and SCOTUS holds presidents are absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for acts performed while in office. The next day, Biden orders Trump's assassination from the Oval Office. Biden is immune from federal or state law prosecution forever.

That simply cannot be the law of the United States. Luckily, it also isn't the law. Trump loses this argument.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I don't think that would ever happen.

Now, if the scenario plays out as you have suggested, and Biden happens to be walking down Fifth Avenue after losing to Trump in 2024...

[Nelson]

But only on Day One. He assures us that he won't be a dictator after that.

[Life of Brian]

Simply cannot be... unless he orders it by drone strike after declaring Trump to be a "direct threat to U.S. interests" using completely opaque and unreviewable criteria.

Sadly, your reductio ad absurdum needs more absurdum.

[Reallynotbob]

[John F. Carr]

Let's say the courts rule that the president has absolute immunity from prosecution unless impeached, at which point the Constitution expressly allows prosecution. That is or was close to the law in parts of Latin America. See discussion here:

https://www.americasquarterly.org/article/should-latin-america-abolish-immunity-for-elected-officials/

The motive for granting broad immunity in Latin America is the greater risk of political retribution. We have not until recently feared that a president would imprison the opposition for political reasons.

Personally, I think the Justice Department has it right. You can't prosecute a sitting president. You can prosecute a former president.

In the hypothetical, Biden would have to pardon the people carrying out his orders. They are not immune from prosecution.

[A Thinking Mind]

Biden could order the assassination of Trump and immediately pardon himself. That absolutely IS true of the law of the United States. So it seems he has some capacity to make himself immune to prosecution. Now, perhaps a state could bring murder charges against him, if they could establish jurisdiction, but if this happened in DC and the assassination took place in DC, I don't see how Biden could be prosecuted for it.

[David Nieporent]

.

Donald Trump has filed his reply brief in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208584455.0_1.pdf The gist of the brief is repetition of Trump’s question begging claim that a former president’s immunity from civil suits for damages for official conduct, recognized in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982), extends to immunity from criminal prosecution. This contention cannot withstand scrutiny.

They also bizarrely make separation of powers arguments. But which branch do they think is prosecuting Trump? (As with the so-called executive privilege, they really seem to think that "former president" is its own branch of government.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Embezzle: to appropriate fraudulently to one's own use.

Claudine Gay is an embezzler -- she fraudulently obtained her doctorate and thus she will be embezzling $900,000.00 a year from Harvard as a "professor", wearing a robe she has no right to wear. This is "stolen valor" not unlike wearing medals one did not earn, except that she's doing it for personal gain.

$900,000.00 a year's worth of it -- and the median income in Massachusetts is only $53,513 so she's doing it to the tune of almost 17 TIMES the median income in the Commonwealth.

The woman belongs in prison....

And the interesting thing here is that she got caught by the Washington Free Beacon, a relatively new online-only newspaper. The Boston Globe has access to Google as well -- it's just that the WFB were the only folks who bothered to check.

It's like checking to see if the new law dean actually is a member of the bar -- the boring grunt work that all the media used to do. So the right-wingers caught her -- it's only because everyone else is too lazy to do their jobs.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12920903/claudine-gay-harvard-salary-resignation.html

[Martinned]

Out of curiosity, what do you call spending $100k of campaign donations on haircuts for the candidate's wife?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Support for small businesses.

[Sarcastr0]

No that is not embezzlement.

I’m just glad you didn’t bring out the machine guns.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You mean to take back Cambridge?

Hmmmm.....

[John F. Carr]

The $53,513 figure is per capita income, i.e. mean income.

Median household income is $96,505.

[Michael P]

The point here is about individual income, so household income isn't a relevant number. To make it apples-to-apples you would need to include Gay's husband's income as well.

[Nelson]

And? Is the complaint that someone running one of the most prestigious universities in the world with the largest endowment on the planet is paid a lot? Well, duh.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No -- it's that she's fired and STILL gets $900K, for life as a professor. That's the fraud.

[Nelson]

Is that what the agreement was? If so, why do you care? Is it your envy over what highly successful people earn for themselves?

Claiming that a professor "fraudulently" obtained a doctorate because of a few unattributed quotes in an entire dissertation is insane.

Bitching that you don't like how much she gets paid is weird, since it's an agreement between two parties that aren't you concerning duties that you don't know and based upon the market value of a very rare set of skills that you don't have, resulting in your complete inability to understand anything about the situation.

So basically par for the course, with you.

[Reallynotbob]

Dr. Ed has re-invented honest services fraud.

[Nelson]

It's like you're in a contest with Armchair for the most ridiculous extrapolation of facts to fit your preferred narrative.

Do you ever stop and think, "Wow, this is a completely unreasonable take on a crime that has been adjudicated millions of times in the past, but has never come close to my definition."?

[David Nieporent]

.

Do you ever stop and think,

No, no, he doesn’t.

[IAdmitIAmCrazy]

"We launched the Claudine Gay plagiarism story from the Right. The next step is to smuggle it into the media apparatus of the Left, legitimizing the narrative to center-left actors who have the power to topple her. Then squeeze." (Christopher Rufo, https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1737209215738069232)
Rufo's language is revealing. He is known to blow up tiny little things into huge mountains of scandal. And he give's a rat's a$$ for academic hyper-correctness — as exemplified by his intellectually dishonest campaign against Critical Race Theory.

[Nelson]

Wait, the hard right is intellectually dishonest? I'm shoc ... no, that tracks.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The left certainly is intellectually dishonest. That is their long-standing MO. Democrats lie to us; Republicans lie to themselves.

[Sarcastr0]

You post this in a thread about a right-wing apparatchik boasting about lying to the American public.

[Don Nico]

MrEd's assertion about fraud and embezzlement are patent nonsense. I won't not brush aside her misconduct as easily as Nelson, but in no way does her neglect in proper citation fraud or a crime.
She was not fired; she resigned as President of Harvard under pressure. She did not resign her faculty appointment and she won't get the President's salary as a mere faculty member.

[Nige]

Keep at it, you'll have her up on Murder One in no time.

[Zarniwoop]

I'm gonna need to see the legislative history of the murder statute. Armchair says we can't possibly convict someone of [waves hands wildly] without knowing what the leg really, really meant.

[bernard11]

What do you think about Neri Oxman, Bill Ackman's wife?

Is she an embezzler too?

[Mr. Bumble]

Hey Joe: Always bring sunscreen!

What kind of a stupid Mick goes to the tropics and doesn't bring sunscreen?

[NvEric]

Only the dumbest and most stupid type of fool !
So, yes, Joe R. Biden

[ThePublius]

"What kind of a stupid Mick...."

So I guess in 2024 the Irish are still fair game regarding ethnic slurs. What if you had said "stupid nigger," "stupid spic," stupid kike," etc. Would that all me O.K., too?

[Mr. Bumble]

As Claudine gay has said: it depends on the context.
Are you offended by rap lyrics describing women as hos or niggers as niggers.

[ThePublius]

Yes, indeed, it depends on the context. In this context, the use of the slur "Mick" is inappropriate. In rap lyrics - well, who cares what they say in rap lyrics? I certainly don't.

[Mr. Bumble]

If I'd said "stupid Irishman" would that also be a slur? Is "stupid" a slur?

[ThePublius]

Just cut it out, stop being a jerk, or a troll. It's offensive to use the slur "Mick" in this context, that's all. Not much more to it. I was pointing out that certain classes are not "protected" in this woke society, Irish, Christian, and Catholic among them. I was offended.

It's like years ago I was listening to an NPR game show called "Whaddaya Know." There was a discussion about leprechauns and Paula Poundstone quipped that they go around drunk giving syphilis to people. I wrote to the station and in so doing mentioned that she, an admitted alcoholic and child molested, would never dare on NPR say cheap jews, sneaky spics, lazy niggers, or any other such thing, but that Irish and Catholics were fair game - why? I got the usual mealy-mouthed reply. There's a double standard, and it pisses me off.

[Randy Sax]

Would you agree to start using all racial slurs more to remove the double standard?

[ThePublius]

No, of course not!

[Randy Sax]

You're no fun.

[Mr. Bumble]

Replying to Pub..:
Well you never answered my question: If I'd said stupid Irishman...? However, if you are personally offended I will apologize to you.

[Nige]

Look, Bumble just wants to be as racist as he can without having to worry about being called on it, is that too much to ask?

[Bwaaah]

First of all, he capitalized the "M" in "Mick". I take that as a sign of thoughtfulness.

But on your point about context and appropriateness of that kind of usage here: oh just shut the fuck up.

[Nelson]

"First of all, he capitalized the “M” in “Mick”. I take that as a sign of thoughtfulness."

LOL. The jokes are reaching a high water mark today. Even Lathrop said something funny.

Funny ha-ha, not funny strange.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nelson, I am delighted that you find some of my commentary strange. It is a good first step.

Much of the strangest of it has been devoted to elucidating 17th and 18th century political ideas. A central theme that few (except maybe you?) have picked up on, is that if you find anything-but-strange ideas taken in context from eras so long-preceding our own, you are doing the history wrong. I intend the implication that almost everyone commenting here is doing their history wrong.

Explorers into the distant past should expect to find it a very strange place indeed. Almost none of our own most-cherished cultural resources were yet available then. We ourselves have no customary ways to get along without them. That disconnect creates a more daunting barrier to insight than most folks expect to encounter.

Of course I get that you may not have meant your remark sympathetically. I remain content to wait for sympathetic insight. I am attempting to use a poorly-suited medium to encourage insights which many who encounter them will find unwelcome. I do not expect doing that to make me broadly popular.

Thanks anyway for reading. And whenever you find something I write particularly strange, you could oblige me by detailing how it strikes you.

[Nelson]

Lathrop, just take the W. This was hilarious:

"Armchair, before your next riposte to not guilty, do yourself some good and Google, “Dunning–Kruger.” Reflect slowly on what you read."

[Frank Drackman]

thats what you get for listening to National Pubic Radio.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

In rap lyrics – well, who cares what they say in rap lyrics? I certainly don’t.

I don't care what anyone says online, and what I don't care about is at least as important as what you don't care about.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Who knew the Irish were such pathetic snowflakes? Do you need a safe space to cry in?

[Nelson]

No, but if you want to buy me a beer to cry into, I wouldn't object. Not because I'm a drunken Irishman, I just like free beer.

Dogfish 120 minute IPA, if you're taking orders.

[AmosArch]

So the Dems are 'saving democracy' by dictating who we can and can't vote for?

[NvEric]

Saving our Republic demands new ways be added, and I strongly suggest, and have been doing so for 10 years, using Non-Violent Action from America's not too well know genius Gene Sharp, sadly deceased.
https://www.aeinstein.org
Where various items can be found to further the movement of citizens in the coming year.

[Randal]

According to Noam Chomsky...

Dr. Sharp’s research and writings have inspired generations of progressive peace, labor, feminist, human rights, environmental, and social justice activists in the United States and around the world.

I approve. Seems like a modern Thoreau.

[Martinned]

No, they are saving the rule of law by upholding the constitution. I know, it's a strange idea. If you don't like what it says in Section 3, you can always amend it.

[Krayt]

This would carry more weight, if it weren't the eleventyth attempt to use the power of government to hurt him, starting long before Jan 6, like 2016.

As such it is just transparently another such attempt. Unlike the Civil War, where the insurrectionists were obvious to all, here it becomes modern lawyerly facetious theater, theater that is insufficient to convince his supporters, and just becomes part of weasel trickery to hurt a political opponent using the power of government.

If it fails, you will move on to the next initiative.

[Martinned]

By that logic, it was also cheating for the government to prosecute Al Capone for tax evasion after all their other attempts to use the power of the government to hurt him failed. If Trump doesn't want to get in trouble with the law, he should try not breaking it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is there anyone in this country who could not be prosecuted for breaking some Federal Law?
Let's work backwards and start with the millions of illegal aliens who have entered the country in violation of the law and the proceed to those who violated the law by allowing it to occur.

[Martinned]

Yes, it's super unfair that Trump is being "prosecuted" for something as obscure as violently preventing the Senate from ratifying the election of his replacement. How was he supposed to know that that was forbidden by the US Constitution???

[Mr. Bumble]

Now if only that is what happened you might have a point.

[Martinned]

Must be nice for Trump's lawyers, having a case that they can easily win for a change. Makes you wonder how they screwed up in Colorado.

[ThePublius]

So you've somehow magically determined that Trump violently prevented the Senate from ratifying the election of his replacement. Brilliant. Can you site the specifics of his violent acts? Or perhaps his call for violence to his supporters?

By the way, one of the problems with your side is that he hasn't been prosecuted for this, except in the fantasy minds of the strident partisans out there. Look at what that idiot partisan SOS in Maine has said about this. (BTW, she's not a lawyer).

[Sarcastr0]

He’s being charged under conspiracy.

They wrote down their plans to overturn the election.

Trump effectuated them with his tweets and then when the violence began he didn’t move to halt what he had set in motion. Which is evidence of intent.

[ThePublius]

He never explicitly encouraged anyone to violent insurrection. Period. He even said they should proceed peacefully to the Capital to make their voices heard. Voices. And, not saying something, as in not saying anything to prevent something, is not a crime!

[Martinned]

In that case he should have no difficulty convincing officials and courts that he is eligible to run for president. Isn't the rule of law great?

[Bob from Ohio]

"convincing officials and courts"

LOL

Its democrats ruling against him. HaShem could appear on his behalf and he would still lose.

[Martinned]

@Bob: As my people say: "Zoals de waard is, vertrouwt hij zijn gasten." Which basically means that people assume that others behave as they would. In other words, just because you would be happy to block a Democrat from running for president regardless of law or evidence, doesn't mean that others do the same.

[Brett Bellmore]

"In that case he should have no difficulty convincing officials and courts that he is eligible to run for president. Isn’t the rule of law great?"

The Colorado court declared that the conventional meaning of his actual words were irrelevant, because he was speaking in code to his supporters. Short of producing a code book with the defendant's finger prints on it, I don't really see how a court can justify doing something like that, which renders what you ACTUALLY said irrelevant.

It's more TrumpLaw: Words any other politician can innocently utter become evidence of a crime if uttered by Trump.

[ThePublius]

Oh, and by the way, being charged with something doesn't make you automatically guilt of the charge. Don't you know 'innocent until proven guilty?' Or perhaps you don't think that applies in Trump's case?

[Martinned]

I don't think it applies to things that aren't criminal charges, no.

[ThePublius]

"Martinned 46 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
I don’t think it applies to things that aren’t criminal charges, no."

Is that so? I'm not a lawyer, but I have some glancing experience with the law and courts. For example, with a speeding ticket, you can plead guilty and pay the fine, or get a hearing and proclaim your innocence. I don't think you're presumed guilty.

And in this case, referring to things that aren't criminal is something of a red herring. Is not insurrection criminal?

[Martinned]

You get your speeding ticket, and then you pay it without ever going to trial. That seems like an excellent example of the law not presuming you innocent to me.

And no, for the umpteenth time, an insurrectionist cannot be president regardless of whether they've been convicted of insurrection, prosecuted for it, and even if insurrection wasn't a crime in the first place.

[Nige]

Are we supposed to pretend he and his supporters didn't do the things he did? Because that's not a court of law, that's just observing and forming an opinion. You're demanding that Trump has the right for people not to be allowed to have opinions about the things he says and does.

Tangentially, I note that Biden's guilt of corruption is routinely asserted as proven beyond any doubt over and over again, despite that fact that not only has he not been charged or indicted, no actual evidence of corruption has been presented.

[Noscitur a sociis]

.

You get your speeding ticket, and then you pay it without ever going to trial. That seems like an excellent example of the law not presuming you innocent to me.

What?

[Drewski]

TP: Murder is criminal, yet even if someone is acquitted of murder they do not get a presumption of factual innocence in a wrongful death suit. I could rattle off dozens of similar examples.

[Brett Bellmore]

US conspiracy law is pretty nightmarish, IMO. They get somebody else they actually have something on to plead guilty and name you a member of the 'conspiracy' in return for easy treatment, and suddenly perfectly legal actions on your part become 'predicate acts'.

It's a wonder anyone EVER gets acquitted after they pull out that weapon.

[Martinned]

True. All is fair in love & putting poor people in prison.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, I am aware you've recently discovered you don't like a baseline doctrine of criminal law that goes back in at least 100 years.

You stubbornly refuse to understand the elements of the offense, in order to continue to defend Trump.

1. Two or more people agreed to commit a crime
2. All conspirators had the specific intent to commit the crime
3. At least one of the conspirators committed an overt act.

You're pissed off at element 3, and continue to ignore the other elements.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What do you think is the best example of a case thet happened that way, Brett?

(To be clear, federal conspiracy law is quite powerful. But predictably, it doesn’t work the way Brett is describing.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Recently? I've been complaining about conspiracy law for decades. I knew people in the Michigan Militia back in the '90's, and it was a common topic of conversation.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Oh, well if some guy in the Michigan Militia said it, it must be true!

[Brett Bellmore]

"What do you think is the best example of a case that happened that way, Brett?"

The Whitmer "kidnapping" prosecution would probably be the most recent prominent case of conspiracy law abuse.

Half the participants were FBI informants, who testified the rest were in on the plot.

[Sarcastr0]

The difference between agent and informant has been explained to you *countless* times, Brett.

[Mr. Bumble]

They were on the same payroll.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The difference between agent and informant has been explained to you *countless* times, Brett."

I literally said "informant". Did you not notice? I said "informant" because I meant informant.

But, seriously, why do you lean so hard on this distinction? They're both working for the government, and doing as the government directs. At times "informant" is just FBI-speak for "agent provocateur".

[A Thinking Mind]

He’s being charged under conspiracy.

Which is not insurrection, for one, and beyond that, his defense, should he face trial, is likely to focus on the fact that he was engaging in 1st amendment protected activity.

[not guilty]

No. Speech or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute is not First Amendment protected. Giboney v. Empire Storage Co. 336 U.S. 490, 498 (1949). "[I]t has never been deemed an abridgment of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed." Id., at 502.

Solicitation to engage in illegal transactions is categorically excluded from First Amendment protection. United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 286 (2008). "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." Id., at 297.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, and the problem here is that you've posited the conspiracy precisely to render the 1st amendment activity criminal, and then cite the 1st amendment activity as evidence of the conspiracy. It's rather circular in that regard.

[Sarcastr0]

2 different court cases, ATM.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, you still seem to think there is only one element to the crime of conspiracy.

[not guilty]

No, Brett, speech or writing integral to advancing a criminal conspiracy is simply not protected by the First Amendment.

[Martinned]

Where does it say in the Constitution that a criminal charge is necessary or sufficient for ineligibility? Or are you suddenly no longer wedded to your textualist principles? The eligibility of candidates is determined by each state, under the time, place, and manner clause. Nothing about this is (legally) complicated.

[Brett Bellmore]

Where does it say it's NOT necessary?

It names insurrection as a cause for disqualification, and insurrection, not at all incidentally, is a crime, which carries, among it's penalties, disqualification. So why wouldn't you expect conviction for the crime to be a predicate for disqualification?

Do you normally get to impose the sentence for a crime without convicting somebody?

[Mr. Bumble]

In Wonderland?

[Martinned]

Because that would be adding words to the constitution that aren't there. The predicate is participating in an insurrection, not being convicted of something. Disqualification is not a criminal punishment, as has been explained ad nauseam on this blog in recent weeks. Which is how we ended up with lots of people being declared ineligible in the aftermath of the civil war who were never prosecuted for anything.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Disqualifying from office isn't a sentence, Brett.

Disqualifying a 32 year old from the U.S. presidential ballot is not sentencing them to anything.

The clearest sign that your side knows they have the worst of it legally is that you ladle out pathetically weak sauce like this.

[not guilty]

Brett, I have repeatedly pointed out the substantial differences between disqualification under the Fourteenth Amendment, § 3 and disqualification imposed pursuant to conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2383.

Do you claim that § 2383 is limited in its application to persons who have previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States? Yes or no? If so, what is your supporting authority?

Do you claim that Congress has authority to modify a sentence imposed by an Article III judge for conviction under § 2383 by a 2/3 vote of each House? Yes or no? If so, what is your supporting authority?

Do you claim that disqualification under § 2383 applies to both federal and state offices? Yes or no? If so, what is your supporting authority?

Do you claim that disqualification under § 3 is a criminal penalty which, notwithstanding pre-existing ex post facto prohibitions, could nevertheless have been applied to punish acts committed prior to its adoption in 1868? Yes or no? If so, what is your supporting authority?

If disqualification under § 3 is a criminal penalty, it could not have been applied ex post facto to punish acts prior to its adoption in 1868. The very raison d’être of § 3, however, was to disqualify ex-Confederates who participated in the Civil War from holding federal or state office. The words of a constitutional provision must be given the meaning they had when the text was adopted, and § 3 should be interpreted in a way that renders it compatible with, not contradictory to, pre-existing ex post facto prohibitions. It follows that § 3 disqualification is civil in nature, not criminal.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Brett.

[David Nieporent]

.

So you’ve somehow magically determined that Trump violently prevented the Senate from ratifying the election of his replacement.

Obviously not. Just that he tried to do so.

[Nige]

Start with the poor people first! Eventually we'll get to the rich! Maybe!

[Nelson]

"Is there anyone in this country who could not be prosecuted for breaking some Federal Law?"

Hyperbole, but not ridiculously so. That said, Trump was a criminal and a scumbag long before he ran for office. Becoming President just ramped up his trust-fund-baby sense of entitlement and immunity to insane levels.

[Krayt]

They were going after him because he was a bad guy. Trump may be, but this is in a long line of politically motivated attacks to get a political opponent, not a bad guy. You claim he's a bad guy, but he track record is unabashed political attacks using government against an opponent.

Hence that your statement "would carry more weight..."

[Nige]

'They were going after him because he was a bad guy.'

'Because they have reason to think he broke laws.'

[David Nieporent]

What is this "long line" of which you speak?

[AmosArch]

Yeah, by just deciding what candidate should and shouldn’t appear without any criminal conviction. Essentially, 'I feel like it'. Some 'rule of law' you got there. In the future can Republicans just x off the ballot whatever Dem they don’t want to because they feel they ‘threatened democracy’? Or is this privilege just reserved for leftists alone?

[Sarcastr0]

You made up a standard and you're outraged all these people aren't living up to it.

Which means, you follow up, there must be no standards at all. For your side.

You'd think with as committed you are to partisanship, you'd be having more fun, eh?

[Sarcastr0]

Not Dems, and the 14A is a thing that exists.

I’m also pretty sure SCOTUS isn’t going to declare Trump ineligible.

[Brett Bellmore]

Neither are they going to render Section 3 moot.

I really think the approach they'll take will be to declare that it is not self-executing if there is enabling legislation, that federal law on insurrection IS the enabling legislation, and so you have to convict somebody under that law to invoke Section 3 against them.

1) Doesn't render Section 3 moot.
2) Makes it hard for Section 3 to become a routine tool of political fights, which has to be a nightmare scenario they'll be concerned about.

Such a ruling wouldn't get Trump entirely out of hot water, because it would still be possible for the DOJ to bring insurrection charges against Trump, in DC where a hostile jury is guaranteed. Reaching a conviction before January 20th of next year would be difficult, though.

Yes, I know that if the federal law on insurrection is Section 3 enabling legislation, it's over-broad. Congress does that sometimes.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know what specific approach they will take, and don't much care to speculate beyond the bare bones.

But, despite your BrettLaw take, it would be pretty difficult for them to declare 14A not self executing without some legal gymnastics to distinguish it from other Amendments.
They're the Supreme Court, they could do it. But doesn't seem the path of least resistance.

[Krayt]

The idea each state, many politically motivated, could decide for themselves, when only a few are needed to queer the election, is conceptually idiotic.

This is not like the Civil War, where insurrectionists were obvious to all. This is weasel behavior, a fascade of theater, to try to cover it is just another initiative to use the power of government against a political opponent.

One fails, move on to the next.

There are serious threats to democracy here. Look in the mirror.

Donald "Lock Her Up!" Trump deserves all this in some cosmic justice sense, of course. And he needs to lose the election because we don't need dictator tanks rolling through Europe while he stands there gleefully waiving a checkered flag somewhere west of Poland.

But forbidding turning the power of government against political opponentd is a core design principle of this Constitution you claim to be so concerned with.

[Sarcastr0]

I agree with your first paragraph.

The legal arguments are hard to deny, however. Which is one reason why your argument is it legal.

That is why I look forwards to the Court weighing in.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krayt, this is exactly a case where insurrectionists are obvious to all. It's even like the Civil War in that the insurrectionists now, like then, spout pretend principles to advance their insurrection.

[A Thinking Mind]

No Confederate ever claimed that there was no insurrection or that they had never left the Union. They seceded, they elected their own government, their own President, established their own currency, and raised their own armies. There was no ambiguity about what happened.

They would argue they were legally justified, that secession was the right of the states. But they wouldn't, and couldn't, claim that no insurrection ever occurred, that they had never broken ties with the United States. Because of course they did, that was their intent, and their defense of their actions was that they thought they had the authority to do so.

The argument isn't "Did they think they were justified," the argument is "Is this clearly an insurrection?" And the answer isn't all that clear because it was a legitimate protest up until the point it devolved into violence. It's disputable that an insurrection occurred in a way that it's not disputable that an insurrection occurred in the 1860s.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Keep thinking, Mind. Do it for a few decades, and you will find your opinions corrected in the history books.

[IAdmitIAmCrazy]

I agree with Sarcastr0. The legal aspect is one thing, political wisdom another. With the political/judicial mix constitutional jurisdiction is executed with, the question is: how does the conservative majority escape their sacrosanct textualist allegiance? (Just to counter the argument elsewhere: the justices are all textualists now, as was Scalia, they DO NOT GO with ORIGINAL INTENT.)

[Bob from Ohio]

The text says Congress gets to enforce.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The text says Congress has the power to enforce, but it doesn't say if Congress doesn't act the 14th has no effect. And every other section has been deemed self-executing. What textual evidence do you have that Section 5 applies to Section 3 differently than it applies to all the other sections of the 14th?

To make it easy for you to highlight the textual basis of your argument, Section 5 provides, in full:

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

[Armchair]

You do realize that Congress actually did pass legislation to enforce the provisions of the 14th Amendment, right? Including Section 3?

[Sarcastr0]

The provisions of the 14th are all executed by Congressional directive?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Is it your contention that the 14th Amendment can now only be enforced in courts to the extent Congress has acted, given they have acted?

And, if so, do you then think all of the 14th Amendment cases that do not rely on an act of Congress to enforce the provisions of the 14th, including section 3, are illegitimate?

Please discuss Nelson v. Colorado, 581 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 1249 (2017), and how the Supreme Court was able to apply the 14th Amendment with no citation whatsoever to any federal law other than the 14th Amendment. Then explain why those provisions of the 14th Amendment may be applied by courts without reference to federal law, despite, as you noted, Congress enacting some laws to enforce the 14th Amendment, but states and/or courts may not interpret and apply section 3 unless Congress has specifically provided for an enforcement procedure (which they have not).

[NOVA Lawyer]

Including Section 3?

Nope.

And when expounding upon why you think it did, please respond to not guilty's questions to Brett, as they pretty conclusively debunk the idea that section 2383 of the federal criminal code was enacted by Congress and is intended as the sole enforcement mechanism for section 3 of the 14th.

[Nige]

'to try to cover it is just another initiative to use the power of government against a political opponent.'

It really never seems to sink in with you that he tried to overturn an election with fraud, conspiracy and violence. It clearly doesn't matter to you. It matters to others.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The idea each state, many politically motivated, could decide for themselves, when only a few are needed to queer the election, is conceptually idiotic.

Unlike others here, I disagree that it is idiotic. I think it is not only reasonable, but wise. What makes it appear unwise now is a contingency which the intent of Section 3's meaning never encompassed—the contingency being the existence of some candidate whom an incomprehensibly high percentage of the electorate considers indispensable. As some famous statesman once said, "The cemeteries are full of indispensable men."

The right context to apply to the meaning of Section 3 is to assume the People enjoy power to choose among many candidates, none of whom is entitled to presumption of indispensability. On that basis, if the People suppose a candidate's record includes even a vague taint of insurrectionist activity, that, in context of a banquet of other choices, makes it wiser for the People to disqualify the tainted candidate and choose instead among the others.

That should not be regarded as a high-stakes choice, or a crisis of any kind. It is a matter of political convenience within the scope of the People's capacity to choose at pleasure who will receive the gift of office.

Of course current threats of bad-faith retaliation are a challenge to reading the situation that way. The right way to deal with such threats is not to empower the Court to give them a boost, by burdening the sovereign People's constitutive power. It is to find some way to constrain directly those who threaten to act in bad faith. A fairly obvious way to do that is to put renewed focus on oath breaking. It is not a problem if a person unsworn to office gets upset, and urges an officeholder to retaliate without cause. The threat is that a sworn officer might do it. A law to make that kind of oath breaking severely punishable after a trial and a guilty verdict seems to be what is required.

[Don Nico]

"I disagree that it is idiotic. I think it is not only reasonable, but wise."
You would think that it is wise to disenfranchise a portion of the Sovereign people.

[Stephen Lathrop]

No, Nico. They all get to vote alike for qualified candidates. A grumpy minority does not get to decide on what bases candidates qualify.

You misconstrue American constitutionalism. Citizens who individually enjoy the power of the franchise do not thereby become sovereign. American popular sovereignty is never individual. It is joint popular sovereignty. It takes prior agreement on joint action to invoke its power formally. Elections, by their divisive nature, cannot provide that agreement until the moment of conclusion, when results are tabulated, certified and announced. It is at that moment that the apparently paradoxical division of popular will that an election calls forth becomes transformed into the united will of the sovereign People, and the paradox is resolved.

The People acting jointly determined already that a taint of insurrectionism made a candidate an unwise choice. On that basis, the People put such candidates off limits. The People acting individually, but exercising the sovereign power of the franchise, remain free to choose without limit among the other candidates. None of the People are thus disenfranchised.

There is no point to cater to the outrage of a thwarted fraction of the electorate, if the only remedy you propose is to thwart the rival fraction. Trump’s supporters may indeed be outraged if they cannot get their hands on minoritarian levers which might boost Trump once again into power. Trump’s opponents will be equally outraged if that works on behalf of a candidate already tainted by a legitimate disqualification which was then ignored.

What happens to American constitutionalism if Trump is permitted opportunity to lose again, and again attempts to seize power, is by far the worst of the outcomes which wisdom should seek to avoid.

[A Thinking Mind]

Each state gets to choose who it will cast its Electoral Votes for. They lack the authority to dictate who is qualified.

Let's just pretend SCOTUS declines to weigh in on this issue, and Trump is considered disqualified by Colorado, Maine, and perhaps a number of other states. If he wins enough electoral votes to secure a majority, is he the President of the United States? Yes he is.

But then, how can Colorado and Maine reconcile that when they have determined he's not qualified to be the President? Is he just the President of the other 48 states? Is the state sufficiently sovereign to reject the executive authority of the President?

Of course not. They lack that authority. There is clear authority to disqualify an otherwise qualified Presidential candidate, but it does not reside within the states.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Krayt: "The idea each state, many politically motivated, could decide for themselves, when only a few are needed to queer the election, is conceptually idiotic.'

Well then the conceptual idiots were the founders, because that is exactly the system they designed. Each state designates its electors, who then determine the President. The choice of having an election to determine electors doesn't change that. You seem to forget that we do not have a national election, we have state by state elections. That's by design, and nothing in the Constitution demands uniformity among the states with regard to the selection of electors.

[A Thinking Mind]

If a state enacted a law banning their Electors from casting any vote for a Republican or Democrat candidate, that would run headlong into the 1st Amendment. It's discrimination on viewpoint grounds, basically destroying freedom of political expression. The state doesn't have the authority to deny people of their 1st Amendment rights absent due process-that's actually within the 14th.

If Trump wins the nomination and yet states ban the Republican nominee from receiving any votes, it's going to run into the same deprivation of rights issue.

The states' ability to decide how their electors are chosen is clearly not absolute.

[Martinned]

But forbidding turning the power of government against political opponentd is a core design principle of this Constitution you claim to be so concerned with.

Which bit of the Constitution, exactly, did you have in mind here?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think they'd find it almost trivially easy. But I expect we'll know one way or another within just a few months: This is going to be on the fast track of all fast tracks, I expect.

[David Nieporent]

.

But, despite your BrettLaw take, it would be pretty difficult for them to declare 14A not self executing without some legal gymnastics to distinguish it from other Amendments.

There's caselaw where they declare that it is self-executing!

"This amendment [the 13th], as well as the Fourteenth, is undoubtedly self-executing without any ancillary legislation, so far as its terms are applicable to any existing state of circumstances."

And they routinely treat other aspects of the 14th amendment besides Section 3 as self-executing.

[Nelson]

"Neither are they going to render Section 3 moot."

I'm pretty sure they can't do that. They can interpret it, but can't say, "this part of the Constitution isn't valid any more". But I'm not a lawyer, so I could he wrong.

[Nelson]

"So the Dems are ‘saving democracy’ by dictating who we can and can’t vote for?"

No, a small group of Republicans bucked the party trend and chose to trust the rule of law. That process is still playing itself out.

I'm baffled as to why MAGA folks think it's Ds who are doing this. Trump, with the possible exception of DeSantis, is the only R that Biden has a chance to beat.

[ThePublius]

"Trump, with the possible exception of DeSantis, is the only R that Biden has a chance to beat."

I'm trying to figure out what you mean by that. According to the polls, the exact opposite of what you say is so, isn't that correct? I think the polls have Trump beating Biden, or at least tied, and the rest of the R field trails far behind Trump.

[Nelson]

The rest of the primary field trails Trump. In general election matchups, Biden loses to all the other R candidates remaining except Trump. Nikki Haley, in particular, would crush Biden.

Biden isn't a good President, but Trump was worse. When presented with a choice between bad and worse, most people will hold their nose and vote for bad. When presented with bad and maybe-not-as-bad, the latter will win out.

[ThePublius]

Am I taking crazy pills here? In what polls does it show Biden beating Trump and losing to any of the other Republican candidates?

[Brett Bellmore]

The current Yougov polls are showing Trump neck and neck, and the other Republicans losing to Biden.

But, of course, that's national popular vote, not EC vote, and if Trump is even neck and neck with Biden in the popular vote, it's going to be an easy win for him in the EC, since Biden can only get California's EC votes once, no matter how he crushes Trump there.

270 to win's map based on current polling shows Trump with 277 EC votes, Biden 193, and the rest a toss up.

[Nelson]

I didn't say Biden would beat Trump. I said Trump is the only one Biden could beat. Those are two very different things.

My take is that the other candidates (except possibly DeSantis and Vivek, who I was recently reminded is still blathering away) hold much higher margins than Trump.

Of course everything changes when there is an actual matchup, as opposed to a hypothetical matchup. So perhaps Biden isn't as underwater as he seems. Or he's so far underwater that nothing can save him. We'll find out when the general rolls around.

[Brett Bellmore]

If DeSantis secures the nomination, fair and square, not as a result of legal nonsense, I expect that most of Trump's support will go to him. Haley? Not much chance, she's running as an anti-Trump, if he's gone she'll gain very little.

Vivek is running for VP.

[Nelson]

DeDantis will get a portion of Trump's support, but not 100%. And he won't garner much additional support by not being Trump, except possibly in Florida, which is already a red state and won't change any results.

Nikki Haley will lose a portion of the wingnuts, but she can appeal to moderates. Neither DeSantis nor Trump can motivate moderates to do much except choose between Biden and not voting.

At this point Trump's ceiling and floor are pretty well established and pretty close together. DeSantis hasn't done enough to distinguish himself as a better alternative to Trump (except for being 30 years younger). Certainly not enough to put his ceiling above Trump's, but his floor is lower because he doesn't have the base's support like Trump does.

Vivek is just a Trump cheerleader looking for validation from the object of his affection.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Trump's already proven his ability to generate negative turnout for other Republicans (which is a big part of why there are currently zero Republican senators from Georgia, Arizona, or Pennsylvania).

[SRG2]

dictating who we can and can’t vote for?

The Constitution does that, by providing criteria for disqualification or ineligibility. Have you ever argued that it was undemocratic to impose term limits? Or to prevent a 30yo from running for president?

[ThePublius]

What part of the constitution bars Trump from running?

[Nelson]

The 14th Amendment, Section 3, barring a ruling otherwise by the Supreme Court. That's how our system of checks and balances works within the Judicial branch.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Well, perhaps it bars him from holding office. Not from running, or appearing on a ballot. Various state laws might do that.

[Kazinski]

Well I have two predictions on that score, but only one can be true:

The Supreme Court won't let the states bar Trump from the ballot.

If the Court does allow states to exclude Trump from the ballot it won't be in any state he has a reasonable chance of winning.

[SimonP]

If some other candidate - not Trump but let's say, "Drumpf" - were to have engaged in actual insurrection within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment - unequivocally, clearly, plain to all - would you have any objection to removing that person from presidential ballots? If we were to do so, would it make sense to be raising all of these objections about whether the person had been tried and convicted of "insurrection," etc.?

It seems to me that the objections over Trump's disqualification are less about invoking the Fourteenth Amendment in this manner than they are about whether Trump actually engaged in an "insurrection." All of the process arguments you MAGA people are making are red herrings, because you want to make it look like this is about process and the rule of law - and it is harder to "win" the argument that Trump's actions didn't amount to an "insurrection."

But as to that question - what other process would you suppose we follow, to determine once and for all whether his actions constituted an "insurrection" for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment? You file a challenge, you go to court, you appeal until the matter is settled, right? And all of this is happening well enough in advance that no one is going to be prevented from voting for Trump, if he ultimately wins before the Supreme Court.

Basically - you're all just whining and bitching because for you it's just about "winning" a news cycle. We had to endure Trump's dozens of challenges to the election results, we had to endure Republicans of red states trying to sue blue states over their own vote counts, we are currently enduring Trump's dilatory tactics in his criminal cases. You can endure this. Shut the fuck up and cry less.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Other than the fact that Trump is so high profile, it's a perfectly ordinary process. States keep presidential candidates off the ballot in every election, for a wide variety of reasons. For better or worse, it's the system we have.

[Reallynotbob]

As others have said, it's about enforcing laws. P.S. those are laws enacted by Republicans over 150 years ago.

[Brett Bellmore]

Epstein document drop.

Unsurprisingly, Bill Clinton visited many times, and "likes them young".
Donald Trump never was seen on the island.
Dershowitz did visit the island, but no sex was involved.
It was involved for Prince Andrew, though.

Oh, And the media had this years ago, and buried it.

[Commenter_XY]

An interesting question...now that the list is 'public', just how vigorous will the reporting be on the men (well, mostly men) on that list? And, what will be the reaction of society?

[Nelson]

Society? Condemnation and disgust. MAGAworld? Probably a much less full-throated expression of condemnation and disgust.

I anticipate a lot of what-about-Clinton and you-can't-prove-Trump-did-anything, along with various other apologist themes.

[Martinned]

...and presumably something about pizza.

[Commenter_XY]

I really hope that you are right Nelson, regarding a general revulsion and disgust in society for those men (and women) who victimized young women.

To me, if we do not see that revulsion in American society for those who victimized young women, it is a Leper's Bell signaling the decay of our culture.

If these men (or women) on that list who victimized young women are on Boards of Directors for publicly traded companies, they should be summarily dismissed. And shareholders should demand it. Any CEO or corporate officer who victimized young women should tender their resignation immediately, or be terminated for cause.

[Nelson]

I largely agree. While I don't think being on the Epstein list should be equated with being a child rapist, it shouldn't be "if you can't prove it, they're innocent" either.

For better or for worse, being on the Epstein list will probably haunt those who aren't retired for the rest of their careers. Prudent companies can't (and shouldn't) take the risk of retaining them.

There are plenty more qualified executives and board members out there that don't have the stench of evil on them. They should replace their tainted people with those who are less compromised.

[David Nieporent]

There is no "list." Seriously, there's been a lot of misleading reporting on this. Court documents that were filed under seal are being unsealed, and there are names contained in those documents. Those names could be of victims, witnesses, 'clients', accomplices, or for that matter lawyers involved in the lawsuits and prosecutions. But there's nothing that's just a list of Epstein's 'clients.'

[Commenter_XY]

Point well taken. It is not like there is a court exhibit that says, "Epstein's Scumbag Young Woman Molester list". You are right about that. Still though, I am betting there are a number of very wealthy people whose names will be found in the court docs; I don't think it is innocent, considering it is Epstein we are talking about here.

[Nelson]

If I'm not mistaken, there will be the necessary context to separate out the roles that each person played in Epstein's life, correct? They are releasing unredacted court records, not a random list of people talked about in the Epstein investigation, right?

[David Nieporent]

Well, yes and no. Deposition transcripts filled with hearsay are among the documents being unsealed.

[Kazinski]

Yeah but it does name two billionaires explicitly as having sex with an underage girl.

[Commenter_XY]

Precisely. And if either billionaire currently sits on a Board of Directors, they should be dismissed this evening.

[Moderation4ever]

The question is why is the focus on a former President who served 20 years ago and not on a current candidate's relationship with Epstein. A candidate who is an adjudicated sexual abuser, a candidate who committed adultery with a porn actress, and a candidate who has said he grabs women by their private parts.

I am not suggesting we let Clinton off the hook, but first let's deal with the present before we move to the past.

[Michael P]

Slick Willie wasn't two decades removed from the White House when he visited the island.

What's more interesting for present purposes is why the media buried so many of the details, except for falsely implying that Donald Trump was just as complicit as Bill Clinton.

[Commenter_XY]

And, did Epstein run the world's biggest honeypot operation? And for whom, if that was the case?

We really do need more investigative reporting. Will we see it?

[Krayt]

IIRC, emphasis on the if, I think one of the Watergate guys planned on a prostitute houseboat in Florida, to lure in Democrats so they could get leverage on them. Nothing came of it, to his lament, but I also got the feeling it wasn't the first time something like this may have happened. Or the last.

You'd think pols would not be so stupid w.r.t. such a large operation, though, as opposed to that stupid "massage parlor" next to the Thai restaurant.

[John F. Carr]

When I think of the intelligence of politicians involved in sex scandals, I think of Gary Hart.

[Michael P]

Mark Sanford is a somewhat more recent example.

We can also think of some of the false accusations that Michael Avenatti tried to shepherd into the Brett Kavanaugh hearings.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I met Gary Hart's wife and if gave me a very different perspective.

The classic example is Wilbur Mills...
https://timeline.com/wilbur-mills-tidal-basin-3c29a8b47ad1

[Mr. Bumble]

Now do Biden showering with his daughter and swimming naked in front of a female Secret Service agent and stopping her from being replaced when she expressed her discomfort with the situation.

[Nige]

'Now do'

Trump's a rapist, though.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bullshyte

[Nige]

It's no more than you'd expect from a pal of Epstein.

[Randy Sax]

swimming naked in front of a female Secret Service agent and stopping her from being replaced when she expressed her discomfort with the situation.

I mean this isn't ideal, but it's kinda like taking a job as a baby sitter but refusing to change dippers. It wouldn't surprise me if that is something the secret service actually has to do these days.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, come on: You take a job to babysit a child still in diapers, changing diapers is a given. As a SS agent, watching your subject skinny dip is significantly less of a given. It's out crazy, but not a given.

And him not letting you swap with another agent when he has multiple available?

That's just abusive on his part.

[Mr. Bumble]

That's because he's a nasty, insecure Mick.

[Randy Sax]

I mean, he definitely should have let her swap. But on the other hand it is her job to guard the president. Weather he is skinny dipping or not. Maybe she coulda wait outside by the door? Do the SS agents have to stand there and watch if the president is whacking off?

[Mr. Bumble]

No. Only hand him a towel when he's done.

[grb]

That would be my definition of a secret service......

[grb]

Mr. Bumble : “Now do Biden showering with his daughter….”

And when you’re done, do Trump’s grotesquely sicko sexual obsession over his daughter, Ivanka. And this isn’t just one or two anecdotes you have to repeat over and over, but dozens of incidents, many on national TV or radio. You’d think Trump would have tired of boasting to his bud Howard Stern how hot his daughter’s body is, or whether she’s a “piece of ass” (per Trump, yes), or if she recently got breast implants (per Trump : “I would know if she did. The answer is no. Why, did she look a little more stacked?”)

But DJT was driven by a deep-rooted obssession and never stopped. White House aides said he talked about Ivanka Trump’s breasts, her backside, and what it might be like to have sex with her, remarks that once led Chief of Staff John Kelly to remind the president that Ivanka was his daughter. And on multiple occasions Trump volunteered he’d be “dating her” if Ivanka wasn’t his daughter, sometimes with her standing right there. But that wasn’t as humiliating and creepy as their appearence on Wendy Williams’ show. She asked him what favorite thing he had in common with his daughter. Trump answered with a smirk:

“Well, I was going to say “sex,” but I can’t relate that to her”

Can you imagine Ivanka’s mortification?

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/43p4fr/donald_trump_and_his_daughter_ivanka_trump/

[Brett Bellmore]

It was mentioned in the report I saw.

"Donald Trump never was seen on the island."

Epstein's gig was providing access to extremely young, but post-pubescent, girls. "Ephebophilia", not pedophilia, as some have claimed. Trump was into older women than that. On the evidence we have now, all he got from Epstein was a plane ride.

"A candidate who is an adjudicated sexual abuser,"

Granted, albeit in a civil trial, and with some dubious procedural aspects.

"a candidate who committed adultery with a porn actress,"

Absolutely, and no quibbles.

"and a candidate who has said he grabs women by their private parts."

No, actually what he said was that as a famous guy he could get away with doing that. He didn't say he made a habit of actually doing it to random unconsenting women. He was actually marveling at the fact that he did get consent for that sort of thing.

To be clear, I'm not impressed with Trump's morals. I'm not impressed with Biden's either. I'd love to live in a world where I had non-scum available to vote for in the general election. This is not that world, sadly.

[Krayt]

Again, I repeat, why is our choice between Trump and people who sapped 20% of your savings over the past few years?

[Martinned]

Because Republican primary voters have drunk the kool-aid to the point that many sensible candidates aren't even running in the primaries, while the convention that it isn't chic to bring a primary challenge against a sitting president protects Biden.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krayt, my savings went way up. Did you play your cards wrong? Times of turmoil deliver plenty of ways to make mistakes. Condolences to you.

[Mr. Bumble]

He probably means inflation, which we all know was also out of office Trump's fault.

[grb]

Mr. Bumble : “He probably means inflation, which we all know was also out of office Trump’s fault”

Or an economic phenomena that occurred everywhere around the world, with the United States suffering less than most other developed countries.

All of which leads to a peeve of mine: It’s a given that American voters punish presidents for events that happen outside of their control and regardless of their actions. This is true whatever the party of the president or his opposition. It’s almost like a law of nature in its dependablity. You have to just accept it, perhaps with some grumbling aside on the unknowing obliviousness of this country’s electorate.

But we’re supposed to be fairly intelligent and informed people in this forum, right? We’re supposed to understand the distinction between blaming a leader for his policies and sacrificing him to propitiate the gods because a comet blazed across the sky. But damn if it often seems like we can’t see that distinction at all!

[Moderation4ever]

Well, if you are going by the economy then Clinton would be your choice not Trump.

[bernard11]

Do you keep your money in a safe deposit box?

Oh, and do you have any long-term debts, like a mortgage, say?

[Nelson]

That is an impressive amount of apologism, Brett. "It wasn't proved that Trump was a pedophile and, anyway, it isn't technically pedophilia" is a thin limb to go out on for your team.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I said, I'm not at all impressed with Trump's morals. The stuff that's actually proven to my satisfaction is enough to render him scum, from my perspective, I don't need to pile on things that haven't been proven.

He's not getting my vote in the primaries, but then, he never has gotten it in the primaries. (My vote in the primaries is the kiss of death, candidates should probably bribe me to vote for their rivals...)

My problem is that it's unlikely that the Democratic nominee will be any better in terms of personal morals, and is basically guaranteed to be worse on the level of policy.

[Nelson]

"My vote in the primaries is the kiss of death, candidates should probably bribe me to vote for their rivals…"

That made me laugh out loud, literally.

"My problem is that it’s unlikely that the Democratic nominee will be any better in terms of personal morals, and is basically guaranteed to be worse on the level of policy."

If Trump is the R candidate in the general, it's guaranteed that he will be much worse, morally, than his opponent.

As far as policy goes, as long as Rd are obsessed with the culture war (especially abortion bans and anti-trans laws) they will be worse on policy as well. If they can find their way back to fiscal responsibility and personal liberty, they will be vastly superior.

[bernard11]

it’s unlikely that the Democratic nominee will be any better in terms of personal morals,

Wow. Just wow.

[Nige]

'and is basically guaranteed to be worse on the level of policy.'

Yeah, Biden won't go banning books, passing anti-transgender laws, building a few concentration camps, replacing officials and judges with personal loyalists to get around the law when going after enemies, all that good shit.

[Nige]

'Getting away with' and 'get consent' are incompatible, as you know.

'I’m not impressed with Biden’s either.'

Especially with some deft weighting of the relevant evidence for each.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Epstein’s gig was providing access to extremely young, but post-pubescent, girls. “Ephebophilia”, not pedophilia, as some have claimed.

When you have to parse out exactly what kind of children are being sexually abused, that’s how you know you’re winning the argument.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "...as some have claimed. Trump was into older women than that"

Is sixteen old enough? Items :

(1) In 1997, Trump recruited his then 16-year-old daughter Ivanka to help host the Miss Teen USA pageant. And Donald could not have been more proud. He turned to Brook Antoinette Mahealani Lee, Miss Universe at the time, and asked for her opinion of his daughter’s body.

‘Don’t you think my daughter’s hot? She’s hot, right?’ ” Ms. Lee recalled him saying. ‘I was like, ‘Really?’ That’s just weird. She was sixteen. That’s creepy.”

2. Howard Stern’s co-host asked Trump if he “ever worried” because he has “a daughter who is a model.” Trump, however, decided to answer a different question entirely:

"I do, and I have a deal with her. She’s just 17 and doing great—Ivanka. And she made me promise or swear to her that I would never date a girl younger than her. So, Howard, as she grows older, the field is getting very limited. To deal with, you know"

Stern then joked, “Yeah, the nerve of her! Now you can’t go out with 16-year-olds.” Trump laughed, but said nothing.

3. Let's be fair though. Trump did imply twelve was too young while on Howard Stern's show :

"Now, somebody who a lot of people don’t give credit to but is in actuality very beautiful is Paris Hilton. I’ve known Paris Hilton from the time she’s 12, her parents are friends of mine, and the first time I saw her she walked into the room and I said, ‘Who the hell is that?’ At 12, I wasn’t interested… but she was beautiful."

4. Of course there's also this comment from 2002:

"I’ve known Jeff (Epstein) for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it—Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

https://www.instagram.com/p/h1tjodikNS/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=8a54414f-0277-4333-9add-31e4eec8b7af

[bernard11]

Don't forget about his wandering into the dressing room at a Miss Teen USA pageant.

[Sarcastr0]

Donald Trump never was seen on the island.
Neither was Bill Clinton, if that's your standard.

This docs are not exhaustive, despite your charactarization.

I hope the truth comes out. If Clinton's gotta go to jail, I don't think many on here will weep.

[Randal]

Well, all the people on here saying that ex-Presidents should never be prosecuted and should be given blanket pardons will weep... won't they?

[Krayt]

Haw haw!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Unsurprisingly, Bill Clinton visited many times, and “likes them young”.

Just from looking at the pictures, what I noticed was that while these girls may have been young, they (a) didn't look it and (b) had BAD NEWS written all over them. But I've seen college undergrads that looked younger.

Dershowitz did visit the island, but no sex was involved.

Boston in January versus a nice tropical island....

[Brett Bellmore]

I think Epstein was careful to get a lot of prominent people vaguely implicated as a defense against official action against him. Not all of these were people he felt sure enough about to try to get them involved in anything actually illegal. Maybe he was feeling them out first, and didn't like what he saw.

He did kind of fall down on making sure the proof would be reliably released by deadman switch if he were taken out of action, though.

[Sarcastr0]

You and Ed’s posts and speculation help me see why the press may not have wanted to report in these docs in a vacuum.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nobody on this blog would know a damned thing about any of this if it were not for the institutional press—and specifically the Miami Herald.

The people covering it up were not journalists. They were co-conspirators, lawyers, and judges.

[Nige]

Why would he have been worried about official action? He got a sweetheart plea deal, remember, and people treated him as if nothing had happened and Trump gave the guy responsible a job in his administration. Right now you're mad that Trump is being treated with the same deference as Epstein was before everyone was shocked into the realisation that he was getting away with rape and human trafficking.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump made some very poor personnel decisions.

[Nige]

The usual defence: 'it's just that Trump was really fucking bad at his job. Let's vote for him again!'

[Brett Bellmore]

He got a sweetheart plea deal as a RESULT about being worried about official action, and documenting stuff. If he'd had nothing on anybody, he'd have faced worse.

And once they were sure they'd found all the documentation, he got to die in what you have to be pretty gullible to be sure was actually a suicide.

[Nige]

Didn't protect him when the story about his deal broke and public outrage forced the issue. Then his massive store of blackmail material failed to materialise. Then he died in custody, under Trump, and his massive store of blackmail material still hasn't materialised. I mean, we live in hope, and all that, but frankly I'm leaning towards Epstein just thinking he had the same near-immunity to the law the rich and powerful all think they have and which you're demanding for Trump.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think it was a legitimate suicide -- autoerotic asphyxiation.

[David Nieporent]

.

while these girls may have been young, they (a) didn’t look it and (b) had BAD NEWS written all over them.

Is there anyone — any one person, anywhere in the entire English-speaking world — surprised that Dr. Ed would have the worst possible take on the entire story?

[Reallynotbob]

"Dershowitz did visit the island, but no sex was involved."

Uh...PDF p. 37:
"12. In the joinder motion, plaintiff also alleged she was “forced” to have sex with Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, “model scout” Jean Luc Brunel, and “many other powerful men, including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known Prime Minister, and other world leaders.”

[Reallynotbob]

"Unsurprisingly, Bill Clinton visited many times, and “likes them young”."

I was unable to find that phrase at all in the document you linked. I did check the 55 instances of "young" after using CTRL-F.

[John F. Carr]

According to The Guardian:

One May 2016 document includes detail of testimony already taken by Johanna Sjoberg, who had been recruited on a college campus at the age of 21 to work as a massage therapist and has said she was forced to perform sex acts on Epstein. It was Sjoberg who made the comment that Epstein “said one time that Clinton likes them young, referring to girls”.

[Bob from Ohio]

“Epstein “said”

That’s conclusive!

What does “young” mean [even if true]? 21 is young compared to Bill Clinton.

Most of this Epstein stuff is just useless hearsay like the Clinton allegation. A waste of time.

edit: Though I am sad the Hawking midget quote going around is phony.

[Magister]

Though I am sad the Hawking midget quote going around is phony.

Thank you for not posting a link.

[OtisAH]

Monica Lewinsky was “young,” dummy.

[Michael P]

Jamie Raskin sounds like he is seriously planning an insurrection, at least by the left's current definition of insurrection.
https://jonathanturley.org/2024/01/02/what-do-we-do-if-he-doesnt-recuse-himself-rep-raskin-raises-eyebrows-with-cnn-interview-on-justice-thomas/

[Randal]

You think voting against Trump is an insurrection? You're weird.

[not guilty]

Huh?? Where do you get that Rep. Raskin "is seriously planning an insurrection"? Raskin's CNN interview is here. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/12/31/sotu-raskin-full.cnn

Please show your work.

[Michael P]

The less ridiculous Democrat theory of a January 6th insurrection involves a coordinated effort to subvert "constitutional processes" of government by convincing members of another branch of government to act in certain ways, possibly for spurious reasons. That's what Rep. Raskin and his co-conspirators at CNN and within Congress are doing here.

[Martinned]

You left out that the Trumpists did their "convincing" through violence.

[Michael P]

The people who used violence -- except for Capitol Police -- were not members of the federal government, so there is no "other branch" for them.

[Martinned]

Trump was a member of the Federal government.

[Mr. Bumble]

Was he at the Capitol on that day?

[Martinned]

Why is that relevant for anything?

[Mr. Bumble]

Oh that's right. He only incited the "insurrection".

[Martinned]

And that makes it OK?

[Mr. Bumble]

There was no insurrection!
Nothing to be OK.

[not guilty]

Michael P, I linked Rep. Raskin's CNN interview for a reason. What word or group of words that he uttered indicates that he “is seriously planning an insurrection”?

[Michael P]

Yawn. You only have one shtick, and it is unspeakably lame.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh noes he's asking you to back up your bullshit.

How tiresome!

[Martinned]

Yes, what a lame shtick, to use evidence as an argument in a discussion. Everybody knows that discussions on the internet are much more fun if you just ignore reality completely!

[not guilty]

IOW, you got bupkis, but you lack the integrity to admit that. What in the CNN interview indicates that Rep. Raskin “is seriously planning an insurrection”?

There is no substitute for original source materials.

[Mr. Bumble]

Michael P's source was Jonathan Turley's article:
Res ipsa loquitur .

[Michael P]

The left here has the memory of fruit flies, so they forgot that NG's shtick was pre-butted.

[Randal]

The Jonathan Turley opinion piece that says Raskin wasn't threatening violence and was just advocating for the public to vote against Trump?

Do you post these links and cross your fingers that no one clicks through? Or do you just post them without reading them yourself? What a gumball.

[Nelson]

"Yawn. You only have one shtick, and it is unspeakably lame."

Right. Details and facts are so lame. Partisan framing, misrepresenting statements, and redefining legal standards are much better.

Hack away, partisan.

[Stephen Lathrop]

"Partisan," over-dignifies it. "Tribalist," has better tone, and it's also more accurate

[Nige]

That's it, they're going to try to make it llegal to vote for anyone who isn't a Republican, because everything is now exactly the same as Trump trying to illegally overturn an election.

[Don Nico]

I saw the interview with Raskin. His words were typically partisan, but nowhere could you read "insurrection" into what he said.
He was vaguely threatening toward Thomas. Some might even have considered him physically threatening. But it just sounded like typically political speech, nothing to take note of.

[Michael P]

My point was that typically political speech with potentially "vaguely threatening" overtones is what the left accused Donald Trump of saying in Pence's direction regarding January 6, and the left has labeled that an insurrection.

[Commenter_XY]

A question about the Intl law and the laws of war?

Recently, Saleh al-Arouri (a Hamas leadership member) was assassinated in Beirut. By who....? Seems pretty obvious to me Israel waxed his ass, and the world is a better place without Saleh al-Arouri. Did America 'help' Israel? No, according to the Pentagon.

My question: Since Hamas has taken American hostages, and killed other American hostages they held, would America be justified under international law and the laws of war to hunt down and kill Hamas Leadership until our hostages are released (dead or alive)? Is that actually a legally allowed response under law?

I am not debating the wisdom of such a policy, only the legality. Or does America actually need Congress to declare war in order for that response (hunt them down) to become a legally allowable response? Where's the legal line on a policy like that?

[Martinned]

The legal question is pretty obvious: Lebanon is not at war with anybody, and bombing a building on its territory is an act of war contrary to art. 2(4) of the UN Charter. Whether the target is a commander of a party to an armed conflict is immaterial.

If Israel wanted to get at him, the lawful way to do that would have been for Israel to ask Lebanon to arrest him and extradite him (if they wanted to prosecute him under criminal law) or to ask Lebanon to detain him in order to prevent him from conducting the war from its territory (if they simply wanted to deal with this under the laws of war).

[Mr. Bumble]

Just what are these Laws of War? There seem to be multiple conventions involved here.

[Martinned]

If only there was some kind of free online encyclopedia where you could look up the answer to that question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war

[Mr. Bumble]

So what applies?
International treaties on the laws of war
See also: List of international declarations

List of declarations, conventions, treaties, and judgments on the laws of war:[31][32][33]

1856 Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law abolished privateering.
1863 United States military adopts the Lieber Code, a compilation of extant international norms on the treatment of civilians assembled by German scholar Franz Lieber.
1864 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field.[34]
1868 St. Petersburg Declaration, officially the Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight, renounced the usage of explosive projectiles with a mass of less than 400 grams.
1874 Project of an International Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War (Brussels Declaration).[35] Signed in Brussels 27 August. This agreement never entered into force, but formed part of the basis for the codification of the laws of war at the 1899 Hague Peace Conference.[36][37]
1880 Manual of the Laws and Customs of War at Oxford. At its session in Geneva in 1874 the Institute of International Law appointed a committee to study the Brussels Declaration of the same year and to submit to the Institute its opinion and supplementary proposals on the subject. The work of the Institute led to the adoption of the Manual in 1880 and it went on to form part of the basis for the codification of the laws of war at the 1899 Hague Peace Conference.[37]
1899 Hague Conventions consisted of three main sections and three additional declarations:
I – Pacific Settlement of International Disputes
II – Laws and Customs of War on Land
III – Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of Principles of Geneva Convention of 1864
Declaration I – On the Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons
Declaration II – On the Use of Projectiles the Object of Which is the Diffusion of Asphyxiating or Deleterious Gases
Declaration III – On the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body
1907 Hague Conventions had thirteen sections, of which twelve were ratified and entered into force, and two declarations:
I – The Pacific Settlement of International Disputes
II – The Limitation of Employment of Force for Recovery of Contract Debts
III – The Opening of Hostilities
IV – The Laws and Customs of War on Land
V – The Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land
VI – The Status of Enemy Merchant Ships at the Outbreak of Hostilities
VII – The Conversion of Merchant Ships into War-ships
VIII – The Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines
IX – Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War
X – Adaptation to Maritime War of the Principles of the Geneva Convention
XI – Certain Restrictions with Regard to the Exercise of the Right of Capture in Naval War
XII – The Creation of an International Prize Court [Not Ratified]*
XIII – The Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War
Declaration I – extending Declaration II from the 1899 Conference to other types of aircraft
Declaration II – on the obligatory arbitration
1909 London Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War largely reiterated existing law, although it showed greater regard to the rights of neutral entities. Never went into effect.
1922 The Washington Naval Treaty, also known as the Five-Power Treaty (6 February)
1923 Hague Draft Rules of Aerial Warfare. Never adopted in a legally binding form.[38]
1925 Geneva protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare.[39]
1927–1930 Greco-German arbitration tribunal
1928 General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy (also known as the Pact of Paris or Kellogg-Briand Pact)
1929 Geneva Convention, Relative to the treatment of prisoners of war.
1929 Geneva Convention on the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field,
1930 Treaty for the Limitation and Reduction of Naval Armament (22 April)
1935 Roerich Pact
1936 Second London Naval Treaty (25 March)
1938 Amsterdam Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War. (Officially the Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War. Amsterdam, 1938). This convention was never ratified.[40]
1938 League of Nations declaration for the "Protection of Civilian Populations Against Bombing From the Air in Case of War[41]
1945 United Nations Charter (entered into force on October 24, 1945)
1946 Judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg
1947 Nuremberg Principles formulated under UN General Assembly Resolution 177, 21 November 1947
1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
1949 Geneva Convention I for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field
1949 Geneva Convention II for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea
1949 Geneva Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
1949 Geneva Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict
1971 Zagreb Resolution of the Institute of International Law on Conditions of Application of Humanitarian Rules of Armed Conflict to Hostilities in which the United Nations Forces May be Engaged
1974 United Nations Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict
1977 United Nations Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques
1977 Geneva Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts
1977 Geneva Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts
1978 Red Cross Fundamental Rules of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts
1980 United Nations Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (CCW)
1980 Protocol I on Non-Detectable Fragments
1980 Protocol II on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices
1980 Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons
1995 Protocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons
1996 Amended Protocol II on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices
Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War (Protocol V to the 1980 Convention), 28 November 2003 (entered into force 12 November 2006)[42]
1994 San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea[43]
1994 ICRC/UNGA Guidelines for Military Manuals and Instructions on the Protection of the Environment in Time of Armed Conflict[44]
1994 UN Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel.[45]
1996 The International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
1997 Ottawa Treaty - Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction
1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (entered into force 1 July 2002)
2000 Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict (entered into force 12 February 2002)
2005 Geneva Protocol III Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem
2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions (entered into force 1 August 2010)
2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (entered into force 22 January 2021)

[Martinned]

All of them. (Or at least the ones ratified by the relevant states.) I'm not sure why you think this is somehow a trick question.

[Randal]

Mr. Bumblebee thought the Laws of War were gonna be like the Laws of Thermodynamics or the Ten Commandments... a short set of pithy guidelines you could write on a napkin. Not like, actual laws.

[John F. Carr]

There is also customary international law. Europe has been doing it this way for centuries upon centuries so that is the way it is done despite the lack of a treaty obligation. Through the past 150 years, more or less, there has been an effort to codify customary international law.

[Martinned]

Yes, I skipped over that bit, in part because "laws of war" already sounds pompous enough without saying "laws and usages of war", and also because the concept of international treaties seems to be confusing a fair few commenters here all on its own.

[Bob from Ohio]

A lot of useless scraps of paper there.

[Martinned]

Only because more and more people in the US (and elsewhere in the West) have decided that the rule of law isn't actually all that important.

[Commenter_XY]

Wait...I asked the original question precisely because I actually DO care about the rule of law and how it applies.

[Martinned]

Indeed. And you're not the one who described the law as "useless scraps of paper".

[Longtobefree]

If only that magic source was impartial and truthful.

[Martinned]

If only the online encyclopedia provided links to source legal texts, and if only someone with legal training might read those legal texts to verify what they say.

[Nelson]

"If only that magic source was impartial and truthful."

Why is it that the right can't distinguish between "things I don't want to believe" and "things that are untrue"? If you don't want to believe it, that doesn't make it false.

Anything that provides a rebuttal to their false beliefs is always, somehow, suspect. Why is that?

[BrianL.]

It's not just the right, it's anyone with false beliefs. I have a friend, smart guy on most things, but insists the moon landing is a hoax. Anything I send to him that contradicts it, he always finds some reason to dismiss it. He even said to me once, "You will never convince me." That's when I stopped trying because I took that statement as an admission that he wasn't interested in facts, it was a belief that he refused to question.

[Nelson]

Fair point. It just seems like the right in MAGAtime is particularly resistant to facts and generalize any source of information that challenges their beliefs.

It's a thing that concerns me, since rational conservatives used to vastly outnumber the willfully blind. I think about the trend of mainstream R reaction to Pizzagate (rejected), QAnon (mostly rejected), and stolen elections (mostly accepted) and see a party increasingly out of touch with rational assessments of reality. It scares me.

[Joe_dallas]

Martineed - are you claiming hamas leaders are exempt from being killed in war simply by crossing the border into egypt, syrian, jordan or lebanon?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That seems reasonable. Would it be lawful for Hamas to assassinate Netanyahu while he Is in the US? Or would US law apply, since we aren't at war?

[Bob from Ohio]

Law has nothing to do with it. Its not likely to happen because of US power.

Israel bombs Syria just about weekly these days, Damascus airport is constantly shutting down. Syria might fire a few rockets back but does nothing much really.

[Martinned]

The parties to an armed conflict can't just expand the fighting into the territory of a neutral 3rd party. But the flipside of that is that a neutral country is required to act neutrally, i.e. by not letting either side conduct the war from its territory.

For example, the Netherlands maintained strict neutrality during World War I, and interned all Belgian soldiers that entered its territory. Belgian civilians could return to Belgium when they pleased, but Belgian soldiers were held in camps and detained until the end of the war.

If Lebanon allows Hamas or Hezbollah to attack Israel from its territory, it is violating international law. But that's not the same as saying that Lebanon is thereby at war with Israel, or that Israel would be entitled to invade Lebanon as a result.

[David Nieporent]

But, as noted previously, Lebanon is at war with Israel, "thereby" or for other reasons. And in any case, your comment is either irrelevant or wrong. Israel is allowed to attack Hamas or Hezbollah if Hamas or Hezbollah are attacking Israel. They can't hide in a neutral third country but keep up the attacks with impunity. Maybe Israel can't go bomb a Lebanese army base because Hamas or Hezbollah are doing that, but Israel can bomb Hamas or Hezbollah forces.

(Of course, Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government, so the distinction doesn't really make sense anyway.)

[Commenter_XY]

I think there are competing legal conventions, and I am wondering how a lawyer would resolve the conflicts between legal conventions in a situation like I outlined.

How do you determine the legal line when you have multiple competing legal conventions? I am wondering about a real world application (hostages).

[Martinned]

Which competing legal conventions did you have in mind? Israel can attack Hamas in Gaza, but not in the territory of a neutral 3rd state. Nothing competing about it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned, for hostage problems, America had a long-standing, but also recently disused, alternative approach. It was pithily summarized by Teddy Roosevelt, "Pedicaris alive, or Raisuli dead."

Even if that might be the wisest policy long-term, its disadvantage is that it takes more political courage to apply it than is usually available.

[Martinned]

That's not an "alternative" approach, it's an answer to a different question. The question was what the law says. Whether the US or Israel choose to obey the law or not is a question of policy. The US, as a general rule, does whatever TF it wants, e.g. assassinating an Iranian official in Iraq and bombing ISIS in Syria. Both are analogous to what Israel did here, and make it (to put it mildly) difficult for the US to object to Israel's actions.

[Bob from Ohio]

"US, as a general rule, does whatever TF it wants"

Yes, its good to be the king.

The king's good friends also can as a general rule, do whatever TF they want.

[Nige]

Authoritarians rule.

[Martinned]

It's good to be the king right up until the moment when a new king comes along. Xi says hi!

[Mr. Bumble]

Xi has his own problems.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Xi says hi!"

Yawn. Another Kaiser Wilhelm.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The king’s good friends also can as a general rule, do whatever TF they want.

Good times until the king cuts the "friend" loose and accountability arrives, as Israel seems positioned to learn.

[Mr. Bumble]

"To the shores of Tripoli". Thomas Jefferson did not have a problem with dealing with it.

[Martinned]

Lots of things used to be legal that aren't any more. Jefferson also didn't have a problem with owning and raping slaves.

[Mr. Bumble]

Congratulations on completing the Queen A's course of obfuscating and deflecting.
By the way there is no evidence that Jefferson raped slaves.

[Martinned]

I didn't say he did. And I'm sorry if my straightforward answers to your questions confuse you.

[Mr. Bumble]

There is also no evidence that Jefferson condoned raping slave.

[David Nieporent]

.

By the way there is no evidence that Jefferson raped slaves.

There's a whole lot of evidence he had sex with them, and since there's no possible way for a chattel slave to give consent, it was rape.

[Krayt]

"Turn over Bin Laden, or suffer his fate."

[Magister]

“Turn over Bin Laden, or suffer his fate.”

Unfortunately, the sky writing of that demand appeared to say "Turnover, Baklava or stuffed biscotti" but did result in the delivery of many tasty desserts to American forces.

[John F. Carr]

But see article 51, the right to self-defence until the Security Council can take action. The Security Council is unwilling to do anything meaningful in the present conflict.

[Martinned]

Yes, and if Israel were attacked by Lebanon, they could defend themselves. (In fact, they could also do so if an attack was imminent.)

[Mr. Bumble]

They are being attacked from Lebanon by Hezbollah which the government of Lebanon (such as it is) is doing nothing to stop.

[Bob from Ohio]

Hezbollah has cabinet posts in fact.

[Martinned]

It does, but that does not make Hezbollah the same thing as Lebanon.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its part of the government so when its people launch rockets against Israel its a de facto Lebanese attack.

You say you support the "rule of law" but the "law" as you see it lets militias in weak states attack neighboring states without fear of attack because any counterattacks are "illegal". Some "rule of law".

[Martinned]

Yes, sometimes the rule of law means that individuals who obey the law are at a disadvantage against those who don't care about breaking the law. Why is that news to you?

[Nige]

Why do you care? You defer to the divine right of kings to do whatever the fuck they want.

[Martinned]

Not stopping Hezbollah is not an act of war against Israel.

[Krayt]

"Turn over Bin Laden, or suffer his fate."

[Nige]

How well that turned out.

[Martinned]

Yes, that was an attempt by the US to create a rule that would let strong states attack weaker ones if they were "unable or unwilling" to shut down terrorists. But that rule was roundly rejected by the international community at the time, including by states that supported the US attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq. Almost without exception the US allies formulated different legal justifications for their participation.

[David Nieporent]

Allowing people to use one's country as a base to attack another country is indeed an act of war. One can't outsource war to avoid consequences. (The alternate explanation, that Lebanon is unable to stop Hezbollah, does not cause Lebanon to fare any better; one can't claim that another country is violating one's sovereignty if one's argument is based on one's inability to assert one's sovereignty.)

[Martinned]

That sounds like a plausible statement of what the law ought to be, but it is not in fact what the law is. The US tried to introduce an "unable or unwilling" rule about 20 years ago, but this was roundly rejected.

According to this post on Lawfareblog, only 10 countries (including the US and Israel) endorsed the unable or unwilling test in 2016: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/which-states-support-unwilling-and-unable-test

[David Nieporent]

That is not what that post says, in any way shape or form. And it's rather difficult to claim that something supported by so many powerful countries was "roundly rejected" at all.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Lebanon is not at war with anybody"

Not true. Lebanon is at war with Israel since 1948 when they declared war. The hostilities ended with an armistice, no peace treaty.

[Martinned]

And Israel cannot resume hostilities with Lebanon except as an act of self-defence. (I actually floated your argument on an international law blog, and got shut down right quick.)

[Bob from Ohio]

Hamas has launched rockets from Lebanon since October 7.

[Krayt]

BBC interviewed a Hezbollah leader last month.

"Israel has said that if Hezbollah launches rockets from Lebanon, its response will be swift and terrible. Are you not concerned for civilians caught up and killed in that response?"

"Nope. Them's the breaks."

"There will be many innocent deaths."

"So what? We get to blame it on Israel."

This is part of the business model.

[Martinned]

Yes, they're terrorists. Why does that surprise you?

[Joe_dallas]

Martinned 5 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
And Israel cannot resume hostilities with Lebanon except as an act of self-defence. "

Martineed are you unfamiliar with the term self defense?

[Martinned]

Joe_Dallas are you unfamiliar with correct spelling?

[Sarcastr0]

Wait suddenly papers like that matter to Bob?

[Bob from Ohio]

Not at all. But Martinned thinks its important.

[Sarcastr0]

That's a bullshit two step.

You sometimes say 'this isn't important so not gonna bother engaging'

And then other times you say 'this helps me, so I'll engage even if I don't think it's important.'

So you're not really arguing anything real, just whatever strikes you as advantageous in the moment.

You know, like the Antisemite in Sartre's Anti-Semite and Jew.

Different end goal, same unserious shittiness.

[Bob from Ohio]

I like bantering with our Eurotrash friend.

[OtisAH]

I love that “banter” is what you think you engage in. So on the nose for you.

[Sarcastr0]

"“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

[Bob from Ohio]

Goodness, that's long winded drivel. But thanks for comparing me to an antisemite, Mr. Norms!

[Sarcastr0]

Good jerb reading my comment right above:

You know, like the Antisemite in Sartre’s Anti-Semite and Jew.

Different end goal, same unserious shittiness.

[Bob from Ohio]

"unserious"

Oh noes, I'm not serious in a blog open thread.

Dude, its not a court here. Its not even a debating society like the UN or Oxford Union.

"like the Antisemite"

Yes, you keep making the comparison.

[Sarcastr0]

Congrats on taking nothing seriously. Exactly like the anti-Semite.

Bad faith isn't cool just because you're not in court, Bob.

You stumbled into a role well described in 1945. You enjoy it as well as those folks did back then. And you suck about as much as well.

[Don Nico]

One could have said the same about how the US should have gotten
Anwar al-Awlaki and his son. But both were assasinated extra-judicilly with collateral fatalities.

[David Nieporent]

.

The legal question is pretty obvious: Lebanon is not at war with anybody, and bombing a building on its territory is an act of war contrary to art. 2(4) of the UN Charter. Whether the target is a commander of a party to an armed conflict is immaterial.

Agreed, except for the inconvenient fact that Lebanon is at war with Israel.

[Commenter_XY]

Inconvenient, indeed. LOL.

[Kazinski]

Lebanon also isn't in control of much of its own country and there are armed belligerents operating freely on Lebanese territory.

Get that cleaned up first before deciding Israel is the only country that has to follow rules.

You could say much the same when we were killing Isis militants in Syria without authorization.

And perhaps he same thing is going to happen again in a few weeks if the Houthis don't stop molesting international shipping.

[Martinned]

Everybody has to follow the rules. You're the one claiming that Israel (and the US) should somehow be exempt.

And good luck finding something in Yemen that hasn't already been bombed to smithereens. The US has been involved in bombing Yemen since Obama was president. There's nothing left standing. Hence their anger with at the US.

[Don Nico]

Except many countries don't follow any rules but their own druthers: For example China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, UK, France, just to name a few in addition to yours.

[IAdmitIAmCrazy]

My guess is — I haven’t looked up every bit of law — that the US has carved out quite a few exceotions for themselves, if these international treaties have been ratified by the Senate at all. From the international legal point of view, the US is bound by the commitment of its executive, regardless of the ratification status. Hence, probability is high that US action would be covered by national legislation. If the threat to US citizens is imminent — and who would doubt it? — the president could legally do it by executive fiat. My guess is it would be covered by the War Powers Act. As is to be expected that position of the US on international law does not endear it to the international community.

[Martinned]

Under the US constitution, treaties made are the supreme law of the land, and the President can't just ignore them at will, or even with the blessing of Congress. In any case, domestic US law is irrelevant to the question of whether something is illegal under international law.

And no, the US has not made any carve-outs to the UN Charter.

[John F. Carr]

Treaties and laws are equal. A later-passed statute overrules a treaty if there is an essential conflict, the same way a later-passed statute can implicitly repeal an older one.

Treaties are not necessarily self-executing. As a matter of international law, Canada can complain if the United States fails to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty. As a matter of domestic law, courts will look to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and not the treaty itself. You can hunt some migratory birds but not others.

[Martinned]

A later-passed statute may overrule a treaty as a matter of domestic law (I'm actually not sure you're right about that under US law, but it is definitely true under UK law, for example), but under international law domestic statutes are irrelevant. Simply put: the ICC doesn't care about US statutes.

[Bob from Ohio]

"CC doesn’t care about US statutes"

Fair, the US doesn't care about the ICC.

[Martinned]

That is fine, as long as the US is still king. Putin claims he doesn't care about the ICC either, but it sure looks like it's cramping his style...

[Bob from Ohio]

" cramping his style"

Oh noes, he can't travel to western Europe!

[Martinned]

PS You were right, the Supreme Court has held that, as a matter of US law, a later statute trumps an earlier statute. Eg. Breard v. Greene (1998).

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep523/usrep523371/usrep523371.pdf

[Martinned]

*a later statute trumps an earlier treaty

[ReaderY]

Does Hamas qualify for protection as a combatant under the laws of war? It doesn’t carry arms openly. A major part of its strategy is to blend in with the civilian population to evade detection. While the laws of war are not limited to nation-states and can include armed groups, they only cover armed groups that carry arms openly and identify themselves as combatants.

Moreover, the rapes, close-range non-combat murders of civilians, and hostage-takings Hamas did in its invasion of Israel hardly suggest an interest in the laws of war. The laws of war are mutual. A side that refuses to be bound by them waives its claim to protection.

If anybody has effected such a waiver, than Hamas most certainly has. Hamas is not permitted to utterly defy and stomp on the laws of war when its actions are concerned, then turn around and claim protection when it comes to its enemy’s actions.

Hamas has decided that the laws of war simply do not apply to it. It has to deal with the consequences of its decision.

[Martinned]

Hamas is a party to a non-international armed conflict, probably. (Arguably it is an international armed conflict. There has actually been some blogging on this question, which may actually matter for the interpretation of certain rules.)

The fact that Hamas hides among the population doesn't make them not an army. It just makes Hamas an army that violates the Geneva Conventions. It's the shooting at the IDF and its command structure that make Hamas an army.

And no, the fact that Hamas has violated pretty much all the laws of war does not mean that other parties get to follow suit. That's not how law works.

[ReaderY]

Have you read the text of the Fourth Geneva Convention? The last paragraph of Article 2 says:

“Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, IF THE LATTER ACCEPTS AND APPLIES THE PROVISIONS THEREOF.” [cap. added]

That’s the way this particular international law works.

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.33_GC-IV-EN.pdf

[Martinned]

Yes. And Hamas, not being a state, is not able to ratify a treaty like that. Whether Palestine is a state is up for debate, but at least it purported to ratify the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute. Which makes all of that law binding on Hamas and others who fight non-international armed conflicts in Palestine and/or Israel.

[ReaderY]

No, Hamas is a distinct Power in its own right. It neither accepted nor applied the Geneva conventions. Nor did it accept the Abbas regime as having any authority over it. Are you aware of the 2007 Hamas coup and the subsequent civil war between Hamas and the government of the “Palestinian state”?

You might as well argue that the statements and acts of the Union government bound the Confederacy or vice versa in the American Civil War.

Get real.

[Martinned]

Yes, the Union government was the only lawful government of the United States during the Civil War, and got to ratify treaties that bound the entire United States. I'm not sure why you think that's confusing.

[ReaderY]

So what? The Geneva convention by its terms is between and about Powers, not governments. Power comes from fielding an army. It has nothing to do with whether the Power that has the army even has a government, let alone whether is government is recognized by anyone else. Nothing to do with it.

The Confederacy was a Power. And it was a distinct Power from the Union.

[Martinned]

I don't know why you think that a "power" under the Geneva Conventions, can be something that isn't a sovereign state, but it sure isn't a reading of treaties that I've encountered before. How can Hamas be a party to the Geneva Conventions if it isn't a state?

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-2/commentary/2016?activeTab=undefined#_Toc452041609

[Martinned]

Actually, let me back up and ask two clarifying questions:

1. Are you arguing that Palestine is a state?
2. If so, are you arguing that the government of that state isn't the lawful government recognised by almost all (other) states but the terrorist organisation that overthrew the government in part of the Palestinian territory?

[ReaderY]

Hamas is not only a distinct Power from the “Palestinian government,” it is arguably the only Power in the area, because the “Palestinian government” doesn’t have enough of an army to launch a war, while Hamas does. Nothing to do with having a government, and nothing at all to do with whether ones government, if one has one, is recognized by anyone else. Nothing to do with being a “state.”

[Martinned]

By definition, only states can ratify treaties. So if Palestine isn't a state, it can't ratify the Geneva Conventions. And likewise with Hamas if you consider it distinct from the Palestinian state.

[Commenter_XY]

So ReaderY, under your interpretation, because Hamas has flagrantly disregarded the laws of war, they lose any protection under them, and are therefore 'fair game' to get waxed.

This was an interesting discussion thread.

[ReaderY]

See my comment above. It’s exactly what the Geneva Convention says. See the last paragraph of Article 2.

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.33_GC-IV-EN.pdf

[Martinned]

In addition to my previous comment, there is also plenty of evidence that the law we're talking about (in relation to the wearing of uniforms, the taking of hostages, the targeting of civilians, etc.) have become customary international law - and indeed some of those rules were already customary international law when they were codified in the Geneva Conventions in 1949 - which would make them binding on everybody.

Not to mention that the original question concerned the position of Lebanon, which definitely has the right not to be attacked by Israel, as specified under the UN Charter which both Lebanon and Israel ratified.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not to start this all over again, but what is Lebanon's (if any) obligation to prevent its territory from being used either by its citizens or other inhabitants to attack another country?

[Martinned]

Lebanon has an unqualified obligation to prevent its territory from being used to attack another country, or to conduct a war in another country.

[ReaderY]

The customs of modern warfare are far more brutal than the written conventions say. Kidnapping children, for example, is a widespread custom done in many recent wars, from Africa to Ukraine. So is rape.

Hamas may well be compliant with the customary norms of modern warfare based on any empirical analysis of how armed conflict is actually conducted.

[Martinned]

About 20,000 people were murdered in the US last year. But that doesn't mean that murder is somehow legal.

[Commenter_XY]

I appreciate the cite.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Speaking of getting waxed, how long will the period Israel lasts (in recognizable form) after America stop providing skirts Israel can operate and hide behind be measured?

___ in days
___ in weeks
___ in months
___ less than five years
___ less than ten years
(no need to go further)

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur, you forgot an option, it should appear immediately above '(no need to go further)'

__ not ever happening

🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That you don't see it coming might make it even sweeter.

I sense Israel's conservative racists and superstitious dumbasses are already exhausting Biden's patience . . . and if they can't keep Joe Biden, they have no chance with younger, educated, modern, reasoning Americans.

No free swings for right-wing assholes.

I still hope plenty of better Israelis emigrate to the United States before Israel capsizes under the weight of its stale, immoral, dysfunctional right-wing belligerence.

[Armchair]

Let's assume for a second that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is self executing, and that Trump "engaged in insurrection" on January 6th, and thus was disqualified from the Presidency. This leads to some interesting effects.

The most notable of which, is that from January 7th, 2021 to January 20th, 2021, Trump was "illegally president". An argument can be made that any pardons or commutations Trump made during this time were illegal, and these individuals are now out of prison illegally.

Furthermore, any bills Trump signed into law during this time would have been illegally signed. While many of these bills would have little effects (ie, renaming a post office), some would have quite notable effects if it was observed that they weren't actually in force. One of the more notable acts was the Bankruptcy Administration Improvement Act of 2020. This had multiple effects, among them extended the time of service of several temporary bankruptcy judges another 5 years. Having this law be illegal, would mean these judgeships were extended illegally, and the decisions these judges made would be null and void.

I do wonder if individuals and companies who did not obtain full payment from bankrupt individuals will now sue, saying the decision by these judges is null and void due to their illegal appointment.

[Sarcastr0]

An argument can be made

We don't do retroactive take backsies for Presidential actions, no matter how many idiot birthers said that.

I think you can figure why such a disruptive remedy is not on the table.

[Martinned]

I agree that it would be disruptive, but I don't necessarily agree that it would be a "remedy" in the first place. In fact, I find it difficult to see the flaw in Armchair's argument. A bill signed into law by someone who is not the president is simply not a law. A legal nullity. No need for any court judgment to make it so.

[Sarcastr0]

You would need court judgements to acknowledge what the law is. And they won't call it a legal nullity.

This is a solved problem at lower levels of official.

[Brett Bellmore]

I could definitely see these arguments being advanced in legal challenges at some point, if Trump is ultimately determined to actually be disqualified by Section 3.

I think the Court would probably dispose of it by some new version of the Enrolled bill doctrine. IOW, fingers in the ears, while going "Neener, neener, neener".

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t think such arguments would reach the Supreme Court.

This is a solved problem. The President being the officer doesn’t change anything materially.

[OtisAH]

“I think you can figure why such a disruptive remedy is not on the table.”

I will never be able to comprehend your unshakably high opinion of folks like Armchair.

[not guilty]

Does the phrase "de facto official" ring a bell, Armchair?

In any event, a Congressional enactment which is not signed or vetoed within ten days becomes law. Article I, § 7, ¶ 2.

[Martinned]

Ah, that's probably the solution, at least for Acts of Congress. That just leaves the other things Trump did during this period.

[Armchair]

It does not.

The Bill needs to be presented to the President for signing or veto. If the Bill was presented to someone who "was not" president, then it has not met the qualifications to become law.

In this case, the bill needed to be presented to Mike Pence for signing or vetoing. It was not.

[not guilty]

A unanimous SCOTUS opined in Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177, 180-81 (1995):

The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person's appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886). "The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office." 63A Am. Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees § 578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984) (footnote omitted). The doctrine has been relied upon by this Court in several cases involving challenges by criminal defendants to the authority of a judge who participated in some part of the proceedings leading to their conviction and sentence.

[Nelson]

Armchair was wrong? Shocker.

[Armchair]

Ryder v. United States is concerning the appointments clause. However the POTUS is not an appointed position. As such, it's questionable whether Ryder would apply to such a position, and such a question has not been addressed by the SCOTUS.

(Additionally, the Vacancy Act has substantially narrowed the decision of Ryder, but again, that applies to appointed positions).

[ReaderY]

I think there is fundamental disagreement about how to interpret Griffin’s case. I would limited its holding to what became the de facto officer doctrine, saying that the ordinary ministerial acts of a de facto officer are still valid even if the person is not qualified or not a de jure officer. Hence people married or divorced by Confederate officers remained married or divorced, adjudications of contracts remained valid, judgments remained enforceable, etc.

This is completely different from saying the person remains a fully de jure officer unless formally removed. It is also completely different from saying that the only way to declare a person disqualified is by an Act of Congress.

It simply recognizes a de facto situation. Confederste officers performed numerous ministerial acts that would cause chaos if completely undone. It did nothing more than address this problem.

[Armchair]

The Bill needs to be presented to the actual President.

The Bill in question was not presented to the “actual” President, it was presented to the illegal president.

It would be an interesting workaround, if Congress could just present the bill to "anyone" who wasn't president. The President can't veto the bill if he never sees it, then it would automatically become law. But that's not how it works.

[Martinned]

I would think that the president has actual knowledge of all bills passed by Congress, so I'm not sure why you think that workaround would work.

[Sarcastr0]

Armchair interprets the Constitution in a boneheaded way so that he can argue Trump has gotta be off the hook.

It's not very effective.

[Kazinski]

What about bills that would be come under a pocket veto?

There are probably a few of those.

[Krychek_2]

I would disagree with the premise of the question. I don't think committing a crime, including being part of an insurrection, is self executing in terms of automatically removing from office someone who is already there, if for no other reason because of the uncertainty it would create as to who, if anyone, is currently president. I think that whether or not someone is eligible for re-election is a separate question from whether they get to finish their current term, and removal from office before a term is over requires affirmative steps (though what steps may be unclear).

Tax protesters have raised the argument that Taft wasn't eligible to be president and therefore the Income Tax Act is null and void since he signed it. The courts have fairly soundly rejected that argument.

[Martinned]

Until the Vice-President takes the oath of office, they are definitely not able to exercise the powers of the presidency. That substantially reduces the scope for uncertainty. More generally, I don't think any of the consequences you discuss are bad enough to make the plain rule of the constitution somehow not the rule. Section 3 constrains holding office, not being elected to it. There doesn't seem to be an obvious way around that.

[Krychek_2]

So suppose the president engages in insurrection on January 6 and Mike Pence does not take the oath because he believes Trump is still president. You’re telling me we have no president at all for two weeks until Biden is sworn in?

Sorry, but that is simply an absurd result. Would you apply the same rule to felons not being allowed to vote — suppose I commit a felony a week before the election, in a jurisdiction in which a sloppily written statute states that “felons” are ineligible to vote. Despite not having been convicted, or possibly even arrested, purely by operation of law I’m supposed to stay home on election day? I don’t think that happens either, especially given just how many felonies there are.

The church in which I was raised took the position that if someone commits adultery, God himself dissolves the marriage and they are instantly divorced. I thought then, and continue to think, that that’s a fairly silly rule. You and Armchair sound about the same.

[Martinned]

You’re telling me we have no president at all for two weeks until Biden is sworn in?

I'm telling you that during that period there is no one able to exercise the powers of the presidency, no. I'm not sure why you'd think that's a disastrous situation. All other executive branch officials would still have their jobs, and would still be able to exercise the powers that come with those jobs. The world would keep turning and all would be fine, except that there would be a potential problem with bills that need vetoing. Everything else will keep.

Would you apply the same rule to felons not being allowed to vote — suppose I commit a felony a week before the election, in a jurisdiction in which a sloppily written statute states that “felons” are ineligible to vote. Despite not having been convicted, or possibly even arrested, purely by operation of law I’m supposed to stay home on election day?

That sounds like an excellent example of why it is important to draft laws carefully. (And why the right to vote should be unqualified except following a court ruling.)

[Krychek_2]

Everything will keep unless there's a crisis -- Putin decides to send nuclear missiles in our direction, for example. Or unless there is an emergency in which two department heads whose departments are both involved disagree as to how to solve it.

In such event, there needs to be someone with the authority to act as head of state.

There's a rule of construction that says that the Constitution will not be interpreted in such a way as to produce an absurd result. What you're proposing is an absurd result.

[Martinned]

It's only absurd because Americans are only used to a model with an elected emperor. The law governs how officials carry out their duties, including executive orders issued by presidents as/when they lawfully held their office. If Putin decides to nuke the US, the Secretary of Defence and the generals will know what to do.

That said, it is clearly right that it would be better to avoid having Presidents get involved in insurrections, and to sort out the resulting mess as quickly as possible.

[Krychek_2]

I don't know without looking it up if the Secretary of Defense has the authority to respond to a nuclear attack without presidential approval. I think the law may require presidential approval before nukes are launched. Though I suspect if that situation actually arose, the Defense Secretary and generals would probably ignore the law and fire back.

That said, in the current world in which crises do arise on short notice and actions sometimes need to be taken immediately, it is absurd to leave the US with that kind of a vulnerability. That might have worked a hundred years ago when true emergencies were few and far between. I know the saying that the Constitution is not a suicide pact tends to get overused, but in this situation I think it applies.

[Martinned]

I think the law may require presidential approval before nukes are launched.

If that's the law, then that's your answer.

That said, in the current world in which crises do arise on short notice and actions sometimes need to be taken immediately, it is absurd to leave the US with that kind of a vulnerability. That might have worked a hundred years ago when true emergencies were few and far between.

That sounds like an excellent reason for sorting out all sorts of things, including having a new president take office much quicker than 2.5 months after the election, setting clear rules for when the President is incapacitated or unreachable somehow, etc. There are much better ways to run a country than to simply put one guy in charge and hope for the best.

[Krychek_2]

All right, we do not disagree that there are far better ways to do things than the way the US does them. No dispute there. The question is whether, under the system that we currently have, the Constitution requires that the office of president be left vacant for days, weeks or months with all the problems that could create. Especially if the president denies being an insurrectionist and someone needs to make a determination as to whether he is. And I don't think it does. I think Trump remained president until January 20 whether or not someone later determines that he is an insurrectionist.

[Don Nico]

", the Secretary of Defence and the generals will know what to do."
The may know, BUT they are expressly not authorized to order the use of nuclear weapons.

[Martinned]

And presumably they will obey that law. So no legal problem that I can see.

[Krychek_2]

Well, at that point their two choices would be to either disobey the law and respond to the attack (and risk criminal prosecution later), or stand idly by and allow Russian nukes to incinerate Manhattan.

Like I said below, your proposed solutions are so stupid you must be a libertarian.

[Don Nico]

No legal problem, just an existential problem.

[Krayt]

As with the current situation, who decides he isn't the president anymore?

If it were obvious, I have a problem believing Pence would have a problem with it.

If it were not obvious, it's just more weasel behavior.

[Randal]

If the President died suddenly and the VP refused to get sworn in, you'd have the same problem.

You're just making up theoretical problems at this point. It's always possible to do that, and a fun Internet pastime. But not particularly meaningful.

[Krychek_2]

If the president died suddenly and the VP refused to be sworn in, the cabinet would invoke the 25th Amendment and the House Speaker would become acting president. Hopefully there would be no emergencies in the meantime.

[Randal]

Well then there's your answer.

[Krychek_2]

The answer to which question?

[Noscitur a sociis]

To the extent the 25the amendment provides a solution in the case of a VP who refuses to replace dead president, it also provides one for a VP who refuses to replace an insurrectionist.

[Krychek_2]

Except that it's not clear that the president is an insurrectionist, and the president isn't voluntarily leaving office. Somebody has to decide that. Would you allow the cabinet to make that determination as well?

[Martinned]

Any single cabinet member would presumably have standing to seek a declaratory judgment in federal court saying that the President has forfeited his office. After all, this legal question would have clear implications for how the cabinet member exercises their office, thus satisfying the standing requirement. (right?)

[Randal]

Except that it’s not clear that the president is an insurrectionist, and the president isn’t voluntarily leaving office.

That’s hardly the most concerning scenario involving the 25th amendment. The problems with 14/3 pale in comparison.

[Krychek_2]

Martinned, your proposed solutions are so unrealistic, and so unworkable, that I'm beginning to wonder if you are a libertarian.

[Brett Bellmore]

The 25th amendment is easily invoked, but if invoked, the President need merely dispute his incapacity to resume office. At that point if the cabinet continue to assert that he's incapacitated, it goes to Congress.

They then have a maximum of three weeks to confirm by a 2/3 vote of BOTH chambers the claim of incapacity, or else he's back in power, and the cabinet is fired.

It's HARDER to use the 25th amendment than to impeach. Not easier.

[Zarniwoop]

Brett correctly notes:

It’s HARDER to use the 25th amendment than to impeach. Not easier.

Yep, for sound purpose and structure reasons.

I was rolling my eyeballs right out of my head for years, every time someone suggested using the 25th Amd against Trump.

It's a fine example of "your sense of outrage doesn't trump [rimshot] the actual Constitution".

[Krayt]

Iirc if the pres dies, "the vp shall become president", it's instantaneous amd automatic, and doesn't even require taking the oath, though Johnson did anyway.

[Mr. Bumble]

Because he's already taken a similar oath on becoming VP?

[Martinned]

That's why I consistently referred to exercising the powers of the president.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation (...)

To my knowledge, the OLC has consistently taken the view that a new president becomes president at 12.00 noon by automatic operation of the law, but needs to take the oath before he can actually do anything. I see no reason why it would be different for a VP who becomes president.

[John F. Carr]

The de facto officer doctrine has been inconsistently applied, but I am certain the courts would ratify Trump's last acts. Consider the alternative:

In January, 2029 somebody discovers that Joe Biden is ineligible. Now every bill he signed is not a law. Eight years of expenditures under his presidency were illegal and need to be clawed back. That means federal judges have not been paid, contrary to the constitution. Every prosecution affected by a change in law is called into question.

The Supreme Court is unlikely to adopt such a rule.

There was a case during the Obama presidency where a member of the military refused to obey orders because they came from an illegitimate president, not a natural born citzen. The court did not even reach the birther issue. He had to obey orders whether or not Obama was eligible to be president.

[Krayt]

I would like to think a Congress, regardless of party, would at least addrsss the pay issue by rubber stamping it.

All other things, at least as ongoing concerns from invalid laws, well, the power brokers will light up like a kid at 6 am on Dec. 25 upon hearing the jing jing of a bike bell.

[Krayt]

There was a case during the Obama presidency where a member of the military refused to obey orders because they came from an illegitimate president, not a natural born citzen. The court did not even reach the birther issue. He had to obey orders whether or not Obama was eligible to be president

Like all military command levels de-authorize, down to the last sarge ordering you to clean the head with a toothbrush.

Like a poorly-written Hollywood show, where killing the top vampire kills all the others.

Like a poorly-written Hollywood show, where killing the too zombie kills all the others.

Like a poorly-written Hollywood science fiction movie, where killing the command ship kills all the droids all over the planet.

[Armchair]

"The de facto officer doctrine has been inconsistently applied, but I am certain the courts would ratify Trump’s last acts. Consider the alternative"

It certainly a possibility. But consider a different alternative. On January 8th, SCOTUS justice Sotomayor suddenly passes away. Trump is president (with a 51 seat advantage in the US Senate), but only for the next 12 days. A nomination and appointment is rushed through, before a Democrat can take office.

What then?

[Sarcastr0]

What even is the point of your increasingly overdetermined hypothetical by now?

[ReaderY]

There is case law from the post Civil War era that the actions of a disqualified person are nonetheless legally effective. People who married or divorced under the Confederacy remained married or divorced following the Civil War, for example.

I suspect this would apply here.

There might be exceptions if the pardon itself was a direct part of a criminal scheme. For example, if Trump issued a pardon in exchange for a bribe, then perhaps the pardon becomes invalid.

[John F. Carr]

In my opinion, a pardon obtained by a bribe is still valid. Marc Rich's pardon was obtained under suspicious circumstances and to my knowledge the validity of the pardon was never seriously doubted. Do we want a court to inquire into Clinton's motives in granting the pardon in a case to which Clinton is not a party?

A closer case was featured in the Alistair MacLean novel The Golden Gate. The villain took the President hostage on the Golden Gate Bridge and threatened to blow up both of them unless he got ransom and a pardon from the captive president. That is more like duress, which is a defense known to the common law when the constitution was written.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I wouldn’t call the Rich pardon suspicious. He and his wife were campaign contributors but (unlike with Trump pardons) you can’t connect his donations to any favors. Also he had a lot of heavy hitters urging a pardon due to his philanthropy and support of Israel.

[Noscitur a sociis]

.

you can’t connect his donations to any favors.

Uh…

[Dan Schiavetta]

If Rich had not been a contributor, it would be a pretty clear case of a pardon being proper.

But because he was . . . As with so many other things, Clinton was being criticized for things that others get away with and even boast about. Trump is above the law. Clinton was below it.

[grb]

captcrisis is right, Marc Rich (and his faifthful ex-wife) were able to line-up a dream tream of prominent figures who provided written pleas for his pardon. These included:

1. Ehud Barak, then Prime Minister of Israel
2. Abraham Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League
3. Shlomo Ben-Ami, Israel's former foreign minister
4. Rabbi Irving Greenberg, chairman of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council
5. Shabtai Shavit, former Mossad chief
6. Yossi Beilin, Justice Minister of Israel
7. Ehug Olmert. Mayor of Jeruselm
8. Shimon Peres, former Prime Minister of Israel
9. Zubin Mehta, of the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra
10. King Juan Carlos I of Spain

Many more well-known people were included in the pardon package, though some later said they praised Rich in writing without knowing the intended purpose. Barak pressed hard and Clinton owed him - both for the political risks the Israeli leader took in talks with the Palestinians (which failed of course) and because Clinton couldn't give him the pardon he really wanted, Jonathan Pollard. I remember Clinton floating a trial ballon on a Pollard pardon and having it shot-down by a brutal angry response from the U.S. intelligence community. There were threats of mass resignations.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Many more well-known people were included "

But you made sure to include all the Jews I guess.

Maybe the King is a Converso though.

[grb]

Bob from Ohio : But you made sure to include all the Jews I guess.

1. I listed the most promenient people who appealed to Clinton for Rich.

2. Most of the others (unlisted) were Jewish as well, given Rich's philanthropy in Israel and some (never specified) assistence he gave to Mossad and the Jewish state.

3. The most prominent Gentile in the pardon package was Carlos of Spain (who made my list).

[Dan Schiavetta]

By contrast, Clinton's successor, George W. Bush, didn't even know who Pollard was.

From a 2003 press conference:

Q Mr. President, why do you expect any government to set free Palestinian prisoners while you don't order to set free the Israeli civilian, Jonathan Pollard?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, well, I said very clearly at the press conference with Prime Minister Abbas, I don't expect anybody to release somebody from prison who will go kill somebody. That doesn't make any sense. I mean, if we're trying to fight off terror, and we're interested in a peaceful settlement, it doesn't make any sense to release somebody who is going to get out of prison and start killing.

[Noscitur a sociis]

And if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

The theory is that the pardon was the quid for the campaign donation quo. It's not necessarily true, but the fact that the Riches didn't get any other benefits isn't exculpatory!

[grb]

Noscitur a sociis : “The theory is that the pardon was the quid for the campaign donation quo”

Did the money play a part? Of course; that’s modern American politics. I don’t doubt Armand Hammer’s lifetime of donating to the GOP played a role in his pardon from GHW Bush, whatever the baking soda king’s deeds in serving as an emissary to the Soviet Union.

But it doesn’t hurt to remember that Denise Rich was a Democratic contributor both during her marrage to Marc and following their divorce, continually giving to causes & pols long before and long after the pardon push. And that push came eight years after the couple’s bitter divorce, despite which she led the effort (bless her heart – I doubt my Ex would).

All in all, it’s not the most persuasive case for a quid pro quo charge, with the stream of money from Denise a Heraclitean river extending deep into the past and well-off into the future from the brief pardon toe-dip of 2001.

It is a persuasive case for the power of money though. No matter how many world leaders, celebrities and luminaries she lined-up to plead Marc’s case, her history of campaign donations got her the hearing. But that’s modern American politics too.

[Voize]

 

The most notable of which, is that from January 7th, 2021 to January 20th, 2021, Trump was “illegally president”.

In Griffin's case, 11 F. Cas. 7 (C.C.D.Va. 1869) Samuel Chase wrote that Section 3 would not automatically remove an officer possessed of an office at the time the amendment came into force. The reasoning given was

The whole spirit of the federal constitution is against ex post facto laws, or bills of attainder in form of trials by jury, and denies to the legislature power to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
A provision which at once without trial deprives a whole class of persons of offices held by them, for cause, however grave, is inconsistent with this spirit and general purpose, and therefore no such construction can be given the third clause of the fourteenth amendment.

The argument, that additional process would be needed to deprive someone of an office they already held ("offices held by them"), would apply to Trump between Jan 6 and Jan 20 but not to his candidacy for office in 2024.

[Armchair]

But in this case, it was decided that section 3 was not self-executing (and Congress later passed the enforcement acts for appropriate legislation to execute Section 3).

If Section 3 isn't self-executing, it requires Federal action (via the enforcement acts) in order to declare an individual disqualified.

[Voize]

Chase wrote (emphasis added)

Legislation by congress was necessary to give effect to the prohibition [against holding office] by providing for such removal.

Again it is limited to removal from an already occupied office.

[ReaderY]

I think there is fundamental disagreement about how to interpret Griffin’s case. I would limited its holding to saying that the ordinary ministerial acts of a de facto officer are still valid even if the person is not qualified or not a de jure officer. Hence people married or divorced by Confederate officers remained married or divorced, adjudications of contracts remained valid, judgments remained enforceable, etc.

This is completely different from saying the person remains a fully de jure officer unless formally removed. It is also completely different from saying that the only way to declare a person disqualified is by an Act of Congress.

It simply recognizes a de facto situation. Confederste officers performed numerous ministerial acts that would cause chaos if completely undone. It did nothing more than address this problem.

[ReaderY]

That is, what remains from Griffin’s case is what became the de facto officer doctrine.

[Voize]

De facto officer is a common law equitable doctrine, it didn't originate with Griffin's Case. That is probably why many readers are comfortable with it among the several theories Chase discussed, but I think you have it backwards identifying de facto officer as "the holding" in this case. Once Chase had determined that the judge was not removed from office he had no occasion to reach the de facto question so any pronouncements on it are dicta.

Now, "dicta" doesn't mean "wrong", and either argument could be used with respect to Trump just as they were applied to Judge Sheffey, but it remains that when AL asserted that section 3 being self-executing would have automatically removed Trump from office he was contradicting the conclusion of a Supreme Court justice a century and a half ago.

[Commenter_XY]

And then there was one....Bye Felecia Claudine.

Yes, the second of The Three Elite Stooges (Gay) has fallen. Unsurprisingly, the race card was played on her way out the door....to a cushy 900K/year annual professorship. We'll see how long that lasts; there's more on the growing number of documented instances of plagiarism by Claudine Gay that could make having an academic position at Harvard untenable. How do you keep a serial plagiarist on staff is a question that might be asked in the not so distant future.

I think Bill Ackman summarized quite nicely in his essay on X (fka Twitter) yesterday. Pretty good read. He is right about the canary, btw.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Commenter_XY, any commentary to offer on the advantages of MAGA scalping raids?

Your comment seethes with anger, not only directed at Gay, but at Harvard, and I suppose at something larger than Harvard. Why not detail where that comes from, to encourage a more forthright approach to fixing whatever problem you think you see?

[Brett Bellmore]

What's wrong with scalping raids, if the subjects of them are eminently deserving?

[Krychek_2]

Well, lynch mobs occasionally lynched someone who actually had it coming, but that doesn't mean lynch mobs are a good thing.

[Randal]

It's just cancel culture, which, as predicted, you guys think is great and wonderful when it's directed at libs.

[Nige]

Predicted? They've always been like this. Calling them hypocrites doesn't do it justice. Cyncism is their abiding principle.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Not allowing academic plagiarism is cancel culture?

I thought that wasn't a thing anyway.

[Randal]

lol plagiarism

[Commenter_XY]

Randal, tell that to the Harvard students who have filed a complaint regarding how Claudine Gay has been treated wrt plagiarism, versus students.

And just how many Harvard students were personally expelled by Claudine Gay for honor code violations, and plagiarism. Hypocrisy clings to Harvard like the stench of a rotting corpse, for as along as Claudine Gay is there in any professional capacity.

[Randal]

Uh huh. You and tiny pianist are suddenly concerned with the very concerning issue of... plagiarism.

I repeat: lol

[Mr. Bumble]

So rules are for the little people?

[Nige]

Well, you are very very little people, but I don't think you care about rules at all.

[David Nieporent]

.

And just how many Harvard students were personally expelled by Claudine Gay for honor code violations, and plagiarism.

I mean, she was only prez for 6 months, so probably not very many.

[Commenter_XY]

Ah, but she was a Department Head before that David, no?

[Don Nico]

She was Dean of Arts and Sciences.

[Nige]

Wow this really is turning into a major crime wave.

[Nige]

Right wing accusations of plagiarism? What a laugh. Any pretext for cancelling a black woman.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How do you clingers feel about Prof. Volokh's departure from UCLA? How much of a factor was his blog's bigotry? How much should it have been?

[ThePublius]

Where do you get this "MAGA scalping raids" stuff? You think Gay's resignation was the sole work of this supposed MAGA crowd? Have you looked into this, where it came from, who was responsible for researching, reporting, etc.? No, I doubt it. What about Ackman? Is he a member of MAGA? How about the NY Post, who contacted Harvard in October over Gay's plagiarism, and was threatened by their lawyers? How about Stefanick?

I know, you got the"scalping" thing from the AP, who just stealth-edited their piece describing this as scalping, and scalping as something white settlers did to native Americans! (Holy cow.)

BTW, there is no such organization, coalition, party, or any other entity called MAGA, it's an invention of the left and Dems to tar supporters of Trump.

[apedad]

" . . . it’s an invention of the left and Dems to tar supporters of Trump."

But....what about the MAGA hats?!?

Here's a unisex-adult Maga Trump hat you can order: https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0C9PKMLS4/reasonmagazinea-20/

[ThePublius]

Yea, so what? Ha, ha. It was a campaign slogan, stupid! That doesn't make it a party, an organization, a coalition, or anything else, any more than any other campaign's slogans constitute an organization, a coalition, or anything else. Jeez!

Here's the Biden/Harris 2024 merchandise website:
https://shop.joebiden.com/?utm_source=om2023_ads_gs_260423_purchase_dd_us_all_EXM&utm_campaign=exm&utm_medium=ads&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiAy9msBhD0ARIsANbk0A__jdkHdLVFs5J43Cr4R0Inh3W9TEkUHRJ5D3-TPJ1xYsV3l81rwfEaAl6xEALw_wcB

[apedad]

Well MAGA certainly wasn't "an invention of the left and Dems to tar supporters of Trump.”

[ThePublius]

The continued use of the term to describe a group of people and smear them certainly is. KJP has even been warned against continuing to use that term in press briefings as a violation of the Hatch act (and has violated that warning, too).

MAGA was a campaign slogan. Using it to refer to Trump supporters in a usually derogatory way is a Dem slur.

[Bob from Ohio]

" violation of the Hatch act"

Applying the Hatch Act to White House staff is stupid. Its for civil servants.

[apedad]

So we can't use MAGA because it's a slur but it's ok for you to call people stupid like you did above.

Got it.

[Randal]

Trump calls his supporters MAGA to this day. Do you think he knows he's slurring them?

[Nige]

So Trump's own slogan and the slogan embraced wholeheartedly by his supporters as a tribal identifier is now a slur?

Yeah, these are the people whose claims to be worried about honesty and integrity in any field at all deserve to be treated seriously.

[Nige]

'no such organization, coalition, party, or any other entity called MAGA'

MAGA? Never heard if it.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You're making them sound like "Antifa".

[Nige]

If Biden had come up with the slogan and its acronym became synonymous with his supporters it would sound like that, but he didn't and it doesn't, and you should have more self-regard.

[Nelson]

No. "Antifa" (in the real world) is a general term like "militia", which encompasses a wide variety of groups loosely connected by a few common denominators. It isn't a monolithic group.

MAGA is specifically composed of Trump supporters. You can find socialist and capitalist Antifa groups, but you can't find pro-Trump and anti-Trump MAGA adherents.

So not at all like Antifa.

[SimonP]

What about Ackman? Is he a member of MAGA?

It may surprise you, Pubs, to learn that there are many wealthy, intelligent, and fundamentally corrupt people who view MAGA as a useful tool for achieving their federal policy goals of deregulation and cutting taxes. They're the ones funding Trump's PAC and they're playing you.

Like Vivek, who you like so much. Some kid gets rich running a hedge fund and you want to make him president. He mouths some sufficiently offensive shit that gets you horny, and you're in. These people all think people like you are total morons.

[David Nieporent]

.

I know, you got the”scalping” thing from the AP, who just stealth-edited their piece describing this as scalping, and scalping as something white settlers did to native Americans! (Holy cow.)

Um, Christopher Rufo was the one who triumphantly tweeted SCALPED! (though he spelled it wrong) when Gay resigned.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Your comment seethes with anger

Yours seethes with substanceless, "Look, a squirrel!" stupidity.

[John F. Carr]

The third president, Sally Kornbluth of MIT, sent an email to the school community yesterday promising that MIT professors and bureaucrats would talk about how to make things better. I did not see anything of substance. "However, recent events have spurred some frustration in the community with respect to the timeliness, accountability, and transparency of our disciplinary system." Maybe she will reform what needs to be reformed. Maybe she will play out the clock, waiting for people to stop caring.

[Commenter_XY]

John F Carr, I have been watching events at MIT with interest. From the start, they had a somewhat different tone. Not sure Kornbluth survives, though. It will really depend on whether she drinks the DEI kool-Aid, or vomits it out.

[Zarniwoop]

as an MIT alum (class'O'91, and still actively involved with my former living group) I've been keeping my ear to the community ... not a whole lot of energy that I hear for her ouster. There's some, but I'd put $0.22 on her riding this out.

[Don Nico]

I'd even put $2.22 on her riding this out.
I don't hear rumblings that she has to go.

[Commenter_XY]

From the start, MIT handled this a little differently. The tone seemed different, the vibe seemed different. I have wondered what was different, and why? Was it MIT culture? Was it MIT leadership? Was it MIT alumni? I wonder if there is something to be learned from that.

[Zarniwoop]

My off-the-cuff answer is “it’s not science or engineering. We deal with the real world, not your political foibles. That’s why we’re cooler that that little liberal arts college just up Mass Ave.”

Off the cuff, but also the way a lot of MIT folks feel.

Probably also why there have been multiple US Presidents from Hahvahd, and none from MIT. I guess there are plusses and minuses of being actually smart, as opposed to buying your way into a legacy school.

[Commenter_XY]

You sound like one of my children, an engineer. LOL! = it is not science or engineering

[Nige]

It's worrying isn't it, better get more billionaires to put pressure on them and fund some more ratfucks.

[Nige]

The examples of 'plagiarism' are laughable.

She wasn't in an academic position, she was an administrator.

You loved going after her because she was a black woman in high position.

[Frank Drackman]

Just like you love going after Judge Thomas (I mean besides his BBD)

[David Nieporent]

.

She wasn’t in an academic position, she was an administrator.

An administrator whose job did include overseeing academic honesty. How could she ever approve the termination of a professor, or the discipline of a student, who plagiarized if she herself was guilty of that?

[Nige]

If she was guilty of it.

[Don Nico]

"She wasn’t in an academic position, she was an administrator."
Wrong. She remained a tenured full professor in the faculty of Arts and Sciences. She previously was Dean of that Faculty, which is an academic position. As such she should have set a good example for careful and responsible scholarship. She had failed at that from her days as a graduate student.
As for your race card, flush it down the toilet.

[Sarcastr0]

Don, you work in academia, you know you’re setting a double standard.

This is not idea theft.

Doesn’t mean it’s a good practice, but you’re pretending a misdemeanor is a felony.

Maybe consequences should be higher, but this is a new level of response beyond what's expected for what she did. Heck, what she did was nigh un-catchable 10 years ago.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Enjoy the celebration concerning former Pres. Gay's scalp. Just as I will enjoy it when Israel is held accountable for its disgusting, lethal, immoral right-wing belligerence . . . and you will be crying like a baby, begging better Americans to reconsider removal of the support on which Israel relies.

(Were you as bothered by Justice Gorsuch's plagiarism, you bigoted, worthless, gullible right-wing stain? Or this this just another vivid example of your unprincipled partisan polemics on the wrong side of history, the weaker side at the modern marketplace of ideas, and the losing side of the glorious American culture war?)

[IAdmitIAmCrazy]

As a leftie, I used to be quite critical of David French's opinions. It is obvious that his piece in today's NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/04/opinion/the-case-for-disqualifying-trump-is-strong.html) is from a partisan position, yet that doesn't disqualify his arguments. If the textualist version of originalism is a valid approach — Godfather Nino assured us that it is, yet it is a big if — like it or not, even a comparatively lowly Secretary of State should be able to take decisions on the basis of the 14th Amendment. Again, I doubt Section 3's POLITICAL wisdom, but LEGALLY there is a sound case for its self-execution. What people tend to disregard is that public officials, including elected partisan hacks, are bound by law. Far too often, when it is convenient, people tend to take it for granted that partisans will violate the law anyway — of course, only the other side's officials.
If there is a positive aspect of the whole Jan 6 brouhaha, it is that quite a few Republican officials felt bound by the law, not by misguided loyalty. I am afraid to put it so bluntly: I doubt that far too many in this thread sacrifice their INTELLECTUAL HONESTY for the loyalty to an insurrectionist cult leader.

[ThePublius]

"INTELLECTUAL HONESTY for the loyalty to an insurrectionist cult leader."

That's a funny juxtaposition, unintentional I'm sure.

So, supporters of Trump are members of a cult.
Trump committed insurrection.
What else?

[IAdmitIAmCrazy]

What else? David French had quite a bit to say. Why not address that?
My guess: you are unable to.

[Bob from Ohio]

"As a leftie, I used to be quite critical of David French’s opinions" but now he spouts lefty opinions so I agree with him.

[Nige]

Person agree with opnion they agree with! MAGA Intellectual Ethics Police call foul!

[Sarcastr0]

Bob confused an opinion with a person.

Unsurprising.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I haven't read David French's piece, but respect for the rule of law is (or at least was) most definitely not a "lefty" position.

[IAdmitIAmCrazy]

Bob, I provided a link to David French's piece which I thought impressive enough not to need any additional consideration on my part. Your intellectual LAZINESS didn't allow you to pick up a single of French's arguments to show why he is wrong, and why — by consequence — my assessment of French's opinions changed because he bought in to "lefty" arguments.
It is a recurrent phenomenon on all sides to substitute sweeping 240 character general assertions for intellectual honest dissection of specific arguments.
It's a free discussion section, and everybody is free to expose his incapacity for sincere discussions at will. I for one would be careful to show my ineptitudes so publicly.

[Dr. Ed 2]

David French never really came back from Iraq.

[Bob from Ohio]

He was just a JAG, but he treats it like he stormed Omaha Beach.

[Sarcastr0]

Sounds like Ed and Bob need to get together to workshop their ad hominems against French.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Baude & Paulsen's argument that section 3 was self-executing was thorough and quite convincing.

[ThePublius]

Why is Vivek Ramaswamy polling so poorly? I like him, and if I thought he could win I would vote for him over Trump. But he clearly can't. He's smart, very articulate, etc. Curious, to me.

[Nelson]

Because he dials the rhetoric and the crazy up to 11. I keep forgetting he is still running because the process usually weeds out the unserious people by now.

[ThePublius]

That's interesting. I think he's pretty good and I haven't heard anything from him that I thought was crazy. Can you help me out, maybe an example?

[Martinned]

How about using the Cold War as an example of how to organise a society? https://twitter.com/VivekGRamaswamy/status/1742713518959308805

[ThePublius]

I disagree with your characterization of his short tweet, but I agree with the analogy he draws. I think it's spot on, and probably resonates with many people.

[SimonP]

(This means that you are one of the crazy people, Pubs.)

[Guten]

Dr. Strangelove

[Martinned]

Of course! Why wouldn't we want a war of every man against every man all the time? Mutually assured destruction FTW!

[Dan Schiavetta]

"Because he dials the rhetoric and the crazy up to 11. I keep forgetting he is still running because the process usually weeds out the unserious people by now."

Odd someone can say that with a straight face, in the age of Trump.

[Nelson]

Fair point. Trump is at least 20.

[apedad]

Because "Vivek Ramaswamy" won't fly in a country/western song or in Tennessippi.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

You can rhyme it with Mommy. Or salami.

[SimonP]

He's a creep and people can sense that he's unserious. Just trying to put a shine on the Trump turd.

Also, his call to boycott primaries where Trump is disqualified from running very clearly signaled that he's not running to win. He's running to help Trump win.

VP? Hard to say. Trump wants a sycophant, but I get the sense that Trump would find Viv's tendency to attract attention to himself a liability.

[Moderation4ever]

I have to agree that Trump would not want a VP that would overshine himself. I not sure that Vivek Ramaswamy can be counted on to be as subservient as is necessary. VR's ego seem to be in the same size group as Trump's.

[grb]

I think the perfect veep for Trump has to be some creature constructed from decaying body parts in Dr. Frankenstein’s lab. He’ll have to be as obedient, abject, and self-effacing as a well-beaten timid dog. He’ll need to have such skill with a flatterer’s tongue as a concert pianist his craft. He must be obsequiously stupid whenever his boss’s mental limitations require it (which is most of the time). And he must be invisible standing against the wallpaper except when Trump uses him for sport.

In short, Mike Pence. Don’t ya think Trump sometimes regrets cheering while a rioting mob hunted Pence down to kill him?

[Don Nico]

Because he is an obnoxious blowhard.

[Bob from Ohio]

Biden got elected so that's not it.

[Nelson]

Biden's a lot of things, but that's not one of them.

[ReaderY]

In the Maine Trump disqualification case, Trump has filed an administrative appeal with the Maine Superior Court. Judicial review of final administrative actions in Maine appears to be handled under a deferential abuse of discretion standard.

My suggestion to the trial court would be, if permitted under Maine law, to conduct a full evidentiary hearing and provide a decision under both the deferential administrative-review standard and a de novo standard.

I think it’s highly questionable whether an administrative procedure is adequate process in a case like this. I think it would be prudent for a judge in a case like this to give full judicial review and a decision under a de novo standard (where the burden of proof benefits Trump) in addition to the deferential administrative-review standard (where the administrator is presumed to have acted correctly and Trump bears the burden of proof). This would cover the possibility appelate courts will consider a mere administrative review inadequate process.

While the issues appelate courts have grappled with have tended to be purely legal, the fact of the matter is Trump has vigorously contested the factual claims of those seeking to disqualify him. In the Colorado case, the trial judge found against Trump on the disputed factual claims. But Trump might perhaps prevail before a Maine judge. Whether he will or not, he may well have a constitutional right to try.

[Martinned]

I agree that an evidentiary hearing would be a good idea, pragmatically. But reasoning from first principles I don't think a whole lot of process is due. Running for President is not a property right or a civil liberty of some sort. Or, to put it another way, a decision that someone cannot run for President only affects their life, liberty, or property with considerable legal creativity.

[ReaderY]

I’ve consistently argued that state legislatures have very broad powers to decide how electors get appointed. They can appoint them themselves, they can leave it entirely to citizens, or they can use a hybrid approach whereby citizens make the decision but the legislature imposes rules for who is allowed on the state’s ballot.

But I think the 14th Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses temper state legislatures’ power in this regard, as in any other. If state legislatures adopt a hybrid approach of a citizen decision subject to rules, then the rules can’t violate Equal Protection, are subject to notice and an opportunity to be heard, etc.

If we interpret the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision as incorporating Section 3 into the Colorado Election Code and applying it to Presidential candidates as a matter of Colorado law, I think this satisfies Due Process, because I think people are on notice that they can’t engage in insurections without consequences.

But nonetheless, Due Process requires fair hearings in applying the rules and resolving disputes about them.

I would be inclined to err on the side of requiring a judicial decision rather than a purely administrative one. Historically, the common law writ of quo warranto was used to determine qualifications to an elective office in a proceeding in civil court. And although there doesn’t have to be any citizen election for President - the state legislature could just appoint the electors itself - once it decides to have one I think the traditional rules apply. Also, I think the subject-matter here is more in the nature of a traditionally judicial decision than a traditionally administrative one. It’s not a simple factual question like age.

[ReaderY]

Also, I think Bush v. Gore has this effect. Although I think it was a bad decision, nonetheless it stands for the proposition that if a state legislature uses a popular election as a means of deciding how to appoint its electors, then its election rules become subject to heightened Due Process and Equal Protection considerations, even though the rights involved are only granted by state law and not by the Constitution.

[Martinned]

Sure, but we were promised that Bush v. Gore wasn't a precedent for anything.

Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That's an interesting point. I suppose if a state legislature would decide that no African-American candidates could appear on the Presidential ballot, that would be clearly unconstitutional, on similar grounds.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

Agreed. If they can’t do it for mayor of Bar Harbor, they can’t do it for president; and for the same reason.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

Since he is being kept off the Maine ballot under the authority of the people and law of Maine, and since the primary interest harmed is not his by everyone else's, I should hope that Maine law provides for a rigorous proceeding and high standards of proof, not dissimilar to those used in criminal trials. It's not just Donald Trump who's on trial, the Republic's ability to elect whom it will is on trial. The presidency is not Trump's property; it is *our* property.

I should hope that whatever Main law explicitly says, the judge in question would recognize the case as sui generis, and apply a higher standard. And that would be considered obedience, and not disobedience, to the law.

Of course, it would be best if Maine's legislators would simply say that Section 3 isn't a basis for ballot exclusion, and leave it to the electorate to determine.

[not guilty]

The Maine Secretary of State, citing Douglas v. Bd. of Trustees of Me. State Retirement Sys., 669 A.2d 177, 179 (Me. 1996), opined that the usual standard in an Maine APA proceeding is preponderance of the evidence. https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/43d0ba1e-a980-406b-b36d-baaac72de633.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_10&itid=lk_inline_manual_5

Are you suggesting that she should have applied a more stringent standard, cut from whole cloth?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bellows has also been hit with an ethics complaint.

She made her decision under the Maine Administrative Procedures Act and not the Federal or Maine rules of evidence. Well the APA requires her to recuse herself for conflict of evidence because she was a Biden elector in the 2020 election. It does...

See: https://www.themainewire.com/2024/01/bellows-hit-with-ethics-complaint-soboleski-says-secretary-violated-maine-law-by-failing-to-recuse-from-trump-case/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is the Maine Wire one of those separatist, crank right-wing publications that attract and flatter the downscale culture war losers of the clingerverse -- much like the Volokh Conspiracy?

[Frank Drackman]

No

[David Nieporent]

Dr. Ed isn't smart enough to know this, but that's not a conflict of interest. Her being a Biden elector in the 2024 election could be. But the 2020 election is over and she has no interest of any sort in it.

[Frank Drackman]

If you're so smart....(Fargo Season 5 Reference)
not to be taken as a threat, just a recommendation for one of the best episodes ever, way better than that Chris Rock abortion of a season.

[John F. Carr]

The Biden administration has sued Texas to block Texas' new immigration enforcement law. This follows a previous suit by private parties last month. While I have not yet read the complaint, and no answer or motion to dismiss has been filed, I am confident that the courts will find some of the state law to be unconstitutional or preempted by federal law. Texas doesn't get to deport people, for example.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68134300/united-states-v-texas/

The lawsuit is filed in Austin. That is both a legitimate division, containing the state capital, and a friendly division for the federal government.

[John F. Carr]

Federal government lawyers are so afraid of the word "alien" that they are not willing to use it even when directly quoting statutes and court opinions.

[Dan Schiavetta]

They don’t say “negress” or “mental defectives” either.

[Dr. Ed 2]

NAACP???

[Nelson]

Yes, an organization with an outdated name that they retain is somehow proof of ... something.

[Krayt]

Retain it as a reminder of the times they came from so nobody forgets. Same for UNCF. These prove the opposite of what Doc was trying to say.

[Frank Drackman]

"Colored People", "People of Color", what's the Difference?

[Michael P]

"Alien" does not mean the same thing as "noncitizen".

[apedad]

The Supreme Court and the Biden Administration disagree with you.

DOJ: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/book/file/1415216/download

Barton v. Barr: This opinion uses the term “noncitizen” as equivalent to the statutory term “alien.” See 8 U. S. C. §1101(a)(3).

[Bwaaah]

Michael P said: "'Alien' does not mean the same thing as 'noncitizen'."

Nowhere does the material cited contradict what Michael P said. If you believe it does, please be more specific in your citation. (Yes, the Biden Administration, and many people particularly on the left, don't like the word "alien.")

[Mr. Bumble]

What will the first visitors from outer space be referred as?

[Brett Bellmore]

That obviously depends on whether they enter through customs.

[Mr. Bumble]

Asylum seekers escaping the Borg?

[Michael P]

Customs is for your stuff, border control is for sentient beings. They won't have passports from a visa-waiver country, or previously approved entry visas, so they must be non-documented non-U.S. citizens, and the Biden administration will have forced the use of a discriminatory term on billions of humans and however many non-human sentient beings of non-documented status and non-Solar System origin.

[John F. Carr]

There can't be many actively enforced laws left with those terms in the text.

[Mr. Bumble]

What purpose do not actively enforced laws serve?
Maybe time to start cleaning up the laws; federal, state and local.

[John F. Carr]

It is hard to repeal old laws, even unenforceable laws. One of my state legislators wanted to repeal a bunch of no longer enforceable laws and couldn't get the bill passed. It failed largely because it repealed a statute banning abortion. The Catholic Church objected. It wanted an unforceable law on the books as a moral signal. This was close to 20 years ago when the Church was more influential, Roe was settled law, and abortion was not as much of a sacrament of the left. Another law she wanted to get rid of banned vagrancy.

Lawmakers did modernize politically incorrect language, like replacing "retarded" with something along the lines of "developmentally challenged." Probably not exactly that.

[bernard11]

So the Fifth Circuit has decided that Texas can outlaw any medical procedure it wants, no matter what, unless EMTALA specifically lists it.

Why is Texas (and the Fifth Circuit) trying to kill women who have life-threatening problems with their pregnancies? What kind of ghouls are these people?

[LawTalkingGuy]

In a just world the judges, officials, legislators, and others who take these extreme positions should have to take shifts personally giving the news to women and their families in difficult situations. When doctors have to make a tough call or something went wrong they have to talk to the patient and their families. When lawyers do it they get to hide behind filings. It's fundamentally cowardly.

[SimonP]

It is genuinely hard for me to figure. Are pro-life people pro-maternal death? Are they in favor of forcing women to carry non-viable fetuses to term?

The political answer to most of these cases is to say: Well, look, the law has this narrow exception for abortions when necessary to save the life of the mother. And they don't want to provide for more flexibility or a broader exception, because they don't want these exceptions to be "abused" by people exaggerating the risks of a particular pregnancy or aborting fetuses that could go on to live for at least a short time, albeit being significantly disabled or suffering or less-than-aware of their surroundings.

But it's plain that the way these laws are drafted and enforced, and given doctors' reluctance to put themselves at legal risk, are making that narrow exception for the "life of the mother" unworkable. Women will die, under this standard. Non-viable fetuses will be carried to term, unless they bring their mothers to death's door first. Instead of the specter of "post-birth abortions," women will give birth to babies who then immediately die from their inborn defects.

That is loss and trauma that pro-life people are apparently in favor of, because they will do nothing to clarify the law to prevent it. And I can't think of an innocent explanation for why they take that position.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Read the dissents in Okla. Call v. Drummond, 526 P.3d 1123. Four powerful republicans don't actually think there is an inherent right to terminate a pregnancy that threatens the mother's life. If they were braver they would just come out and say that mothers have a legal duty to die in some circumstances. But they're cowards so they won't.

[Frank Drackman]

Don't want to sound like the "Reverend" Sandusky, but what Cereal Box did you get your Law License from??? (I'm guessing "Frank N' Berry")

[OtisAH]

No, they’re not pro-maternal death or pro-forced birth of non viable fetuses. They just don’t care if women die or endure torturous pregnancies.

[Kleppe]

If the majority of abortions (or even a sizeable minority) were to save the life of the mother, you may have had a point! Instead, it's just a red herring.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It's not a red herring to the people who have to deal with this! It's actually real life. And governments are going out of their way to make the lives of individual identifiable people worse. Texas went out of its way to make Kate Cox suffer. They're going out of their way to make sure the people, actual humans with lives and families, in the minority of difficult cases suffer and possibly die.

[SimonP]

So what you're saying is that, the small number of women who die due to these abortion bans are acceptable, given the much larger number of fetuses that won't be aborted?

It's not a red herring to focus on how the narrow exceptions permitted under the broadest abortion bans fail to work as putatively intended. The fact that pro-lifers would prefer not to talk about it at all - or wave it off as a "red herring" - just means that they don't mind it that much if mothers die.

[Nige]

Women are red herrings.

[bernard11]

No. It's not a red herring.

It establishes that the the anti-abortion movement is misogynistic and cruel, not to mention that the politicians involved are blustering fools.

Look. If you insist on outlawing abortions, at least put in meaningful exceptions to protect women who have problems that threaten their lives and health. There is no reason, other than intentional cruelty, to force a woman to carry a nonviable fetus to term at great risk to herself.

[Zarniwoop]

Thank you.

[Zarniwoop]

I am personally familiar with this scenario. I’ve been the sperm donor to exactly three (3) pregnancies. All planned, as in we got extra active at the right time of month. On purpose. Joyfully even!

And the first one was non-viable due to genetic defect. We opted to terminate instead of carrying to term. The mechanism was induced delivery at ~21 weeks. It was really, really hard to do at the time; it would have been astonishingly cruel to subject my wife to endure another 19 weeks of pregnancy to achieve the same result (death within a few minutes) and the risks of full-term delivery because some jeebus-idolators have a giant stick up their posteriors about abortion.

We would literally not have our live born, wanted, planned kids (they're both great, currently teens) if she’d been forced by the gov’t to carry the first failed one to term.

So yeah. I have opinions, mainly along the lines of “get asshats like Ken Paxton out of policing women’s wombs”.

[Commenter_XY]

I am very sorry about your first child, Zaniwoop. That must have been very hard. It doesn't go away fully, does it? You wonder what might have been. Years ago, my wife had a few miscarriages. Back then, there were no formal mourning rituals for miscarriages. It doesn't make the questions any fewer, or lessen the poignancy of the moment. Let me just say, I am glad you have two fine children.

But wait, you said they were teens. No teen is fine. Or maybe all teens are F.I.N.E. (Finicky, Insecure, Neurotic, and Emotional)! 🙂

[Zarniwoop]

Oh yeah, teens are .. well. So all parents. can I get a "heck yeah!"?

I wouldn't trade it for anything.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, teens are all that....and then some. Amazingly, my teens made it into young adulthood, despite my efforts (lol). Even more amazingly, I did not suffer a heart attack, stroke, or sads (sudden adult death syndrome....sads occurs when you say to your little darling who has done something particularly dumb to merit your extreme ire..."you're pissing me off!" and you really do think you might just drop dead).

Heck yeah, would not trade that for anything. 🙂

[Zarniwoop]

C_XY said

... Let me just say, I am glad you have two fine children.

Thanks. The experience was hard, and you're right that it never does go completely away. The humanity in your response means a lot.

[Mr. Bumble]

I disagree with you on most things so why stop now?

Referring to yourself as a "sperm donor" is selling yourself short if you have two fine teens who you are raising to be fine adults.
Parenthood can make you crazy (especially in the teen years) but nothing can match it and it is a real shame that so many are choosing to forgo the experience.
Also, it gets even better if your lucky enough to eventually have grandchildren.

[Absaroka]

"So yeah. I have opinions, mainly along the lines of “get asshats like Ken Paxton out of policing women’s wombs”."

+1

[grb]

Kleppe : “If the majority of abortions (or even a sizeable minority) were to save the life of the mother, you may have had a point! Instead, it’s just a red herring”

A telling calculation. It reminds us of the Right’s math concerning rape-incest exceptions. These used to be supported by even a sizable part of the anti-choice movement until (a) they got tired of answering questions about the obvious hypocrisy, so (b) decided to write-off these victims due to their insignificant numbers. Of course their grotesque suffering still involved thousands of women and girls, but it just wasn’t worth the bother.

The same two-faced behavoir is present in their postion on IVF Clinics, but there the opposite problem holds. These are way too popular to extend the “Proto-Babyhood-Definition” to so large a number of cases. Therefore an equally calculated decision must be made. Also, the clinics involve females trying to fufill their womanly duty, not some slut or harlot looking for an easy out from the wages of sin. Viseral disgust over that is the true beating heart of the anti-abortion crowd. Sample any large set of their comments and you soon see scorn for the effrontery of women as central to the creed. Words like “irresponsible” and “selfish” always put in a command appearance.

Of course gotcha headlines show another out. If their daughter, sister or wife faces a hard life choice, then the daughter, sister or wife merits an exception. It’s only those other women who can’t be trusted to make decisions. Their women aren’t like them.

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/abortion-help/

[not guilty]

Most fertilized ova naturally fail to implant and are washed away with the menstrual flow. Do the blastocystophiles give their feminine hygiene products a proper Christian burial, on the chance that one may contain a microscopic human being?

[IAdmitIAmCrazy]

In a way, excluding exceptions for rape and incest is the intellectual necessary conclusion from the argument that human life begins at conception (which I hold to be a red herring!). How could you then possibly allow to destroy sacrosanct "human life" just because it came into being due to rape or incest?
Yet, the anti-abortion crowd for a long time chose political expedience over coinsistency — the idea of forcing women to bear to term what was the result of a vile crime was and is too repugnant to the public. Allowing an exception, however, challenges their very concept of "human life". Recently, they are bold enough to "correct" their "error".

[Krayt]

Aren't all you constitutional-concerning lawyers all like "edge cases make for bad law"?

[Nige]

These laws certainly anyone's idea of 'good.'

[John F. Carr]

It was already clear that Texas could outlaw medical procedures. The question addressed by the court was whether there was an exception for women in an emergency department that receives Medicare funds. In a hospital without an ER, or that does not receive Medicare funds, the staff can perform ritual human sacrifice without violating EMTALA.

The court also found that the federal government's abortion policy was invalid because it was not the product of notice and comment rulemaking. There are special rules for Medicare policy that do not apply to ordinary agency regulations, because so much money is at stake.

[bernard11]

It was already clear that Texas could outlaw medical procedures.

In contravention of federal law?

[John F. Carr]

Since Dobbs there is no federal law generally prohibiting abortion bans. Texas can ban abortion is a general rule. The case is only about whether the state abortion ban applies in an emergency room that receives Medicare funding in a situation where the mother's life is not in danger but Xavier Becerra thinks an abortion is urgently needed anyway.

A hospital's duty under EMTALA is discharged if the patient is stabilized, admitted, or transferred. Realistically, an abortion under dire circumstances would call for admission into the hospital. That's all the law in question says they have to do. Once a patient is admitted EMTALA no longer applies. Doctors can still give a life-saving abortion, but not a merely Becerra-pleasing abortion.

[bernard11]

not a merely Becerra-pleasing abortion.

Not a question of pleasing Becerra, but of trusting the judgement of the physician, rather than Abbott, Paxton, or the Fifth Circuit.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

“…staff can perform ritual human sacrifice…”

Thank you for letting everyone immediately know that they can dismiss every word of your argument.

[ReaderY]

Could you link to or cite the decision you are referring to?

[John F. Carr]

State of Texas v. Becerra
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-10246-CV0.pdf

[ReaderY]

If you are referring to Texas v. Becerra, I think you are grossly mischaracterizing the decision, which strikes me as very straightforward. The EMTALA expressly disclaims any federal interference with medical decisions and any preemption of state law except where specifically stated. It contains a list of specifically mandated procedures. Birth is one of those procedures. Abortion is not. It therefore follows that in passing the EMTALA, Congress expressly disclaimed mandating abortions, and HHS’s guidance purporting to require them was unauthorized by the statute and hence exceeded HHS’s statutory authority.

The 5th Circuit said nothing at all about what Texas can and cannot do in general. It decided only what the EMTALA specifically requires. The EMTALA was HHS’s purported authority for its guidance document. How else do you determine whether an agency guidance is really authorized by its purported authorizing statute, other than looking to what the statute actually says? It held that the federal government can’t interfere with Texas law or medical decisions except where specifically required by the EMTALA because that’s what the EMTALA says. And the EMTALA it says it clearly and specifically.

Your problem isn’t with the 5th Circuit. Your problem is with Congress, which wrote the statute, including its express limitations and disclaimer of federal authority.

[John F. Carr]

The original commenter's real problem is with the Texas law. People like to think that a bad law has to be invalid for some reason.

[bernard11]

It contains a list of specifically mandated procedures. Birth is one of those procedures. Abortion is not.

Can you point me to said list? The only thing vaguely resembling one I can find is this:

(1) The term "emergency medical condition" means--

(A) a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in--

(i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy,

(ii) serious impairment to bodily functions, or

(iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part; or

(B) with respect to a pregnant women [FN2] who is having contractions--

(i) that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or

(ii) that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.

Nothing about, say, requiring that an appendectomy be performed if the emergency medical condition calls for one.

[Jared]

Thoughts on the Daines amicus brief?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-696/294844/20240103183952480_23-696%20tsac%20NRSC.pdf

It argues to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court on the basis that states cannot remove someone from the ballot because Congress retains the right to remove the disability at any time before or after the election. Seems like a federalist/originalist position that could garner a simply unanimous per curiam opinion, avoiding the academic constitutional issues, and essentially punting the merits back to congress to resolve. I haven't seen too much commentary about this option.

[Kleppe]

That's interesting, and somewhat persuasive. I hadn't heard that argument before. Thanks for sharing.

[David Nieporent]

I brought it up earlier this week!

[Zarniwoop]

Huhn, that is an interesting take on things, and I concur with Kleppe.

The argument starting at the bottom of page 7 is worth reading.

I'd love to see one of more of the Conspirator's views on this.

[Mr. Bumble]

ng will be with you shortly.

[Zarniwoop]

I doubt it. Poser.

[Jared]

I would love to see some scholarly feedback, too. In part because considering Noel Francisco and gang are the attorneys of record, I’m a little skeptical. But the reasoning seems sound to me:

It would require the court to say something basic like: The fact that congress is given the right to remove the disability implies that states have no right to interfere with placing a candidate on the ballot (primary or general) on account of Amd 14 Sect 3. It defends the letter of the constitution against intrusion by the states in a way fully sanctioned by the text and not more. Thomas can write his concurring opinion joined by Alito and Gorsuch about states rights and how other requirements of the presidency like age and natural born status are not implicated and states retain power to policy the ballot, etc., but agree with the central holding.

Then, the issues of how to designate someone as having engaged in an insurrection, whether the presidency is an Office under the United States, whether the president is an Officer of the United States, whether the oath to preserve, protect and defend is an oath to support, those can all be punted and would ONLY have to be decided if Trump: wins the primary, then the general election, AND Congress chooses not to act in the interim to provide clarity under Amd 14 Sect 5.

On the one hand, there would be a not insignificant possibility that Trump does win and Congress does not act, and SCOTUS needs to insert itself at a critical time right after a general election, à la Bush v. Gore. But, the saving grace is that SCOTUS wouldn’t be deciding whether the Democrat or Republican would become president, or even if Trump or his rival GOP members would, but rather between whether Trump or his nominated and elected running mate Vice President should act as President. The stakes of the decision, though still high, are suddenly low enough that a constitutional crisis and public revolt are staved off.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Looking forward to giving it a read. It is similar to something David Nieporent pointed to in a different thread. One issue I have going by your summary of the argument is that section 3 is silent on who can run for an office, or who's name can appear on a ballot. It only limits who can actually hold the office. So I'm not sure it serves as a constitutional hook to prevent a state from running its own election, or managing its own ballot.

[Jared]

That's a good point. But then what would be the implications of the silence regarding who can run or whose name can appear, coupled with the final sentence of Sect 3 allowing congress to remove the disability? It would mean that congress would need to act prior to the certification of the first ballots, or else they've lost their opportunity (for that election, at least). But then that intrudes upon the silence in the final sentence about when congress may act to remove the disability. And moreover, if congress does not remove the disability (or does not act), then we're still stuck with the free-for-all system we have now, where each state gets to decide for themselves whether an insurrection has occurred, leading to a patchwork of ballots, ultimately culminating with a court deciding the issue. So I assume the amicus would say: that can't be the solution intended by the 14th Amendment, states were not meant to be involved.

[Brett Bellmore]

"One issue I have going by your summary of the argument is that section 3 is silent on who can run for an office, or who’s name can appear on a ballot."

It's hardly shocking that it's silent as to whose name can appear on a ballot. It was adopted almost 20 years before the Australian ballot arrived in the US: There was no government printed ballot to be denied access to!

Most people don't realize that the idea that the government has any power at all in the US to tell voters who they can vote for is very recent. Confederates were allowed to run for office, votes were counted if cast, they were declared winners if they got the largest share of them, and THEN were not permitted to take office.

I keep hammering on this: As the right to vote was understood until fairly recently, applying disqualification before the point of seating somebody isn't a violation of the candidate's rights. It's a violation of the voters' rights.

Because in America, until quite recently, you could vote for whomever you damned well pleased, period, if you had the right to vote in the first place.

[not guilty]

The amicus brief misreads footnote 2 of U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 787-88 n.2 (1995):

“In addition to the three qualifications set forth in Art. I, § 2, Art. I, § 3, cl. 7, authorizes the disqualification of any person convicted in an impeachment proceeding from ‘any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States’; Art. I, § 6, cl. 2, provides that ‘no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office’; and § 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies any person ‘who, having previously taken an oath . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.’ It has been argued that each of these provisions, as well as the Guarantee Clause of Article IV and the oath requirement of Art. VI, cl. 3, is no less a ‘qualification’ within the meaning of Art. I, § 5, than those set forth in Art. I, § 2.” Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 520, n. 41 (1969).

In Powell, we saw no need to resolve the question whether those additional provisions constitute “qualifications,” because “both sides agree that Powell was not ineligible under any of these provisions.” Ibid. We similarly have no need to resolve that question today: Because those additional provisions are part of the text of the Constitution, they have little bearing on whether Congress and the States may add qualifications to those that appear in the Constitution. [Emphasis added.]

Any disqualification under the Fourteenth Amendment, § 3 is a disqualification for failure to meet a constitutional prerequisite to holding office.

The residual ability of Congress to remove a § 3 disqualification is a red herring. Suppose a criminal defendant is convicted of insurrection under 18 U.S.C. § 2383, which mandates that any person so convicted shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. Suppose that defendant subsequently runs for federal office. Should the possibility that the president could issue a pardon require election officials to place that candidate’s name on the ballot?

[Jared]

In your hypothetical, the pardon arguably wouldn’t relieve the incapability of holding office because it attaches to the guilt of having performed the act, which wouldn’t be removed by the pardon.

Even still, congressional removal of the disability is literally the next sentence in the same Section 3. They are inextricably linked. A pardon wouldn’t be the removal of a disability, and I don’t believe there are any other disabilities (age, natural born, residency), that can be removed by congress. So this really is a unique animal.

I AM starting to see the other side here, you make a good point about Section 3 being a disability, period, and states can police the ballot accordingly so long as the disability exists.

But I just can’t shake the idea now that maybe the way Section 3 was intended to work (absent further Section 5 guidance from Congress) was that an insurrectionist presidential candidate would run, win their party’s nomination, and win the general election, and somewhere in there when Congress realizes that this person is the choice of the electorate (maybe before the general election, maybe after) will cast a decision on whether to remove the disqualification.

[not guilty]

"In your hypothetical, the pardon arguably wouldn’t relieve the incapability of holding office because it attaches to the guilt of having performed the act, which wouldn’t be removed by the pardon."

I don't think so. Disqualification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2383 is an integral part of the sentence to be imposed on conviction, and is not discretionary with the sentencing court.

"A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual, on whom it is bestowed, from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed." Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79, 89-90 (1915). Disqualification from federal office being part of the punishment, it is removed by a pardon which is granted and accepted.

[bernard11]

But I just can’t shake the idea now that maybe the way Section 3 was intended to work (absent further Section 5 guidance from Congress) was that an insurrectionist presidential candidate would run, win their party’s nomination, and win the general election, and somewhere in there when Congress realizes that this person is the choice of the electorate (maybe before the general election, maybe after) will cast a decision on whether to remove the disqualification.

This looks like an awfully stupid way to do things.

First, it sets a trap for voters in the primary and general.

How can those who favor Trump for the nomination decide whether to support Trump or someone else if they can't be sure he will be allowed to take office?

And what if a general election voter favors Trump, but prefers Biden to Trump's VP nominee?

Lastly, it's asking for trouble to disqualify someone after they win. Surely the earlier you do it the better, to let the election play itself out with that overhang?

[David Nieporent]

In any case, SCOTUS has agreed to take up the issue on an expedited basis, so it's hopefully moot.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, right-wing
blog has operated for

ZERO (0)

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

ONE (1)

occasion (so far) during
2024 (that’s at least one
discussion that includes a racial
slur, not necessarily just one racial
slur; many of this blog's discussions
include multiple racial slurs).

This assessment does not address
the broader, incessant stream of
gay-bashing, misogynistic, Islamophobic,
antisemitic, racist, Palestinian-hating,
transphobic, and immigrant-hating slurs
(and other bigoted content) published
daily at this faux libertarian blog, which
is presented from the receding,
antisocial, disaffected right-wing
fringe of modern legal academia by
members of the Federalist Society
for Law and Public Policy Studies.

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

This is a good one, too.

Happy new year, everyone!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspiracy's unofficial tally for 2023 was forty-six -- at least forty-six different discussions (posts and/or comments) in which this blog published vile racial slurs.

Carry on, clingers. So far as your obsolete, deplorable right-wing thinking could carry anyone in modern, improving-against-your-preferences America, that is.

[Frank Drackman]

Keep replying to yourself like that and you'll go blind.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If I continue to quantify and chronicle this blog's conservative, Republican, Federalist Society, right-wing bigotry, maybe more bigot-embracing conservative law professors will be escorted off mainstream campuses and legitimate faculties, taking refuge at paid right-wing mouthpiece operations.

[Michael P]

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold thinks Donald Trump should be held to a criminal standard. Except when she doesn't.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4388735-trump-get-out-of-jail-free-card-colorado-secretary-of-state/amp/

[Bwaaah]

Dear Rev:

Words are not hateful. People are.

Hate is a sentiment. And you exude it.

[apedad]

Is wishing Israel would nuke some people also hateful?

[Frank Drackman]

You have to give the "Reverend" Sandusky some slack, Senator Fetterman (He and Kirsten Semen-a are my favorite DemoKKKrats, can you imagine the baby they would have?* Could get me to change my mind on Baby killing) ignored his Commutation package, and Michigan's playing for a Natty.

Frank
* or throw in Joe Man-chin for a disturbing image of a 3-some

[Guten]

To those on this forum that dislike Trump or potentially hate the man, when did this dislike or hatred start?

Think back.

What was the first story or news about him that made you start to think poorly of him?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I concluded Trump was a silver-spooned blowhard decades ago. One of my high school friends became prominent in the gaming industry -- he knew the Pesci character (Spilotro) from Casino and worked with the posse of the DeNiro character (Lefty Rosenthal) -- and that guy persuasively mocked Trump's performance, character, and ethics, 25 or 30 years ago.

[Guten]

What types of stories did you hear?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Good ones. Hilarious, in some cases.

I once got a direct look at the aftermath of one illustrative incident, in which Trump was cut down to size -- in his own building, in front of his family and friends -- by Keith Richards, who demonstrated deftly what a coward and small loser Trump is after Trump had demonstrated what a liar and lowlife Trump was.

[Bwaaah]

I never liked glitziness. He was always accessorized by gold and blondes. (I give him a little credit for his recent cutback on blondeness.)

But on his TV show, The Apprentice, there was a really good contestant who clearly played the best game in that episode. At the end-of-show sit-down with Trump, the contestant made a remark that was slightly critical of something Trump said. Said Trump in response, "A smart employee knows not to criticize his boss. You're fired."

My view: You're kind of dummy boss if you don't appreciate how invaluable it is to get critical feedback from your subordinates. (And a smart employee should avoid a thin-skinned boss who can't take criticism.)

He, Trump, was/is a second-rate person. And yet, he's very successful!!!

[Nige]

I wonder what that tells you.

[Bwaaah]

I don't think you do.

[Nige]

That it was kinda dumb to make him president?

[SimonP]

Given that Trump has been broadly disliked and considered a clown and con man for my entire life prior to 2015, it might be a more interesting question to ask, of his supporters, when/how they changed their mind about him.

[Bwaaah]

I never changed my mind about Trump. I just never expected race/sex/sexuality-based discrimination to become a statutory and cultural norm in the United States. (We got rid of most of that institutionalized crap in the 1960s.)

Donald Trump is just a jerk. That's so easy for me to wrap my head around.

But the whole U.S. left, on the other hand, has supported and subordinated itself to a highly illiberal orthodoxy that takes many forms including explicitly discriminatory laws and punitive DEI committees who enforce arbitrary hierarchies of grievance-based preferences.

I never liked the right. But the contemporary left is scary zombie-like shit now.

[SimonP]

But the whole U.S. left, on the other hand, has supported and subordinated itself to a highly illiberal orthodoxy that takes many forms including explicitly discriminatory laws and punitive DEI committees who enforce arbitrary hierarchies of grievance-based preferences.

I can't think of a single prominent Democratic politician who has done this. Certainly not Biden or any of the other candidates who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.

In contrast, it is very easy to find Republican politicians who say something exactly like this, about "the left." So one wonders who has really subordinated themselves to what orthodoxy.

Basically - get off Twitter. Stop taking your marching orders from outrage media. Go touch grass. I live in NYC and work in a very left-leaning profession. And there isn't a whiff of this orthodoxy you're talking about, anywhere to be found in my life. Sure, there are "diversity coordinators," pronouns in email signatures, affinity groups and the like. But none of this occupies any kind of meaningful time or energy. The only kind of orthodoxy that currently limits what I say and do in the workplace is that I can't possibly say anything even mildly critical of Israel's campaign in Gaza, or protesting the deaths of Palestinians there.

MAGA reps like Brett try to harp on this point that "woke" ideology in universities is training students who will then go out in the world and bring that ideology into workplaces. But that's not what seems to happen. Because - guess what! - idealistic students graduate, get jobs, and then quickly focus on real-life concerns, like paying off student loans, keeping health insurance, saving up for a home and planning a family, etc. All of that energy that law students shouting at judges in Stanford have is going to disappear the first day they clock in at their fancy law jobs.

The kind of orthodoxy you're talking about just doesn't exist outside of the online or academic communities where people can fart off their opinions and attack each other with impunity. It fades into the background once they get out in real life.

[Bwaaah]

"I can’t think of a single prominent Democratic politician who has done this."

Can you show me a single prominent Democrat who has spoken out *against* DEI committees and their discriminatory practices? I understand they don't "support" it; they just silently stand by while others mete out their preferences, and their punishments. What does the party have to say to that?

"Basically – get off Twitter. Stop taking your marching orders from outrage media."

I don't read twitter, nor any social media. This, the Volokh comments, is my only trash dive. And I tend to vote Democrat, and liberal (in what is now referred to as a "classical" sense).

"I live in NYC and work in a very left-leaning profession."

I too, live in NYC, and work in a not-leaning profession. (WTF is a left-leaning profession?) All the big public companies pushed the DEI bullshit for the past three years (although they're dialing it down now that they see it for the horribleness that it is). Several of my friends have been passed up for jobs that were given to "women" and "bipocs," almost solely because they are "women" and "bipocs." One friend, a Muslim immigrant, was recommended by the CEO to apply for a high level tech position in the company. He was one of their well-known high performers, as viewed by his peers and others. (I am intimately familiar with his work.) The DEI committee took one look at him and said, "You're not what we're looking for." (He's not light skinned, but to the Committee, not dark enough to qualify. They actually told him that.) They gave the job to a much less qualified, much less experienced, completely unproven junior who was, most importantly, not a white male. I have other friends who are solid performers who were set aside to give promotions to "diversity." A bunch of them left big companies because they were being wasted.

That's part of the "merit is unfair" doctrine of the DEI ideology. Merit has to be unfair, or otherwise, they'll just end up giving the jobs to the people who appear to be best at getting the jobs done. (And that would result in "disparate outcomes", a normal, easily explainable, expected pattern that is now "unacceptable.")

Of course, no major Democrat has spoken out against merit. Nope. Just SILENCE. Again. "Merit" gets attacked by "woke" ideologues, and Democrats silently look down to study their shoes. No protest. Nothing wrong there. That's how we're going to grow business in the future: with a focus on skin color (and other grievance based preferences) instead of outdated notions of "performance." 

"The only kind of orthodoxy that currently limits what I say and do in the workplace is that I can’t possibly say anything even mildly critical of Israel’s campaign in Gaza, or protesting the deaths of Palestinians there."

Is that a problem for you? You work in a business culture where personal politics is normally part of the work scene? Though I wouldn't expressly forbid contentious global political discussions at work, they tend to be very unhelpful to the missions of most businesses. What you do in your time is your business. What you do during company time is company business, and politically incited acrimony is a real performance buzz kill. (Part of the new left orthodoxy is that all time is justifiably social justice time. That's helpful, if you're a social justice warrior. In my business, we focus on making widgets, and offering widget services.)

"The kind of orthodoxy you’re talking about just doesn’t exist outside of the online or academic communities "

It doesn't exist in the government policies? Not in small business loan administration guidance? Not in agricultural support programs? Not in public health initiatives? It doesn't exist in major news media outlets, like the New York Times, or NBC News, or every major left-leaning news outlet? You don't hear them when they say, "Balance is not the way, when it gives voice to the wrong people? We don't believe in both-sides-ism." You don't know that almost all major corporations are pumping the DEI orthodoxy of race essentialism? (They do it out of fear of retribution, not because they believe in it. They're just like elected Democratic officials; reputational risk is very important to them.)

The world didn't change? I just starting making up stuff like this? You think I'm working from some MAGA playbook? You think Brett is working from a playbook?

[Sarcastr0]

Can you show me a single prominent Democrat who has spoken out *against* DEI committees and their discriminatory practices?

No new goalposts.

And maybe read a bit of the books by this movement you hate, rather than just making up what it thinks. It won't convince you, but you'll seem like less of an ignoramus when you hold forth at length.

[Nige]

Oh man it sucks when your country is still struggling to emerge from its entire history of systemic oppression of anyone who wasn’t a white male.

'You think I’m working from some MAGA playbook?'

You absolutely are.

[SimonP]

What a fascinating, totally-not-scripted insight into the way you view the world.

I too, live in NYC, and work in a not-leaning profession. (WTF is a left-leaning profession?)

It’s a profession where most of the people I work with are liberal or left-leaning. And yes, where orthodoxy on Israel is a thing. I’m not going to tell you where I work, so you’ll just have to trust me on this one.

All the big public companies pushed the DEI bullshit for the past three years (although they’re dialing it down now that they see it for the horribleness that it is).

Well, let’s be clear about what we’re talking about. You were griping about a “highly illiberal orthodoxy.” Public statements about BLM, internal efforts to increase diversity, adopting policies on pronoun usage, etc., do not amount to an “orthodoxy.” For example, I won’t get fired for failing to include pronouns in my email signature, but I might get fired if I participate in a pro-Palestine march – the latter, to my mind, is more of a “highly illiberal orthodoxy.” Mere posturing for public consumption, and internal diversity- and sensitivity-raising initiatives that can be largely ignored are not.

Several of my friends have been passed up for jobs that were given to “women” and “bipocs,” almost solely because they are “women” and “bipocs.”

Anecdata consisting of information that only an omniscient person would be able to confidently assert. Notable also that your friend circle evidently includes so few “women” and “BIPOCs”. No playbook being used here, sure.

That’s part of the “merit is unfair” doctrine of the DEI ideology.

Here you’re complaining that high-profile Democrats haven’t come out to rebut a conservative strawman argument, as evidence that they actually support that strawman argument.

No one, apart from some isolated academics and Twitter extremists, is saying anything even remotely close to “merit is unfair,” and those who do say something like that are actually saying something different, which is that “meritocratic values” import a concept of “merit” that’s evaluated according to a white, male, cisgendered “ideal.” The point being that we should be more critical of what we understand to be “merit.” For instance, is an employee’s perceived lack of commitment to a company actually a lack of commitment, or does it reflect the fact that she is her child’s primary caregiver and so needs to leave early to pick up her kid from daycare? Is a job candidate’s background more “accomplished” than another one’s because it is objectively better, or are we just more familiar with the academic pedigree and prior employment history of the candidate who is also white and male?

It doesn’t exist in the government policies? Not in small business loan administration guidance? Not in agricultural support programs? Not in public health initiatives?

Again, the discussion is hampered by the lack of clarity. You were talking about a “highly illiberal orthodoxy.” I can only guess at what you have in mind with these counter-examples, but (since they follow the playbook) I can surmise that you’re probably referring to programs that are more or less racially discriminatory. So – setting aside that they likely are going to be invalidated anyway – the question to ask is: what orthodoxy? Do you know what an “orthodoxy” is?

It’s one thing to take issue with the belief that government money should be spent in a way that will reduce, rather than perpetuate, racial disparities in various sectors. Whether that is a public policy worth pursuing with these programs, and whether it’s legal and constitutional to do so, is a perfectly valid thing to dispute. But pursuing those policies does not require any particular subscribing to any particular “orthodoxy,” “illiberal” or otherwise. It’s just a way of acknowledging that racial disparities are generally a bad thing – aren’t they? – and wanting to do something about them.

It doesn’t exist in major news media outlets, like the New York Times, or NBC News, or every major left-leaning news outlet? You don’t hear them when they say, “Balance is not the way, when it gives voice to the wrong people? We don’t believe in both-sides-ism.”

This is an odd thing to say, when citing some prominent examples of “both-sides” reporting. It’s indicative of just how far out your views evidently must be. You perceive “DEI orthodoxy” everywhere. You view left-leaning outlets that are notorious for their “balanced” reporting as excluding entirely one side of the discourse (evidently the part that is so extreme as to be beyond the realm of “the other (reasonable) side” on any issue).

Like many conservatives, you are finding oppression and martyrdom in fairly anodyne statements that acknowledge or respect the existence of perspectives of people other than white, cisgendered straight men. For me, a “mandatory diversity training” is an annoying thing where I have to go sit for an hour and listen to an under-credentialed consultant lecture on their particular racial bugaboos, but then can simply forget about. For you, it’s enforcing a “highly illiberal orthodoxy.”

Get over yourself, snowflake.

[Bwaaah]

The orthodoxy is race. Race, race, race. Additionally, the orthodoxy throws in some other categories, like [blahblahs] and [blahblahs]. But that’s just padding for race, race, race.

(Make no mistake about it: it’s about the tragedy of Black America. All the other [blahblahs] are just additional examples of bigotry.)

And the only thing the orthodoxy requires of its adherents is expressions of fealty to the committees, or silence about their ills.

THE ONLY THING RACE ORTHODOXY REQUIRES IS SILENCE ABOUT THE ILLS OF RACE ORTHODOXY.

Conservatives: they’re about race, race, race.

BLM: they’re about race, race, race.

DEI committees: they’re about race, race, race.

The Harvard recruiting regime: it’s about race, race, race.

What must be chastised, daily, in the news media: that’s about race, race, race.

The stuff written into the laws, that you acknowledge will be shot down, are about race, race, race.

My non-black friends were going down because of race, race, race. My black friends were going up because of race, race, race. Both are now stymied by the arbitrary, dehumanizing nonsensical orthodoxy of race and where it now places them. Why? Race, race, race, my friend. Race, race, race.

And all you can say is, “MAGA! MAGA! MAGA!”

I’ve got no more of a race problem than anybody else. But in addition to race problems, America now has a more recently stylized problem of racial orthodoxy in which everything should be viewed through the lens of race, race, race. And all good people are silent about the ills of this obsessive racial orthodoxy.

So be good, and show your respect for the racial orthodoxy. Say it’s good, or speak not against it, and you will have fulfilled its one requirement (that lets its ills persist).

Race, race, race.

[Sarcastr0]

I’ve got no more of a race problem than anybody else

**Posts the word race 40 times in a 300 word comment**

I flat-out do not believe your black friends are all moving up and your nonblack friends are all going down.
I'm sure you feel that - you seem vibes based on crime and the economy, so why not this? But I expect the facts would be different.
I say this as a white guy who spends time, among other things, looking at metrics for DEI education and outreach programs.

Usual question on people soaking in white grievance - would you trade places? Would you become a black person to get at all these awesome benefits you're talking about?

[SimonP]

The orthodoxy is race.

So, no, you don't know what "orthodoxy" means.

You're cherry-picking through various arguments and claims that have been made about race, systemic racism, and the like, and claiming that an entire "highly illiberal orthodoxy" has been built, and is being reinforced, to characterize the entire world in those terms. But that's just not descriptively accurate.

[Bwaaah]

As you said, “The only kind of orthodoxy that currently limits what I say and do in the workplace is that I can’t possibly say anything even mildly critical of Israel’s campaign in Gaza, or protesting the deaths of Palestinians there.”

Is that all your orthodoxy limits? Or, more honestly, is that the only preferenced class that you want to criticize [right now]? You think you can do wholesale criticism of transexual [this] or black [that] or  [blahblahs] [whatever]? I suspect that would be viewed as being very unprofessional in a “left-leaning profession.”

No, you can’t speak openly at work about [blahblahs]. But there’s no particular rule that says you can’t. The only thing that stands against you is the orthodoxy, which aside from preferencing only certain [blahblahs], requires statements of support or SILENCE.

You’re free to speak at work about all the innocent peoples around the world who are victims of ethnic-group-related violence, EXCEPT the Jews, errr… the Israelis, err… the Zionists. There are lists of [blahblahs] that you need to avoid, and nobody maintains those lists. But we very ably communicate those lists, especially through our intellectual quarters. And that’s how you know what to be silent about. And in your post here on Volokh, you alert others to that threat, understanding that it is in everybody’s interest to be silent about certain things when in the presence of the informal enforcers of the racial orthodoxy (which necessarily extends to other powerful underclasses, in order to keep the tent big enough to perpetuate the orthodoxy of race, race, race).

You can contribute to the downfall of the orthodoxy by appropriately speaking your mind (with some hope that that will be tolerated). Or at least, you can talk about what’s wrong with not being able to talk about what you think is wrong. One day, you might even be able to talk about what’s wrong with DEI committees, and not suffer the wrath of self-appointed enforcers and their nasty punitive ways.

Even though the orthodoxy centers on Black Americans, it sustains its coalition by giving preference to many other groups, now including even “privileged” Jews. This ironic twist of groupist orthodoxy is inherent in its arbitrary nature. Why black people, but not poor people? Why not Jews? (Why not ignorant bigots? They too could benefit from growth.) Most of the DEI committees are stumped with this Jew thing. It calls for a little too much D and too much I. But that’s what an orthodoxy looks like; it’s not steeped in reason, and in the case of this one, it is steeped in historical grievances.

But for now, be silent. Be silent about Gazans. And pretend there’s no orthodoxy, or that you don’t adhere to it. That’s OK. You can pretend, as long as you remain silent, because that’s all that the orthodoxy requires: support or silence.

[Nige]

Culture war bullshit has cracked your sense or proportion.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Yeah, but the culture war also will ensure that over time no one will know, remember, or care about what these right-wing low-lifes wanted. They'll all be stomped into irrelevance by better Americans.

[Kazinski]

He followed through on his campaign promises.

Although I did vote for him in 2016, it wasn't because I was a fan then, but I figured if I was going to cast a protest vote it made sense to vote for the protest candidate, I certainly didn't expect him to win.

And I'd prefer another choice now, Trump would be the second to the last candidate I would vote for, the last candidate I'd vote for is any Democrat, other than possibly Tulsi Gabbard.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Fortunately for America, antisocial, disaffected, right-wing dumbasses like you are dying off at a nice pace and won't be corroding our society or diminishing our electorate that much longer.

[Frank Drackman]

If present trends continue

[Nige]

Who can forget when he banned all Muslims, jailed Hilary Clinton, built that wall and made Mexico pay for it, fixed the health care system, fixed all the national infrastructure, never took any time off working, and 'drained the swamp,' whatever that was supposed to be. Was adding a trillion to the deficit by giving tax breaks to all his pals one of his promises? Probably one he made to his pals.

[SimonP]

Kazinski's confident claim that Trump kept his "campaign promises" is hard to square with reality, if we assume that Trump made specific policy promises while campaigning.

The truth is that Trump said whatever he needed to say to win the news cycle, and often said conflicting things when it comes to policy. The only true promise he ever made was to screw over Democrats and "the libz," and by that standard, most of his supporters think he succeeded - and will do so again, if re-elected.

[Brett Bellmore]

I have a boundless confidence in the ability of the Democratic party to puke up a nominee who will be worse than Trump. Maybe not in terms of personal morality, maybe. In terms of policy, it won't even be close.

As you say, unless they nominate Gabbard, and they're just "this" far from riding her out of the party on a rail.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump's main planned platform is retribution.
You're willing to either overlook or embrace that.

That's not a good way to be.

I'm quite sure if Biden made that turn, I would not be along with him.

[Zarniwoop]

The cameo in Home Alone 2, obvs.

[Moderation4ever]

I had no real opinion either way about Trump and when he was elected, I expected him to step up and act Presidential. The story that changed my opinion was when he insisted that his new Press Secretary Sean Spicer go out and report that the crowd at his inauguration was bigger than that of his predecessor. I think at that moment I knew that Trump lacked the skill set to be President.

After his defeat in 2020 I expected him to go back to Mar a Lago and play golf and I would be content with that. Now he is back in our faces daily I have little empathy for him and think he deserves whatever come in the courtroom.

[grb]

Moderation4ever : “The story that changed my opinion was when he insisted that his new Press Secretary Sean Spicer go out and report that the crowd at his inauguration was bigger than that of his predecessor. I think at that moment I knew that Trump lacked the skill set to be President”

Of course that occured in the very opening hours of his presidency. And there was a sequel to it as well: The next day – Trump’s first full day as President of the United States – he went to Langley for a ceremoney honoring members of the U.S. intelligence community who died in the service of their country. A solemn occasion to be sure, but Trump spent his speech bragging about the fanatasy crowd numbers that attended his inauguration.

As buffoonish as that was, it's perhaps outshone by the Nation Prayer Breakfast where Trump ranted about his (yuge) TV ratings. I heard even God couldn’t get a word in edgewise.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The best part of that was all of the gape-jawed evangelical assholes applauding Trump, demonstrating that those gullible dumbasses are ignorant and phony.

[Brett Bellmore]

Trump is, essentially, a real life Commander McBragg As I've observed before, he engages in a huge amount of braggadocio. Not that the President prior wasn't the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral... Presidents are rarely humble and scrupulously honest, but it does seem we've been pushing the envelope for the last couple decades.

That said, in terms of actual campaign promises, he made an effort to fulfill most of them, and where he failed it was generally due to lawfare or lack of cooperation from a Republican Congress that had run on them, too.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "That said, in terms of actual campaign promises, he made an effort to fulfill most of them..."

Really? Let's look at (perhaps) the most famous of all : Trump made no effort to build his wall right up to half his presidency. Upon presented with the latest Congressional budget, he praised it one afternoon and then called it a day.

But some of the most vocal right-wing noisemakers like Ann Coulter raised a stink, seeing there was no wall money budgeted. This semt Trump into a frenzied panic and he was threatening to shut the government down by dawn next day.

Which he did. The longest government shutdown in U.S. history wasn't caused by Trump's efforts or Congressional obstructionism. It was caused by DJT's urgent need to shovel red meat to low-grade media loudmouths who didn't understand the wall was just a throwaway speech line. The same tawdry "motivation" also led to a truly ugly evasion of congressional budgeting rights under the Consitution.

[Sarcastr0]

All the promises he did not keep were just braggadocio, you see.

Thus, he kept every single promise, when properly viewed.

[OtisAH]

I dunno, late 1980s or so? Whenever it was I was first exposed to him. Back then he was just an obnoxious clown. Obviously he’s much worse as a dangerous and obnoxious clown. But he’s always been baseline obnoxious clown.

[grb]

The best summary I ever saw was this :

No books, No reading,
No friends, No music,
No curiosity, No patience,
No integrity, No compassion,
No empathy, No loyalty,
No conscience, No courage,
No manners, No respect,
No character, No morality,
No honor,

Not even a dog.

(ya gotta think a dog would help, though I'd worry over the poor creature)

[NOVA Lawyer]

Ted Cruz (subsequently exposed as a spineless bootlicker) put it pretty well too:

"I'm going to tell you what I really think of Donald Trump. This man is a pathological liar. He doesn't know the difference between truth and lies. He lies with basically every word that comes out of his mouth.....He cannot tell the truth, but he combines it with being a narcissist, a narcissist at a level I don't think this country's ever seen.....The man is utterly amoral. Morality does not exist for him. Donald Trump is a serial philanderer, and he boasts about it......We are staring at the abyss."

Unfortunately, after a seeming stand of courage at the Republican convention telling people to vote their conscience, he jumped with both feet into the abyss.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Cruz was not exposed as a bootlicker.

Ass-licker, maybe.

Scrotum-licker, more likely.

Can you imagine how confused Ted Cruz' children must be concerning how a man acts when some boorish jerk attacks their mother. Those poor children might be fucked up for life.

[Frank Drackman]

Well, you're certainly the expert in fucking children up for life.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I was wrong, you are right. His licking was more debasing and painful to watch than I described.

Yes, how humiliating for his family to see him on his knees pleasuring the man who attacked their mother. People willing to debase themselves in that way to obtain/maintain their power should never be given power.

[NOVA Lawyer]

In the 1980s, I became aware of him as a self-promoting, greedy, boastful, and conspicuous consumer of ostentatious, gold-plated accoutrements (I remember hearing he had a gold toilet or faucets or perhaps both). He was, in short, a nearly perfect example of everything a Christian should not be. (I grew up in a Christian family and community.)

Aside from the immorality of his entire image, his arrogance and apparent shallowness were very off-putting. I couldn't understand why people looked at him as anything to emulate. Being quite young, I was unaware that, in fact, most sensible people at the time did hold him in contempt as a bit of a buffoon, if a largely harmless seeming one.

As I came to know more about him, my opinion of him got worse, which hadn't really seemed possible. In addition to all of the above, he is disloyal, vengeful, petty, and appears not to genuinely care about another human being.

For people who do not find him loathsome, when did you first develop a positive opinion of him and does it give you pause that your change of opinion coincided with him obtaining the Republican nomination for President? (lol)

[Nelson]

I went to high school and college in New Jersey in the late 80s and early 90s. Pretty much every story about Trump (and there were a lot in Jersey) made you think, "what a douchebag". No one has ever embodied trust-fund-baby, born-on-third-base nepotism like Trump did.

Over almost 40 years, he's only gotten worse. He's a terrible person and has been for as long as I've been aware of his existence.

[Commenter_XY]

OMG, do you remember Howard Stern, David Dinkins, Bob grant and that whole genre? North or South Jersey?

[Nelson]

I do remember. I was in Hightstown and Princeton, so Central Jersey (which has recently been acknowledged as a real thing: https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/2023/08/24/central-jersey-debate-somerset-middlesex-mercer-hunterdon/70669329007/).

[David Nieporent]

As was I at the same time. Are you me?

[Nelson]

At both? Peddle class of '90?

[David Nieporent]

No, not both actually. Just college. (And then I resided there after.) (Almost sent my daughter to Peddie for HS this year, but we're a little too far north to commute and weren't quite ready to ship her off.)

[Nelson]

I graduated right before Annenburg gave his first $25 million, so it's a LOT different than when I went. Did you look at Blair?

[Nelson]

I was also in Cap.

[David Nieporent]

Terrace.

[Nelson]

Nice! I spent many a night there. I think. LOL!

[Nelson]

What class were you?

[JasonT20]

I can't pinpoint a time when I started disliking Trump as a person. I was definitely long before he made an ass of himself with the birther conspiracies.

His announcement ride down the golden escalator had all the hallmarks of a publicity stunt full of self-promotion, and a rambling speech aimed at generating controversy (and thus attention), so I didn't take his candidacy seriously then.

What convinced me that he had no concept of how to be President, though, was his attack on John McCain. It wasn't that I was a huge fan of McCain (though I did vote for him in 2008). It was how thoughtless Trump was in his attack and the implications of it towards all service members.

"I like people that weren't captured."

Anyone that puts on a uniform could end up in a combat zone. Any service member then could end up getting wounded, captured, or killed in combat. Trump insulted every POW from every war that the U.S. has been involved in and showed that he fundamentally had no understanding or respect for people that serve. To this day, I still don't understand how any current or former member of the military could possibly vote for him, nor the families of those people that spent many sleepless nights worrying about their loved one.

[I also found out years later that he had said basically the same thing about McCain in 2000. Trump had been publicly flirting with running for the Reform Party nomination when McCain said something critical of Trump. He thus had to punch back in the most personal terms he could muster, as he always does. This just shows how thin skinned and insecure he is. His bluster is that of the narcissist that doesn't actually have the real self-confidence that comes from knowing what his strengths and weaknesses are. A person like that can never be an effective leader, especially in areas where he has no expertise.]

[Darth Buckeye]

My problem with the defamation cases brought against Trump and his team: plaintiffs must prove damages. In NYC, that plaintiff did not suffer harm when Trump bad mouthed her; she actually benefited from it. In Georgia the plaintiffs against Giuliani claimed that they suffered threats because of his statements. If true, then that constitutes damages provided plaintiffs show that the damages were caused by the purported false statements and not by other factors.

In hostile jurisdictions, unpopular defendants will not be treated fairly. The law is supposed to protect them. If the law stops protecting the unpopular then we will end up in a scary state.

[Sarcastr0]

Where do you get "plaintiff did not suffer harm when Trump bad mouthed her; she actually benefited from it?"

https://www.npr.org/2023/05/09/1174975870/trump-carroll-verdict
"In finding Trump liable for battery, the jury awarded Carroll $2 million in compensatory damages, along with $20,000 in punitive damages.

For the defamation claim, the jury awarded her $2.7 million in compensatory damages ($1 million in damages, $1.7 million for reputation repair) and an additional $280,000 for punitive damages, finding that Trump had acted "maliciously, out of hatred, ill will, spite or wanton, reckless, or willful disregard of the rights of another" when he accused her of inventing the story."

[Bob from Ohio]

He's rejecting the verdict and stating the reality, rigged trials aren't proof of anything.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Rigged trials." FFS.

Is this the excuse you give your clients when you fuck up? Everything is rigged? It's a sorry excuse in a car accident or breach of contract and it's a sorry excuse here. Trump has been given more leeway in his civil and criminal cases than the vast majority of defendants get or ever will get. If anything the deck is stacked in his favor. He doesn't win because in addition to having bad underlying facts against him, he's everyone's nightmare client who makes things worse for himself and his counsel by his words and behavior. He also gives himself incompetent counsel because he doesn't want to pay or listen to the good and ethical ones.

[Commenter_XY]

LTG, when you look at the various women POTUS Trump has smashed over the years, I have to tell you that I believe POTUS Trump when he said Jean Carroll was not his type. Now I would not normally say that, but the man was a billionaire, and Jean Carroll...well...I'll say it this way: Remember back in your youth when you tried to hook up your friend with someone, maybe a double date or something, and you'd say something like...Oh, she has a wonderful personality and don't think about the looks. That is Jean Carroll.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What has made you such a lousy and worthless person? Childish, silly religion is my first choice. Right-wing assholery is a close second.

The more you talk, the quicker I hope America enables Israel to try to fend for itself, and the quicker I hope better Israelis emigrate to America, because not all of them need pay for the mistakes of Israel's disgusting right-wing asswipes.

[Estragon]

“Smashed over the years”

Charming.

He misidentified Carroll as his ex-wife in deposition by the way, so I think we can dismiss the “not his type” bullshit right here and now.

[Moderation4ever]

Glad you brought up the photo where he identified Jean Carroll as Marla. I don't really believe Trump is as picky as he suggests.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Don't expect Commenter_XY to address this issue after his silly, meanspirited comment has been thoroughly discredited by fact from the reality-based world. He lives in a world of partisan drive-bys, childish superstition, and the clingerverse's "alternative facts."

[Jason Cavanaugh]

And his entitled use of slurs. Don't forget about those, Arthur.

[Nige]

Rich people don't need to rape anyone. Esptein was framed.

[Nige]

Cult.

[Nelson]

"finding that Trump had acted “maliciously, out of hatred, ill will, spite or wanton, reckless, or willful disregard of the rights of another”"

That's pretty much a definition of everything that comes out of his mouth.

[Kleppe]

The Maine Secretary of State just arbitrarily removed an opposition candidate from the ballot and Democrats are still convinced they're the good guys, working for the "greater good", etc. lol. If this was a movie they'd be the villains every single time.

[Sarcastr0]

You got bodied for saying this was all Democrats up above.

Thought you’d try again here? Do you just like being publicly owned over and over?

[Kleppe]

You're pretending The Lincoln Project folks and their ilk are something more than mere Hillary Clinton supporting neocon concern trolls. There are two sides in contemporary American politics: those aligned with Trump, and those in opposition. Someone's party registration has no bearing on this. It's just an attempt at credibility.

[Randal]

Someone’s party registration has no bearing on this.

Then why do you keep referring to "Democrats?"

You seem confused. Sit down. Turn off Newsmax. Have some chamomile.

[Kleppe]

The majority of the anti-Trump coalition is made up of Democrats. Maybe referring to a set by its majority constituency is inartful.

[Zarniwoop]

so how do you explain the anti-Trump republicans?

Maybe stop using words like "majority" and start addressing the actual reasons that actual conservatives who respect the Constitution might legit not vote for Don "I'll only be a dictator on the first day" Trump?

[Randal]

Inartful! Try deceptive. The majority of the anti-Trump coalition is made up of women.

So I assume you'd sign your name to this pap:

The Maine Secretary of State just arbitrarily removed an opposition candidate from the ballot and women are still convinced they’re the good guys, working for the “greater good”, etc. lol. If this was a movie they’d be the villains every single time.

[Bob from Ohio]

He's also pretending you were "bodied". Gaslighting about Republicans bringing the cases.

[Sarcastr0]

My dude, you're putting stuff on Democrats (just...'Democrats') that is unsupported.

There are a lot of lawsuits, just most of them lost so you don't even know about them.
There are also lots of Republicans who don't like Trump, some of whom are involved in this 14As3 stuff.

It's not a Dem plot. You're a partisan hammer, so everything looks like a partisan nail.

Not liking Trump is bipartisan, turns out.

[Kleppe]

"My dude, you’re putting stuff on Democrats (just…’Democrats’) that is unsupported."

I see a liberal advocacy group in Illinois is trying to get Trump kicked off the ballot there, too. Can I refer to them as "Democrats" or will that make you teary-eyed again?

[Sarcastr0]

Oh hay you deleted the Illinois Republicans just like you did Colorado Republicans.

Is it that Republicans don't have agency to you? That only Democrats can truly make choices?

[SimonP]

You know the thing that conservatives do, every time an unarmed Black man gets killed by the cops, where they mock liberals for the "heroes" they choose? They go through the man's history, try to find some drug crimes, other arrests they can point to, etc.?

We can run the same play here. No other Republican candidates are getting disqualified. Just the one who actively sought to block the peaceful of transfer of power, after he lost an election. That's the guy you're defending here.

[Kleppe]

"No other Republican candidates are getting disqualified"

No, just the one who's leading by 50+ points! I love how completely genuine you are.

[Bob from Ohio]

If it works this time, they will try again on others.

[Sarcastr0]

Nah, that's just how you work.

Trump is has done special bad things. Even you know this, even if you lie about it.

[Bob from Ohio]

There have already been efforts in New Mexico [successful] and elsewhere regarding low level candidates so as usual you're just blowing smoke.

No Satre slur to use this time?

[Sarcastr0]

There's a bipartsan orgy of ratfuckery in local elections worldwide.

Not what we're talking about here, Bob.

[Bob from Ohio]

Sarcasto: Democrats would never use 14A except against trump

[examples pointed out]

"Those cases don't qualify!"

You are getting more stupid daily.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob, that was a dude who was in the Capitol on Jan 06.

Your concern was rather broader than Republicans who had actually broken into the Capitol on Jan 06, so I don't know how this is material.

[Randal]

If it works this time, they will try again on others.

That doesn't even makse sense. Like, all Republicans are gonna be disqualified? Just nominate someone else.

Disqualifying Trump would be an enormous gift to Republicans. That's going to be true in general. There's no slippery slope here. Disqualifying Biden would be a huge gift to Democrats. It's similar to impeachment: enormous political cost for very little gain, given that there's always somebody else ready to step in.

[SimonP]

Yes, the one who tried to overturn his election defeat. Just that one.

The rhetoric you MAGA goons is always, "Biden is going after the opposition with the DOJ!" But what you mean is Trump. Just Trump. Paxton in Texas is sitting on an indictment, but Biden isn't going after him. DeSantis is probably dirty, but there's no investigation into him. Gaetz slipped away, MTG is free to run her mouth, and no one is trying to break up FoxNews or get NewsMax off the air.

You're bitching because Trump, a man who has been breaking the law for decades, is now the focus of several criminal investigations and may have technically disqualified himself from running for President again by trying to overthrow the government he now claims to want to lead.

Choose better heroes, fuckwit.

[Kleppe]

"Yes, the one who tried to overturn his election defeat."

Are we redrawing the line to any challenges to an election are verboten? Is that the new norm you've chosen to establish? The thing that all the people desperately claiming January 6th was an insurrection are failing to account for is even their preferred understanding of the day's events support the argument that it was about the legal process.

[Nige]

'Are we redrawing the line to any challenges to an election are verboten?'

No, but monotonous repetition of reducto ad absurdum arguments in Trump's defence are probably going to help ensure that when/if Trump gets in power, he does.

[JasonT20]

The thing that all the people desperately claiming January 6th was an insurrection are failing to account for is even their preferred understanding of the day’s events support the argument that it was about the legal process.

LIke most Trump supporters, I don't think you understand the legal processes that were relevant on Jan. 6. Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley certainly do, as intelligent lawyers, but they still found it useful to play along with the ridiculous Eastman theory. Here are the facts as I (not a lawyer) understand them from reading simple language in the Constitution and history:

In 1876, there were disputes over the results in multiple states. Voter intimidation (directed at Republicans in the South, especially black Republicans, over a hundred of whom were murdered), fraud, southern Democrats printing ballots for their side with a symbol of Abe Lincoln on them (to confuse illiterate voters), and so on. There were actual disputes about which electors were the proper ones for those states, with different state officials signing off on the certification of the disputed electoral votes. That is what led to the Electoral Count Act of 1887.

The procedures that have been followed in early January ever since exist as a last stop in choosing a President for two situations then: 1) No candidate receives a majority of the Electoral Votes, or 2) There are active disputes over how the electors were chosen, especially if there are multiple slates of electors claiming to be the correct ones. If neither of those two situations applies, then the duty of Congress is to formally and publicly count the votes and announce that the result is final.

In 2020, no officials with the authority under their state law to certify the Electoral Votes of the state was disputing the electoral votes of their state. Every state Trump's side was arguing about had governors and/or secretaries of state that signed off on Biden's Electors. The alternate slates of electors for Trump that were signed did not have any state officials claiming that they were the real ones.

The basis for the Republicans that said they were going to object on Jan. 6 was only the accusations of fraud that were not holding up to scrutiny. No one with authority to do anything about them was at all impressed by any of them, including multiple Republicans in those positions.

It is true that some Democrats in Congress had objected in 2000, 2004, and 2016. Those did not get much press coverage at the time (I don't recall reading any news stories about them or seeing any on TV, so it wasn't exactly front page level). That is because they knew that it wasn't going to result in anything. They were just trying to make some noise about what they saw as irregular or unfair about the election. For 2000, everyone remembers the deal there. In 2004, there were some issues in Ohio that could have made a difference that someone wanted to stand up about. And again, 2016 had issues that were fairly obvious.

They shouldn't have done that, in my view, because that is not what the process set out in the Electoral Count Act is for, as I've said. Even if they were never going to do more than signal their displeasure with election procedures, that was the wrong way to do it, precisely because of the possibility of someone improperly escalating such objections as we saw in for the 2020 election.

Even with all of the angst from the "stop the steal" MAGA crowd, there just weren't anywhere near enough Republicans planning to object to actually reject any of the Biden electoral votes. Around a dozen GOP Senators and less than 150 Representatives were saying that they would vote to object to a state's electoral votes ahead of that day. Rejecting the votes would have required a majority from both chambers. (Some of the Republicans that said they would object didn't do so after having had to barricade themselves in and hide.)

The final and crucial point of the Eastman plan was to have Mike Pence unilaterally refuse to count enough of the votes to deny Biden a majority. That is certainly not in the Constitution or the Electoral Count Act.

The essential things to take away from this are the dangers to our right to choose our government inherent in their plans. For one thing, we don't want partisan legislators simply voting on whether to accept election results with only their own judgement being the basis of their decisions. Any judgement or process for examining the legitimacy of election results has to be done with legal standards of rules of evidence and people ethically bound to be objective. Election fraud is a crime. Proving that it happened and affected the outcome of an election should require evidence sufficient to punish criminals.

We also certainly don't want the Vice President to have the power to be the sole judge of whether his own election defeat was legitimate. (Note that Gore and Biden both quickly ruled the Democrats objecting to their defeats to be out of order as they presided over the counts in 2001 and 2017, respectively.)

The power of government in a democratic country is held by the people as a whole. People elected to office and/or appointed by those elected to office have to be the ones to actually run and judge the legitimacy of elections. There is no way around that. That is why all questioning of election results should be held to high standards of evidence evaluated in as neutral a manner and forum as possible. If you're willing to vote for people that will push to reject election results without meeting those standards of proof, you are giving your power to choose your government away. And taking that power away from every other voter along with it.

[JasonT20]

No, just the one who’s leading by 50+ points! I love how completely genuine you are.

That’s true. A majority of Republicans answering polls are expressing support for the candidate that actively sought to block the peaceful transfer of power, after he lost an election.

I think you just scored an own goal.

[David Nieporent]

.

The Maine Secretary of State just arbitrarily removed an opposition candidate from the ballot and Democrats are still convinced they’re the good guys, working for the “greater good”, etc.

Coincidentally, this story just came across my Bluesky feed:

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/politics/ohio-politics/ohio-transgender-candidate-disqualified-for-only-including-legal-name-not-former-name-on-petitions

Ohio transgender candidate disqualified for only including legal name, not former name, on petitions

COLUMBUS, Ohio — A transgender candidate for the Ohio House has been disqualified because she only circulated petitions with her legal name, instead of her former name — and it has put multiple other LGBTQ+ candidates in flux.

TL;DR: there's a decades-old law on the books in the state that says that any candidates who changed their names in the last 5 years must include both names on their signature petitions. But… there's an exception for women who changed their names upon marriage. Since very few other people actually change their name, it rarely comes up and nobody knew about it. This requirement is not in the instruction manual, not in the 33-page guide printed by the Secretary of State for candidates. (This isn't in this article, but: there's not even a spot on the state form to list former names.)

One wonders if any of the "How can a candidate be disqualified?" people will object here.

[Nige]

Being transgender is way worse than trying to illegally overthrow an election, even if being transgender isn't technically a crime or automatically disqualifying. Yet.

[Bwaaah]

[grb]

Tired of waiting for the GOP to find “evidence” of Joe Biden’s corruption more persuasive than three truck payments? Unwilling to look again at the Saudi government’s two billion dollar payoff to Jared Kushner, despite the fact the country’s fund managers critized Kushner’s business as too risky and his personal fees excessive compared to all competing proposals?

Take a break and review how foreign governments funneled money into Trump’s pocket all during his White House years. In sheer numbers, China led the way with $5.6 million. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait followed, with their investments in the Trump presidency ranging from $615,000 to &300,000. If you favor a per capita measure, little Qatar was the runaway winner, spending about $180 per every Qatari man, women and child at Trump's properties and clubs.

https://jabberwocking.com/which-country-paid-trump-the-biggest-bribes/

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/352377138e125817/849dad00-full.pdf

[Randal]

This is the reason Lindsey types have started pumping the brakes on impeachment. Trump's not even talking about it anymore.

[Zarniwoop]

I'm looking forward to the mental gymnastics from the usual suspects that "a $4K loan repayment is OBVIOUS EVIDENCE OF CORRUPTION!!1! MUST IMPEACH BIDEN YESTERDAY!!1! .. but (quiet voice) $5.6M from China is just routine - even unimpeachable! - business".

Ope, gotta make some popcorn.

[Bob from Ohio]

Emoluments!

News from 2017.

[grb]

Dang highfallut'n fancy way of saying "bribes" ......

[Michael P]

emolument, n - the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites

bribe, n. - money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust

It turns out they're fundamentally different! This is my shocked face.

[Nige]

Rebranding something bad Trump did as something else that might not be actually illegal is standard.

[Moderation4ever]

Also, news for 2024 because this will happen again if Trump is elected. He will (wink wink) turn the business over to his children and foreign government will understand that doing business with Trump properties is the price of access to the US Presidency.

[Michael P]

The left has assured us that it's totally unimpeachable for foreign companies and governments to arrange even transparently stupid "business" deals with immediate family members of a president. That says nothing about the office holder, only the business acumen of his family members.

[Sarcastr0]

Scare quotes are not evidence.

But I note you didn't weigh in on the Trump bit of the story. If you're going to be angry about Hunter, how do you absolve Trump?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The word you’re looking for Sarcastr0, is “hypocrisy.”

[Nige]

So which is it? Unimpeachable or raging corruption?

[Moderation4ever]

It is really hard to believe the Republican are working so hard but come up with nothing on Biden, everything is we need more documents. And by contrast the Democrats can pull the Trump corruption right out of the existing documents.

[Roberta]

What's on my mind is Argentina, where the important issues of the day worldwide are being hashed out in one place. I'm surprised ctrl-F doesn't turn up "argent" at all as of now here.

[grb]

So I was flush coming out the holiday season and decided to splurge. The purchase off eBay made me a true rarity these days – the owner of an encyclopedia set: Thirty thick leather-bound volumes of an Encyclopædia Britannica so old I was still in high school at its publication.

Now I went into this self-indulgence with my eyes wide open. In my set, the Soviet Union is still a mighty foe and man has landed on the moon – but only just a few years back. There are countless scientific and historical events I will never find in its pages of high-quality paper & inside its binding of soft leather with just a little give to the touch.

But I can pull out any volume, open to any random page, and read long detailed entries on every topic imaginable. This hadn’t gotten old so far.

[Zarniwoop]

ooo, what year?

I had most of a 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica at one point, when I was in high school. Inspired by "Lucifer's Hammer" (Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle), where it was one of the items that let people have solid textual support to rebuild civilization.

It was a lot of fun to read through.

[grb]

A complete Set 15, published in 1975. Nineteen volumes of macropædia and ten of micropædia, with that single volume called Propædia: Outline of Knowledge (which I'm still working out).

In my defense, it wasn't a bad price and I lived near the seller, allowing me to miss plus-minus fifty dollars of shipping costs. And I always wanted one. As a kid, we had a Funk & Wagnalls set which (a) struck me then as a fairly disreputable name, and (b) wasn't close to being the Encyclopædia Britannica.

My (London) Times Atlas of the World is also dated. The Soviet Union still reigns supreme there too. But the mountains and rivers are all the same and the maps have such glorious detail and color.

[David Nieporent]

.

But the mountains and rivers are all the same

Probably not; you probably, e.g., won't find Mount Denali there.

[Magister]

Probably not; you probably, e.g., won’t find Mount Denali there.

The mountain is the same, even if the name isn't.

[Magister]

And exciting news on the blockquote formatting front: you can now avoid that pesky empty or nearly empty line at the front of your comments, at least until they change everything again.

The trick is to start with
<a></a><blockquote>

[ThePublius]

Thanks!

I swear, using this site is like using vintage hi-fi equipment. It would be nice if Reason, or Prof. Volokh would come into the 21st century - or even the late 20th!

It's like creating web pages using Notepad.

[Magister]

I've most often created web pages in Notepad, and as recently as several months ago, so maybe that's why I'm good at finding workarounds for Reason commenting.

[Nige]

That's because Denali is a river in Egypt, y'know.

[Magister]

Nuh uh, it's in the Yukon and gets around 20 miles per gallon on the highway.

[Brett Bellmore]

We had the Funk and Wagnall, and as a child I'd read it end to end by about 2nd grade. But it was missing several volumes, which caused odd lacuna in my knowledge as a child.

[Absaroka]

That's awesome ... we had the set my parents bought when I was born until a few years ago, when we just had to downsize the library. It was kind of a running joke with friends ... we couldn't get through a dinner party without hauling out a volume.

On hot summer afternoons I'd grab a volume and go down to the cool basement and start reading.

@Zarniwoop: another book I really wish I had kept: in the 1970's the city library was selling a ?35? volume 'History of the World' from 1900 or so for $2. The first sentence in volume 1 was 'On month, day, 4004 BC, God created the world...'. Why did I ever let that go?

[grb]

Books I have known! While very young I had some kind of set of American history, from the Age of Exploration to the Civil War. There were illustrations in those damn books that had such pathos & drama I still remember them over fifty years later. I've pawed thru many a used bookshop shelf hoping to find them but never have.

[David Nieporent]

.

@Zarniwoop: another book I really wish I had kept: in the 1970’s the city library was selling a ?35? volume ‘History of the World’ from 1900 or so for $2. The first sentence in volume 1 was ‘On month, day, 4004 BC, God created the world…’. Why did I ever let that go?

I think Mel Brooks made it into a movie.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Something from the other end of the spectrum that might be just as interesting and worthwhile as that encyclopedia -- I had a book that recounted history in about 300 pages of brief (customarily a sentence or two) mentions of events in (ostensibly) chronological order.

The entries consisted of 'these guys produced bronze,' 'those guys declared war over a mistaken understanding,' 'that country was lost (and won) in a poker game; it later was established that the winner had cheated,' or 'the first package of Twinkies was sold at a Stop and Save store in Lockhart, Indiana,' and the like. It was entitled "The People's History" or "A People's Almanac" or something similar, I vaguely recall. It was a (large) paperback. Might have had a da Vinci drawing on the cover.

You could devote five minutes or an hour to it with equally delightful results.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Another Volokh Conspiracy thread, another exhibition of blatant bigotry, including vile racial slurs.

By now, this makes every person who still participates in this blog -- letting name and institution be associatied with this flaming shitstorm -- a bigot-embracing coward and a lousy person.

Mainstream schools should stop enabling these assholes to misappropriate their franchises and diminish their reputations by associating those institutions with this bigoted clustermuck. Fortunately, that work seems to have begun . . . let's hope it continues.

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

[Frank Drackman]

You just called yourself "a bigot-embracing coward and a lousy person."
Oh wait, you qualified it with "letting name and institution be associatied with this flaming shitstorm"

"Associatied"? where did you learn to spell? Penn State?
and I could make a pretty good point you let your "name" (If I was Jerry Sandusky I'd call myself Arthur L. Kirkland too)
and I suppose the "Rev" is supposed to stand for "Reverend" although I think "Revolting" is much more fitting,

So carry on, you Bigot Embracing Coward and Lousy Person, at least as far as your Bettors permit.

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Frank Drackman is the defender the Volokh Conspirators deserve;

the dumbass these disaffected right-wing losers target as an audience;

and the reason these culture war rejects should expect to be ushered off legitimate campuses in due time.

How long will tenure protect them?

[grb]

If you follow the news, you’ve seen this sequence:

(1) DeSantis switched from pro-vaccine to anti-vaxx flake in the snap of a finger. It was another craven attempts to pander to the MAGA mob, mixing low calculation with abject political cowardice. Trump supported vaccines against a sizable part of his base, so DeSantis saw this as peeling off support. Since everyone quickly saw what a worthless piece of shit he is, it didn’t work.

(2) To show his faux-flakiness was real pandering, Desantis appointed a complete loon as Florida Surgeon General: Dr. Joseph Ladapo. No one could doubt the sincerity of DeSantis’ insincerity watching the Ladapo freak-show. From hyping worthless treatments like hydroxychloroquine & ivermectin, to making the rounds of every crackpot podcaster to spread the anti-vaxx gospel, to changing the text of a vaccine study to claim phantom deaths, to refusing to wear a mask while meeting a state senator taking radiation therapy, Ladapo never missed a chance to let his freak flag fly.

(3) But worried his boss isn’t getting the spectacle he wants, Ladapo is back in the news. He called on healthcare providers to halt the use of all COVID-19 mRNA vaccines over contamination with “foreign DNA”. The FDA responded :

“With over a billion doses of the mRNA vaccines administered and following very careful review of all the available scientific evidence, the FDA has not identified safety concerns related to the sequence of, or amount of, residual DNA …. quality standards regarding residual DNA are applied to other vaccines. Small amounts of residual DNA can be found in several approved vaccines, including influenza and hepatitis vaccines, which have been administered globally for more than 30 years.”

The proposed leadership of the GOP now has a huckster buffoon who tried to steal a presidential election and a walking piece of low trash like DeSantis as its one-two (per 538’s latest poll summary).

What a hollow nihilistic Nothing today’s Right is.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/03/health/covid-vaccines-florida.html

[Martinned]

TIL that Javier Milei appointed his sister as secretary general of the presidency (a job of ministerial rank) despite the fact that her professional experience is mostly limited to reading tarot cards and making pastries. Once again, rightwing populists do what they accuse the left of doing.

[Martinned]

Hydroxychloroquine could have caused 17,000 deaths during Covid, study finds

https://www.politico.eu/article/hydroxychloroquine-could-have-caused-17000-deaths-during-covid-study-finds/

[Martinned]

The study itself is here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S075333222301853X

[Nige]

That's died *after taking * it. How much damage was done to people who actually needed it and had to deal with a sudden and extended scarcity thanks to all those cynical monsters who recklessly promoted it?

[Mr. Bumble]

Cite.

[Nige]

I was asking the question. Is 'cite' yet another term to be added to the list of 'words you guys don't actually understand?'

[OtisAH]

I find it practical and a time-saver to put all words in that category and pare the list when, if ever, it becomes appropriate to do so. Haven’t had to adjust it yet, but there are a lot of words out there so you never know.

[Mr. Bumble]

"That’s died *after taking * it." is not a question. Cite

[Nige]

Did you not see the link?

[Magister]

Nearly 17,000 people may have died after taking hydroxycholoroquine[sic] during the first wave of Covid-19, according to a study by French researchers.

From the first linked article. The study is titled "Deaths induced by compassionate use of hydroxychloroquine during the first COVID-19 wave: an estimate", the second link above.

"That's" = "Nearly 17,000 people may have died"
"after taking" = "after taking"
"it" = "hydroxychloroquine"

[Mr. Bumble]

"May" have died. Typical weasel words.

[Nige]

Wel that was an incisive scientific analysis of the findings. Is the weasel in the room with you right now?

[Nelson]

"I was asking the question"

Don't do that. It's disingenuous. Leave it to Tucker Carlson and other bad faith actors.

[Nige]

Well I wasn't expecting a sort of Spainish Inquisition.

[ThePublius]

Correlation is not equal to causality. I see nothing like a smoking gun, that the drug was the proven cause of the death. The study is a statistical study.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you know how you statistically prove causality? You isolate all the other factors.

So something like this: "Subsequently, HCQ use was associated with an 11% increase in the mortality rate in a meta-analysis of randomized trials" is pretty suggestive.

And the fact that it's a meta-analysis is itself means finding a confounding factor will be difficult.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Hydroxychloroquine was approved for medical use in the United States in 1955.[2] It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines.[5] In 2020, it was the 126th most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with 4.99 million prescriptions.[6][7]"

[Nige]

Oh, any drug that is widely prescribed can actually be taken arbitrarily like candy with no ill effects.

[Nelson]

I don't think the deaths would be attributable to the side-effects of the drug itself.

I think the issue was that using HCQ, which had no effect on preventing or treating Covid, instead of a medically-proven, effective treatment, led to the death of those who were convinced to use bogus treatments.

[ThePublius]

Wouldn't that factor be the virus itself, or co-morbidities? Did they control for co-morbidities?

[Sarcastr0]

The issue is they found an *increase* above the baseline for people with the virus.

The co-morbidities is what I was talking about regarding confounding factors. Like, maybe there's an unforeseen higher prevalence of previous respiratory issues in the folks who requested and got Hydroxychloroquine.
But the meta-analysis implies they at least had the opportunity to check all those other potential correlates and didn't find anything.

[ThePublius]

You're not going to find that for which you don't look. That's the problem with a lot of these statistical studies, or - what are the called? - studies of studies. You can get any result you want.

[Sarcastr0]

If they're peer reviewed, I would not expect that kind of rookie oversight.

And this isn't a pre-print so it's been through the process.

Meta-analyses are about the strongest you can get for a single paper.
That being said, it is only a single paper. I wouldn't make policy or take a factual position just based on it alone.

[Brett Bellmore]

There have been some serious peer review abuses uncovered in recent years, though. Things like closed groups of researchers routinely giving glowing reviews to each other's papers.

It's just another face of the replication crisis.

[Sarcastr0]

OK, Brett.
Disbelieve all peer reviewed papers because of some anecdotes.
Good luck with that.

That's not another face of the replication crisis; your scale is way off.

Sorry these results don't agree with your priors, but you're being very silly with the level of skepticism you're deploying.

[ThePublius]

What is the possible legal basis for Eric Adams suing 17 bus companies who have transported illegal immigrants to NYC for the expense associated with having those immigrants there? Has he lost his mind? Or have I lost mine for thinking it's ridiculous?

[Sarcastr0]

Section 149 of the New York Social Services Law requires that '[a]ny person who knowingly brings, or causes to be brought a needy person from out of state into this state for the purpose of making him a public charge…shall be obligated to convey such person out of state or support him at his own expense.'”

I think Adams is kinda crazy, but this seems like a pretty on-point legal basis.

[ThePublius]

Ah, thanks. Now, do you think that applies to the bus companies, or the people putting those folks on the buses, and inducing them to go to NYC?

And, perhaps more importantly, do you think the law is sound, i.e., would it stand up to constitutional or other challenges?

One case might be if you asked a person if they wanted to go to NYC and they said yes, aren't they, themselves, the ones responsible for arriving?

[Zarniwoop]

There are apparently some constitutional issues, including restricting the right to travel under Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941).

It will be interesting to see how NY distinguishes Edwards ... or maybe enough justices will be amenable to an argument that there's no "right to travel" expressly spelled out in the Constitution.

[Sarcastr0]

Right to travel would be held by the 'needy person' who seems out of the scope of the law to me.

[Zarniwoop]

I don't doubt that that's one of the ways NY will try to distinguish the precedent - see para 3 of the complaint. But ThePublius asked, and one shouldn't be blind to the potential constitutional issues.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not saying there are no issues, I just don't think this is one of them.

[Sarcastr0]

'brings, or causes to be brought' seems to sweep up both the bus companies and the people putting them on the bus.

It's a state law, and state police power is quote broad. Maybe preemption or contracts clause could be a good avenue to object?

The text of the law seems to be directed at third parties, not the needy people themselves; that would as you noted have some absurd results.

[John F. Carr]

There is a vague right to interstate travel.

Federal welfare laws may also come into play if these people are enrolled in federal-aid programs.

[Nelson]

"‘brings, or causes to be brought’ seems to sweep up both the bus companies and the people putting them on the bus."

It would be hilarious if Abbott came.to New York and ended up in court for his political shenanigans. DeSantis, too.

I'd love to see Florida and Texas have to pay for the migrants they sent up instead of the federal government.

[John F. Carr]

I wonder if common carrier status matters here. The city may need to sue DeSantis et al.

If the bus companies are liable they can discharge their liability by taking the immigrants across the river to the transit station in Newark, proving bus or train fare to go back to NYC.

[ThePublius]

I think they are already delivering immigrants to NJ and telling them to take the train to NYC; so, Adams is seeking to extend his bus prohibition to other transit, but I don't see how that's legal.

So, the chickens have come home to roost in the sanctuary cities. They were all for the influx until they had to deal with it! Ha, ha.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Ha, ha.

Do you half-educated conservative bigots genuinely believe you have a chance to compete in the culture war against the liberal-libertarian mainstream?

Do you believe your superstitious dogma and obsolete ignorance are any match for reason, science, education, and modernity at the marketplace of ideas?

Do you figure your fourth-tier, nonsense-teaching conservative schools can compete with our nation’s strongest research and teaching institutions? That your desolate, economically inadequate, uneducated backwaters can keep up with America’s modern, strong, successful, educated communities?

That religion, racism, gay-bashing, Islamophobia, white nationalism, creationism, misogyny, antisemitism, transphobia, school prayer, white privilege, xenophobia, and similar relics are positioned for a comeback in modern America?

The culture war isn’t quite over but it has been settled. Conservatives and their stale, ugly preferences hardest hit.

Ha, ha.

[Nelson]

The problem is that Texas and Florida are getting rid of the migrants, but keeping all the federal funds. If they gave up their funding it would be a lot more believable as a principle thing.

Imagine how shocked I am that they don't want to give up that sweet, sweet government money. Yeah, I'm not shocked at all.

[ThePublius]

It's also interesting that the law Sarcastr0 cites may be in direct conflict with NYC's sanctuary city resolution and policy.

[Nelson]

I'm pretty sure that when a law and a policy come into conflict, the law wins.

[Absaroka]

"The city may need to sue DeSantis et al."

What would NY sue for?

I'm imagining that I'm at the Greyhound station[1] and some down on their luck person asks if I could give them bus fare to somewhere. I do so. What can the destination city sue me for?

[1]that brings back bad memories from my pre-car college days 🙂

[John F. Carr]

New York would say DeSantis knowingly caused immigrants to be brought to New York City for the purpose of making them public charges.

Except he might have some sort of official immunity, so NYC would need to sue Florida instead. And Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (2019 edition) makes that harder.

[Absaroka]

So Texas' position is 'We believe that immigrants are valuable future citizens who deserve our help, and so we ask them if they need anything. If they say they feel they will have a better chance of finding the American Dream in the Big Apple than Hicksville, TX, we give them a bus ticket'.

NY replies: 'Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that's bunk: immigrants are a drag on society who just become welfare charges. Everyone knows that, even the state of TX'.

I get that as a legal position for the purpose of the case at hand, but it seems like an awkward position for NY to take in the court of public opinion.

[Martinned]

NY sure, but Eric Adams?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That is not Texas' position. Plenty of immigrants claimed they were uninformed or lied to by Texas' representatives, and evidence seemed to corroborate those accounts.

Texas' position is cruel, belligerent, un-American xenophobia, with a side order of resentment of its betters.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm having a hard time squaring that law with anything even vaguely resembling constitutional freedom of travel, which surely must encompass people helping you to travel.

[Sarcastr0]

which surely must encompass people helping you to travel.

I don't think that's evident at all. It's a surprisingly narrowly scoped right. (e.g. airports requirements are not a problem because you have no right to travel *by air*).

I don't think this law is slam-dunk unassailable, but I don't think rights analysis is going to be the issue.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've never been terribly impressed with that sort of reasoning. "Yes, you have a right to speak, we're just telling you WHAT you can say."

Speaking of narrowly scoped, that's exactly what this NY law isn't.

Section 149

"Any person who knowingly brings, or causes to be brought, a needy person from out of the state into this state for the purpose of making him a public charge, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of one hundred dollars, and shall be obligated to convey such person out of the state or to support him at his own expense."

It would appear to apply to every possible mode of transportation, even walking, and simply pointing in the direction of NY might be claimed to invoke it.

[Sarcastr0]

That's pretty common in state laws - state laws don't need to be narrowly scoped nearly as much as federal.

No limited grant of power as with Article I.

Constitutional attacks on state laws for overbreadth are usually when they are about speech, though some procedural due process touches on that issue via notice concerns.
I see neither of those here.

Now it is also 19th Century, so there's almost certainly some jank there. I'd be pretty optimistic that there are NYS Constitutional issues.

[John F. Carr]

A prosecution for pointing would have to be on an aiding and abetting theory, which requires proof of criminal intent.

[Bored Lawyer]

The "for the purpose of making him a public charge" requires a specific intent. Going to be very hard to prove. The bus companies will claim their purpose was to make the bus fare. Florida and Texas will claim, their purpose was to get them out of their states.
Expect the case to be tossed at some point.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Brett,

I presume you are equally aghast at state laws purporting to criminalize helping a woman travel to another state where she intends to have an abortion.

(For the record, I don't like this NY law or, especially, Eric Adams' attempted application of it to this situation. Also, I think it will fail.)

[grb]

Poll Results - How's the Weather on Your Planet Edition:

A Deseret News / Harris X survey found that 64% of Republicans see Donald Trump as a "man of faith". For comparison, the numbers on Joe Biden & Mitt Romney were 13% and 34% respectively.

Guess we shouldn't be surprised. Given Trump's supporters can take any act of criminality and transmogrify it into wholesome sweetness and light, who doubts they can magically change his gross vulgar sleaze into Godly piety.

For the record: If you look at presidental time of office, Joe Biden has attended mass almost as much as the combined number of times Jimmy Carter, W. Bush, Trump and Obama attended church.

[Magister]

You could throw in Reagan without affecting the result; he apparently went to church once during his presidency. (Although I guess you were considering living presidents only.)

When asked about his lack of church attendance during the 1984 presidential debate with former Vice President Walter Mondale, Reagan said he feared endangering his own life and those of others: "I pose a threat to several hundred people if I got to church. I know all the threats that are made against me."

[John F. Carr]

That's weird.

Of the presidents and candidates of the past 50 years, Romney, Carter, and probably GWB are men of faith in my mind. That is more than hauling your body into a building on Sunday, Christmas, or Easter.

Maybe I'm wrong. I don't require the candidates I vote for to be good Christians or quasi-Christians and I don't put effort into research.

[grb]

Romney & Carter without question, but I'm personally not sure about GWB. Without claiming any window into his soul, I suspect the riotous frat boy of his youth lies just below the surface. Of course you don't need a window to see thru Trump. His moral, spiritual and ethical vacuity is obvious to all.

That said, it raises an issue about this kind of polling. The further you get away from practical issues and concrete decisions, the more poll respondees see their answers as a tribal totem rather than honest opinion. Do 34% of Republicans really believe the 06Jan riot was an FBI plot (another poll - today's front page of the WaPo)? I asume not, but that was the number.

[Sarcastr0]

When that spy plane want down by Hainan Island, reportedly GWB’s first question was whether the pilot had his Bible.

I think he’s legit.

Doesn’t mean the frat boy isn’t in there.

The rest of your point about polling abstract questions strikes me as pretty insightful.

[John F. Carr]

"I heard Jesus, He drank wine. I bet we'd get along just fine." – Miranda Lambert, "Heart Like Mine"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

A Deseret News / Harris X survey found that 64% of Republicans see Donald Trump as a “man of faith”. For comparison, the numbers on Joe Biden & Mitt Romney were 13% and 34% respectively.

Two-thirds of Republicans are write-offs -- disaffected, gullible, roundly bigoted, delusional, antisocial, superstition-addled, un-American, half-educated, economically inadequate, backwaters-inhabiting, obsolete losers.

But these assholes, annoying as they are, constitute no problem replacement is not already solving.

[grb]

There’s a real question whether DeSantis is human at all. A school of thought holds some evil Gnostic diety mixed together a gloop of gimmicks, stunts, cartoon theatrics & raw pandering, then poured it into into a person-shaped mold and compressed under high pressure.
Presto : Ronald Dion DeSantis (shoe lifts not included)

Today’s news supports that : “Florida governor Ron DeSantis (R.) called for the abolishment of the IRS during a CNN town hall in Iowa as he makes his final few pitches to the voters of the Hawkeye State. DeSantis said, “I want to eliminate the IRS, and I would like a flat — one single-rate flat tax.”

Of course this is nonsense. As Kevin Drum observes :

” …. a flat tax would cut taxes on millionaires and raise taxes on the middle class. It would also blow up the deficit since no plausible flat tax would raise anywhere near the revenue we currently raise.”

https://jabberwocking.com/ron-desantis-is-letting-them-see-him-sweat/

[Mr. Bumble]

“It would also blow up the deficit since no plausible flat tax would raise anywhere near the revenue we currently raise.”

Assumes what we “raise” is necessary and in any case it hasn’t been enough for decades as Congress continues to borrow to spend more than the current system raises.

[Nige]

Defund the police, I keep telling you.

[Mr. Bumble]

Starting with the FBI?

[Magister]

Beyond the vote to defund the IRS and the calls to cut defense and DHS spending, some prominent conservatives and hard-right House Republicans promoted defunding the FBI last summer, after the search of former president Donald Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago.

What will House Republicans vote to defund next?
So the FBI was actually low on the Republican list.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe if Congress actually got back to passing the appropriation bills that make up a budget we could get a handle on out of control debt and deficits.

[grb]

Mr. Bumble : ” …. we could get a handle on out of control debt and deficits.”

You imply you want to, but I have my doubts. So let’s review what was required the last time we got a handle on deficits under Clinton. Let’s see if you’re up for the task.

For the record, we’ll first review who got us to the sorry state: Ronald Reagan, the father, grandfather, godfather and holy saint of modern U.S. debt. Presidents post-Nixon have typically increased the federal debt between 33% & 58%. Reagan’s number was 142%. He got massive tax cuts “funded” on Supply Side lies so absurd even a small child couldn’t believe them, therein teaching today’s GOP that math is nothing more than a P.R. problem. With the right story, 1+1 can mean anything you damn-well please. His fiscal skills were twofold : He produced “rosy scenario” budget projections that were lovely and beautiful compared to the CBO numbers. Unfortunately, the CBO numbers were always right. He also had a talent for convincing people he proposed massive spending cuts but was thwarted by Congress. This was another lie. True, Congress did overspend Reagan’s yearly budgets, but only by a paltry 7-8 billion. That was a drop in the bucket compared to the budgetary abyss Reagan steered the country down.

So let’s review the Clinton measures that balanced the budget:

1. It was both Clinton’s deficit bill and G.H.W. Bush’s bill that did the job. Both together contributed to the Clinton surpluses. Regretably, Bush renounced his own bill a few days after signing it.

Clinton entered office and immediately anounced he was shocked (shocked!) to find a deficit problem.This too was a lie, but as cover for real political courage. His deficit packaged passed with no Republican votes.

2. It had a middle-class tax hike of slim to moderate size. That is essential. You can’t deal with deficits without revenue increases and – a million Democrats notwithstanding – it can’t be from taxing the rich alone.

3. It had structural budgetary measures like Pay-Go that restricted new spending not financed thru additional revenue or spending cuts.

4. It had a package of spending cuts. Again, a person serious about controling U.S. debt doesn’t lie to the American people with simplistic pap. The problem requires broad-based taxes, spending restrictions and spending cuts. Say it can be done with just your single pet solution (with no sacrifice to you) and you might as well put a clown’s nose on your face and wear those big floppy shoes.

5. It required Clinton pushing and squeezing entitlement spending to keep those numbers under control, particularly Medicaid/Medicare.

6. And it required Clinton’s boom economy, but remember : Reagan’s was almost as good and it produced a massive debt increase.

See, Bumble? That’s not so difficult – except it required a concentrated focus from the public, multiple Congresses, real sacrifice and two Presidents. Yet George W. Bush quickly destroyed every single hard-fought gain. Massive unfunded tax cuts? check. A new unfunded entitlement? check. Voting away those irksome spending restrictions? check. And with W. Bush in full-party-mode, why bother with spending limits? No reason at all.

It is just conceivable a Democrat might be able to accomplish the steps above. It is impossible a Republican could. They’re 100% bullshit talk on deficits, debt, and spending.

[Mr. Bumble]

This episode of Life in an Alternate Universe has been brought to you by grb.
Tune in daily for new episodes.

[David Nieporent]

I don't see the words "peace dividend" anywhere in your comment.

[Absaroka]

Nor 'republican congress'.

(n.b. I'm not suggesting that republicans aren't as profligate as dems, but the president doesn't just get to dictate taxes or spending ... if congress and the White House are held by different parties, both get the credit or blame)

[Nige]

All across the board, and the military.

[not guilty]

Waybe LaWhore has resigned as leader of the NRA. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/05/nyregion/wayne-lapierre-resigns-nra.html?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20240105&instance_id=111806&nl=from-the-times&regi_id=59209117&segment_id=154384&te=1&user_id=86ac9094018f7140c62a54a4e93c075f

Groucho Marx was right. Time wounds all heels.

[Mr. Bumble]

Bogus suit by a bogus AG.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Turns out he is a quitter, too.

Let's hope the corruption, if established, lands him in prison.

[David Nieporent]

He was embezzling, big time, from the NRA. I would think any conservative who supports the 2nd amendment would be aghast at that.

[Absaroka]

My sense is that gun owners across America are celebrating his departure. The only concern I hear is that too many of his cronies/enablers are still there.

[Randal]

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2024/jan/05/adl-pro-israel-advocacy-zionism-antisemitism

ADL has only doubled down on initiatives defending Israel and the policies of the Israeli government amid criticism and staff resignations

The ADL continues to delegitimize itself.

[Kleppe]

Ad hominems are the only recourse when you don't have an argument. Keep pounding the table.

[Kleppe]

You can't read people's minds. If you're being genuine (doubtful) and actually believe you can, you urgently need mental health intervention.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Kleppe goes all in with you are for Trump or against him, Queen A points out this is a quintessentially cultish position, so Kleppe accuses her of using ad hominem.

I too thought he was proudly owning his cultishness. Is it really possible that Kleppe is that lacking in the ability to introspect?

[Commenter_XY]

That was a good one = ...it’s like Breitbart and Hallmark worked together on it.

[Sarcastr0]

The things you say about Democrats, and your promises of repercussions?
That's what makes it pretty easy to see what you're thinking - you type it out.