Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

In the Donald Trump disqualification matter arising out of Colorado, Floyd Abrams and a bevy of First Amendment scholars have submitted an amicus curiae brief which demolishes Trump's claim that his conduct in mustering the insurrectionists and giving them their marching orders is protected by the First Amendment. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/299220/20240130143600068_23-719%20Amici%20BOM%20Floyd%20Abrams%20et%20al%20PDFA.pdf

[Kazinski]

I’ll have to read it, but the first time I read the phrase “coded language” it will be the last two words I read, unless of course they are giving it the derision it deserves.

Update: A "coded language" search returned no.results, so it actually has some promise of being useful. More useful than the 2 Colorado court decisions.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It's remarkable that you seem oblivious to how much of a partisan fool your statement reveals you to be.

You aren't looking to read an argument; you're pre-emptively looking for reasons to reject one.

[Kazinski]

Well if you look at my comment further below you will see you are wrong.

I actually think the premise of the brief is correct, although it does not apply to Trump based on his words that day and leading up to that day.

But one question, if the "coded language" absurdity was not absurd, why didn't the first amendment lawyers brief include it in their argument?

A.Because they know it's absurd and they have too much self respect to include it.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

“But one question, if the “coded language” absurdity was not absurd, why didn’t the first amendment lawyers brief include it in their argument?

A.Because they know it’s absurd and they have too much self respect to include it.”

Oh, were you in the meeting where they discussed the merits they wanted to include in their brief?

And for the record, you were absolutely looking for a reason to reject it. You said so yourself when you admitted that if you read two words, they'd be the last ones you did. The rest of the substance would not have mattered to you, by your own admission.

[SimonP]

This nutter intentionally named himself after a domestic terrorist, spends half the year in a cabin in the woods, and has been workshopping his own "amicus brief" here in the open threads for weeks now. He's clearly not well.

[Kazinski]

No, I didn't name myself after a domestic terrorist, my friends named me after a domestic terrorist.

That's much better, I think.

[Brett Bellmore]

Just assure us that you printed your brief using an artisan hand carved wood block.

[Bwaaah]

"my friends named me after a domestic terrorist"

Well, that probably wasn't because you were just parroting somebody else's narrative. If it weren't for independent thinking, there'd be no thinking at all.

[Commenter_XY]

I think it is actually pretty funny, Ted. 🙂

[Noscitur a sociis]

Jesus.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Oh, your friends signed you up on VC?

Where can we send our thanks?

[Tom for equal rights]

Jason Cavanaugh 5 hours ago
"It’s remarkable that you seem oblivious to how much of a partisan fool your statement reveals you to be."

Pot meet kettle
look in the mirror

[Stephen Lathrop]

The arguments which link Trump's words in context to the violence at the Capitol seem to provide the heretofore missing link to justify a superseding charge of treason.

[NvEric]

Their is no treason, nor words even remotely indicating anything whatsoever questionable. One must be daft to both reason and intellect to think anything was amiss in words by Trump on January 6, 2021.

Ilya Somin is likewise bereft of same and more to suggest what he foists forth in his articles here and elsewhere concerning A14 concerns. All is bankrupt and needs no refuting since he promotes a non sequitur.

However, I'll try to point out that only those who have engaged in actions against the USA, in some fashion considered as an insurrection, can be held to A14, in which said actions go against the USA and the federal government. Since the executive of the USA is entrusted with executing the laws of the USA, he, or she, is solely responsible for being in charge of the executive branch of the federal government, and is thus completely unable to act against himself, or herself. Besides anyone with more than a third-grade education knows this A14 tirade is bunk and not worthy of dried spit in the Amazon.

At best, all who subscribe to the A14 angle, deriding Trump's words on January 6, 2021 can only object to a poor choice of words, which in fact never occurred beyond his lack of not being steeped in BS of most all political, judicial, and the legal minded bunch who have degenerated the status of our fine country.

It is the very degeneracy of the system and all who support it that should be tried for insurrection !

[Randal]

A "poor choice of words" that predictably led to the storming of the Capitol? It defies common sense to think that it was just an accident on Trump's part.

Anyway, if it had all been an accident, his subsequent behavior would've been very different.

[Commenter_XY]

Predictably is doing a lot of work there. There is nothing predictable about human behavior.

[Randal]

Hahaha this is even better than the Chewbacca Defense. Let’s call it the Goldblum Defense after Jeff’s line in Jurassic Park. Who could’ve predicted that Dr. Grant would suddenly jump out of a moving vehicle?

It goes like this…

Prosecutor: Did you pay Co-conspirator Two $50,000 and instruct him to kill your wife?

Defendant: Yes, but there’s nothing predictable about human behavior. So there’s no way I could’ve predicted he would actually do it.

Judge: That’s absolutely right and how the law works. Case dismissed!

[Brett Bellmore]

But note that, in your little story, the defendant DID unambiguously instruct somebody to kill his wife.

While Trump didn't instruct anybody to break into the Capitol.

[Randal]

Yes, but this thread is about intent, not the standard of proof. Scroll down a bit for that.

The question XY (implicitly) posed is, could Trump have even had intent, in any relevant sense, given the general unpredictability of human behavior? The answer to that question is undeniably yes.

[David Nieporent]

While Trump didn’t instruct anybody to break into the Capitol.

Everyone heard it, except you.

[VinniUSMC]

Those damn dog whistles. Strange that it’s always cats who claim to hear it and dogs don't.

[Nige]

The dogs all ran to the Capitol, remember?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It was just a coincidence...

[Armchair]

Sometimes, you hear what you want to hear. Not what is actually said.

[Randal]

Yes, and the whole question is whether Trump intended for them to hear what they heard. It seems pretty obvious that he did. He certainly didn't seem surprised or try to stop it.

[Kazinski]

Actually its clear from the Jan 6 timeline that the Capitol breach had nothing to do with Trump's words at the ellipse. The Capitol barricades had already been breached 17 minutes before Trumps speech ended:

12:53 p.m.: Rioters overwhelm police along the outer perimeter west of the Capitol building, pushing aside temporary fencing. Some protesters immediately follow, while others, at least initially, remain behind and admonish the others: "Don't do it. You're breaking the law."[198][199] By 1:03 p.m., a vanguard of rioters have overrun three layers of barricades and have forced police officers to the base of the west Capitol steps.[192]
12:57 p.m.: Federal Protective Service officers report that the Capitol Police barricade on the west side of the Capitol building has been breached by a large group.[143]

1:10 p.m.: Trump ends his speech by urging his supporters to march upon the Capitol Building:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack

And then its a 40 minute walk to the Capitol building from the Eclipse.

[Randal]

Yes, he did a lot of speaking about Jan 6 prior to Jan 6.

[Kazinski]

You got any quotes for those prior utterings that you think makes the case he was inciting insurrection?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

And now we're back to you pretending that the January 6th committee didn't write a report, and that the facts contained within it don't exist, and haven't been evaluated by a court and found to be credible and true.

It's like you people take pride in being dishonest and disingenuous.

[Kazinski]

You got any precedents for courts accepting congressional hearings into the record as facts in a trial in lieu of taking testimony and allowing cross examination of the witnesses?

[Sarcastr0]

Accepting nontestimonial evidence into the record happens all the time.
And it is open to impeachment and attacks on it's accuracy just like all evidence is.

[David Nieporent]

They did take testimony, and there was cross-examination.

[Randal]

If you'd ever get around to actually reading the district court opinion, it cites to tons of precedent for admitting congressional hearings into evidence.

[not guilty]

"You got any precedents for courts accepting congressional hearings into the record as facts in a trial in lieu of taking testimony and allowing cross examination of the witnesses?"

The factual premise of your question is a falsehood, Kazinski. The House January 6 Committee Report was not admitted "in lieu of taking testimony and allowing cross examination of the witnesses." It was admitted pursuant to Rule 803(8)(C) of the Colorado Rules of Evidence, which states:

The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness:

(8) Public records and reports. Unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness, records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies . . . (C) in civil actions . . . factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law.

The District Court devoted a full eight pages of the Final Order to discussion of reasons for admitting the Report into evidence, including ample precedents favoring admissibility thereof. https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf

[Brett Bellmore]

"Unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness,"

And the court totally blew off the unprecedented nature of the January 6th committee, pretending that it was actually bipartisan.

That every member had previously expressed animus against Trump was dismissed as irrelevant.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, Brett, the judge was entitled to assess credibility.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Brett,

Disliking Trump does not strip someone from being a Republican. Your complaint about the Jan 6 committee not being 'bipartisan' is utter bullshit like just about everything else that comes out of your mouth.

[David Nieporent]

And the court totally blew off the unprecedented nature of the January 6th committee, pretending that it was actually bipartisan.

It literally was bipartisan.

That every member had previously expressed animus against Trump was dismissed as irrelevant.

Yes.

[Brett Bellmore]

And so we return to mindless formalism. It was "bipartisan" despite all the members being picked by one party, because the party that picked them found a couple members of the other party that shared their views.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You're learning from the Democrats, I see.

Pelosi initially appointed seven Democrats and one Republican to the committee. Kevin McCarthy initially appointed five Republicans; Pelosi accepted three of them, but rejected two of them ("citing concerns for the investigation's integrity and relevant actions and statements made by the two members"); and McCarthy responded by pulling all five. Pelosi subsequently appointed another Republican, bringing the committee size to nine.

You know why there were only two Republicans on that committee, but you act as though you have no idea.

Democrats lie to us; Republicans lie to themselves.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Brett has been a liar for years.

[David Nieporent]

You know why there were only two Republicans on that committee, but you act as though you have no idea.

Not only that, but Ken Buck testified at the Colorado disqualification proceeding that he offered to serve on the committee, but that McCarthy wouldn't let him.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Since the executive of the USA is entrusted with executing the laws of the USA, he, or she, is solely responsible for being in charge of the executive branch of the federal government, and is thus completely unable to act against himself, or herself.

NvEric, treason, of course, is not a crime against the government. By definition, treason does involve levying war against the government. But in American constitutionalism, the crime is always against the jointly sovereign People—to whom the offender owes his oath of allegiance and support. The offender's mischief is to violate his oath, with its duty of allegiance to the sovereign, by conspiring with others to attack with violence the sovereign's government, and then to do at least one overt act to set the conspiracy in motion. Trump did those things. Multiple witnesses exist to attest to it.

No doctrine of immunity exists to shield a President from a treason charge. No Supreme Court would dare say otherwise.

[Krayt]

The People also demand other things through their Constitution, like factions not turning the investigative power of government against political opponents in initiative after initiative, for the better part of a decade, to git ‘im!

That’s rather shitty behavior, stewards-of-Constitution-wise.

And is far and away the greatest threat to democracy these recent years, when compared to a 4 hour riot. Wtf did you motivated disasterbators think was gonna happen? They’d hang the VP and declare him president, then 350 million would sit back and say, “Fine. I guess it’s a dictatorship now.”

Liars.

[Sarcastr0]

You beg the question. And ignore the Mueller Report.

You are angry based on your own personal facts.

[Bwaaah]

All that comports with my views of the matter.

Is it really 350 million people who would let American democracy fall, or just another half-baked narrative some partisans want you to believe in order to win the next election?

Come on, man. They had the gallows all set to go outside the Capitol (although they only left 3 feet between the noose and a fixed platform). But I remember what those protesters in the capitol were really like (from MSNBC, before they got some good shaky camera footage of protestors pressing through police barricades, and oh lord, the breaking of windows and a boogie man with horns).

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I keep pointing that out: Even if the dweebs who broke in HAD captured Congress, and forced them at flag pole point to vote that Trump was President, it could never work. Nobody outside the building would take it seriously, and Trump would have to disavow the vote just to avoid being arrested on the spot.

You know what they say, of course: "Even an incompetent coup is a coup." Yeah, they're stupid enough to say that.

[Randal]

All insurrections fail. Otherwise it's no longer an insurrection.

Anyway, you guys are totally uncreative about what would have happened if Pence had disappeared and been unavailable to count the votes. The fact that no one would take Congress's actions seriously is exactly the problem. Without a certified vote count... what happens next? Can Biden actually get inaugurated? Extending the chaos and uncertainty is exactly what Trump was after. Who knows what would've come next.

[Brett Bellmore]

See, there you go: You point out that you'd have to be insane to think it would work as a coup, and so it wasn't a coup, and they just fall back on, "That proves he's insane".

[Randal]

Huh? I didn’t say he’s insane, I said you don’t have to be insane to think it could work as a coup.

You tell me what you think would’ve happened between Jan 6 and Jan 21 if Pence had disappeared. He got into a Secret Service van to escape the Capitol on Jan 6 and hasn’t been seen or heard from since.

[Bwaaah]

“Without a certified vote count… what happens next?”

Oh mommy!! What happens? They make some emergency orders to, in effect, resume the process.

One of the things that was illuminating about seeing how Congress ratified the post-Civil-War amendments is to see how they just slammed through whatever rules were in the way of assuring the perpetuation of the sovereign, as expressed in and by the legislature. Was that an effort to disregard law, or an effort to protect the institutions of law?

Just because the circumstances turn tumultuous doesn’t mean everyone goes stupid. People are pretty good at stepping up to, say, actually saving our democracy.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Looks like you haven't read the Eastman memos.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, Mike Pence—a person notably better informed than you are about the events of J6, and what was behind them—chillingly refused to get into a Secret Service limousine proffered as an escape vehicle. Do you know what Pence said when he turned down the offer?

[Don Nico]

So why is there no charge of treason by any competent jurist?
Instead we keep hearing your pet theory justified by your holy incantation, " jointly sovereign People."

As much as you stomp your feet and pound your fists on the table, that dog won't hunt.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, if you want to keep complaining about the relevance of popular sovereignty to American constitutionalism, stop blaming me and instead direct your remarks to Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Tom Paine, and James Wilson (among many others). They were the political geniuses who came up with the idea, and perpetuated it. I'm just the guy complaining that their brilliant idea is getting short-shrift among under-educated modern opportunists—maybe including you. But I confess I am unequal to the task to understand your crankiness on the subject, or why you would suppose your insistence serves any personal purpose at all.

[Don Nico]

It is hard to talk with dead white men, Stephen. But I gather that you do it all the time.
Your insistence on "treason" is a cranky as it gets.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, I have cited sources. I am forthright. You bring nothing. Ergo, you are the crank.

[Magister]

Since the executive of the USA is entrusted with executing the laws of the USA, he, or she, is solely responsible for being in charge of the executive branch of the federal government, and is thus completely unable to act against himself, or herself.

"shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same" - "the same" is the Constitution the insurrectionists swore to support, not the executive of the USA. "L'État, c'est moi" is for kings, not presidents.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Magister, better put than my own response making the same point. Thanks.

[Kazinski]

After a quick read I agree with the briefs main premise: it is possible to give a speech that is protected by Brandenburg, but could still run afoul of section 3. However that speech was not given on Jan. 6 by President Trump.

A speech that would be disqualifying under Section 3 it would have to unambiguously call for insurrection and a violent takeover of Washington or Capital Hill or the levers of power.

Obviously Trump's speech did not, which was acknowledged by both Colorado courts when they had to resort to the absurd "coded language" subterfuge to claim his speech was incitement to insurrection.

If Trump and the Proud Boys had a code book, the FBI would have had it long ago, in fact one of their operatives would have written it.

[Randal]

Why would it have to be unambiguous?

[Brett Bellmore]

Because if you can't rule out a harmless or even non-insurrectionary meaning, any lenity at all requires you to assume that was the meaning intended.

For years now anti-Trump fanatics have played from the same game book, and rule one is that everything, bar nothing, that Trump says has to be interpreted in the worst possible manner, even if it requires taking it out of context or ignoring the rules of grammar.

But that's not how any legal proceeding whatsoever works.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"For years now anti-Trump fanatics have played from the same game book, and rule one is that everything, bar nothing, that Trump says has to be interpreted in the worst possible manner, even if it requires taking it out of context or ignoring the rules of grammar."

Is that why you insist that everything Trump did to sow doubt regarding the election from the months leading up to, through it, and into January (and beyond) all has to be dismissed? That only his literal speech on January 6th matters?

Seems to me that you're the one willfully ignoring context and intent.

[Randal]

That might be true in a criminal context, but I don't see how lenity applies in this case. Being unqualified isn't a punishment.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, it's true that the formal rule of lenity only applies to criminal trials, I'm making an analogy here. That's why I said "any lenity at all".

You can't just resolve every bit of ambiguity in everything the target says in the worst way possible. Not if you intend the proceeding, even if civil, to be remotely fair.

[Randal]

It's not being resolved in the worst way possible. The district court held itself to a "clear and convincing" standard.

[Brett Bellmore]

The district court itself credited an expert witness, Dr. Simi, who testified that Trump was using "code words". So, no, they actually were pretending that when HE used a word, it didn't mean what anybody else would have meant by it.

Essentially the argument was that because he was guilty, the words he used had to be interpreted in a guilty manner. Shorn of all rationalization, that was the gist of it.

[Randal]

No, the argument was that he said some words that caused an insurrection, and it sure didn't seem like an accident for all kinds of reasons in evidence.

[Brett Bellmore]

An 'insurrection' that the FBI proved in court was pre-planned by other people, are you forgetting that?

[Randal]

The people who were pre-planning it were counting on Trump on Jan 6 to draw a big crowd and aim it at the Capitol. “Be there, will be wild!” That was an important part of the plan. Why do you think they chose Jan 6? Do you think they thought the whole 10 or so of them were going to storm the Capitol without help? They were planning for Trump to supply the riot. Don’t be such a gullible dupe.

[Sarcastr0]

Holy shit Brett read the DC indictment.

It lays out Trump's actions, how they were causally related to the insurrection, the impact he hoped they would have in the attempt to steal the election, and Trump's role in that attempt both before and after Jan 06.

Are you just super into having a misunderstanding of the case so you can ask questions that are badly founded? Are you allergic to reading?

It really looks like you do not want to do the lift of engaging with the actual substance of the facts and law, you just want to carp about how Trump is clearly innocent, and leave the actual engagement to others.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Trumpers not only planned to send the mob to the Capitol, but also expressly lied about it to the authorities (to avoid enhanced security), cautioned others in their camp not to foil the lies by revealing the truth, then boasted about it how they had lied to the authorities about the Trump campaign's intent to send the mob to the Capitol and about how those lies had worked.

Other than that, though, great comment!

[not guilty]

Actually the District Court applied a preponderance of evidence standard. At ¶209 she wrote:

209. The Court previously held that pursuant C.R.S. § 1-4-1204(4) the burden of proof in this matter is preponderance of the evidence. That is the burden the Court has applied. However, the Court holds that the Petitioners have met the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf

[OtisAH]

“Yes, my premise was entirely wrong but my point remains valid” is still my all-time favorite bit of MAGA arglebargle.

[David Nieporent]

In addition to that, he's misapplying the rule of lenity anyway. The rule of lenity does not say that if there are two possible explanations for what someone did, a fact-finder must assume the innocent explanation. It's about interpreting ambiguous statutes, not about pretending that the guy who pulled the trigger might not have meant to kill the person he was aiming at.

[Commenter_XY]

That is an important distinction I had not appreciated until you wrote it that way.

Ambiguous statute, Ambiguous actions: Rule of Lenity applies
Clear statute, Ambiguous actions: No dice

It is not the act, it is the ambiguity of the law you are prosecuted under that determines whether the rule of lenity applies. Is that right?

[Kazinski]

Absolutely true, however because the Supreme Court is so solicitous of free speech rights if they do make an exception to free speech rights it's going to be a very narrow one, and will have to show the requisite intent.

Take EV's post months ago about a court decision reversing a conviction for threats under the "true threats" doctrine. The speech not only has to be reasonably interpreted as a threat, but the speaker must have clearly intended the words as a threat.

Did Chuck Schumer incite an insurrection when he gave his reap the whirlwind speech and demonstrators attempted to breach the doors of the Supreme Court following his speech?

I don't think so, neither does the Supreme Court, but anyone who thinks Trump's speech intentionally incited an insurrection on Jan 6 thinks Chuck Schumer should be expelled from the Senate.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, did you not read the brief? It destroys the argument that this case has anything to do with free speech. What can you say to refute the brief's discussion to show that Section 3 would in fact be valid and self-enforcing even if it created a blatant free speech exception?

[Randal]

anyone who thinks Trump’s speech intentionally incited an insurrection on Jan 6

I dunno, it seems sort of obvious to me. If it had been an accident, why wasn't Trump surprised?

[not guilty]

The premise of the Abrams brief is that Trump's speech is simply not protected by the First Amendment. As Justice Bear It wrote just last year:

“It has never been deemed an abridgement 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.” Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 502 (1949). Speech intended to bring about a particular unlawful act has no social value; therefore, it is unprotected. [United States v.] Williams, 553 U.S. [285,] 298 (2008).

United States v. Hansen, 599 U.S. 762, ___, 143 S.Ct. 1932 (2023).

[Kazinski]

That’s just one of the arguments but there is also:

“Avoid using the First Amendment to gut Section 3. The Guiding Principle compels the recognition that some speech that might be protected in other contexts may be unprotected when that speech amounts to “engag[ing] in insurrection” under Section 3 and was made by a person who previously swore an oath of office to support the Constitution. Accordingly, when applying First Amendment doctrines in a Section 3 case, a court should look not only to the contours of those doctrines but also to the Guiding Principle to ensure that the proposed application of First Amendment law does not undermine Section 3’s democracy-preserving purpose. And this Court’s vigilance should be heightened where—as here—a party proposes major alterations to First Amendment law in an apparent bid to evade Section 3 disqualification. The Guiding Principle thus operates as a check on the Court’s First Amendment analysis, and as a tie-breaker when the Court is in doubtabout whether to accept a claimed First Amendment defense to disqualification. 2. Where harmonization is impossible, courts may give precedence to later-enacted and more-specific provisions. In the unlikely event that harmonization fails to resolve the case, Section 3 is likely to prevail under either or both of two interpretive canons….”

So if you are claiming the Abrams brief makes the claim that Trumps speech is wholly outside 1st amendment protection then you need to read the brief again.

And before the brief gets to Hansen, first they have to assert the “Trump Rules” doctrine: “To say, as Trump does, that his words would have been viewed as “entirely benign” had they come from any other persons to miss the point that his identity as the President (a) brought him within the narrow ambit of Section 3 and also (b) made his speech far more “likely” to incite imminent lawless action and thus to fall within the Brandenburg exception.”

[Stephen Lathrop]

AND ALSO, from the Abrams Brief (reformatted, with ellipses, and absent some notes):

Constitutional provision. Because Section 3 imposes a constitutional qualification on office-holding, its impact on First Amendment rights cannot be analyzed the same way that courts analyze the speech impact of a mere statute, ordinance, or official action. Rather, Section 3 stands on an equal footing with the First Amendment—and this makes all the difference, as it suggests that the conventional exceptions to First Amendment coverage, while potentially adequate to resolve Trump’s speech defense, cannot describe the outer limits of constitutional disqualification.

Trump has asserted that, regardless of its intention or effect, the entirety of his Jan. 6-related conduct constituted “core political speech” that is entitled to the highest degree of First Amendment protection and that therefore cannot trigger Section 3 disqualification. But that contention effectively negates Section 3 in the vast majority of its applications—all those in which someone plans, foments, assists, or conspires to mount an insurrection by means that include political speech. Indeed, how could insurrectionist speech ever be deemed “apolitical”? Trump’s defense therefore hinges on the unstated premise that Section 3 is itself an unconstitutional constitutional amendment. In another variant of that argument, Trump argues, or at least implies, that Section 3 lacks constitutionally mandated due-process protections, which can be supplied only through congressional enforcement legislation. To the extent that Trump’s First Amendment defense rests on the premise that Section 3 is itself unconstitutional, it invokes a theory that American courts have never accepted and that Section 3’s congressional drafters specifically rejected. “Whether on procedural or substantive grounds, the Supreme Court has rejected all claims that a duly passed constitutional amendment can be unconstitutional under the United States Constitution.” Richard Albert, American Exceptionalism in Constitutional Amendment, 69 ARK. L. REV. 217, 243 (2016) [hereinafter American Exceptionalism]; see also id. at 243–45 (discussing those rulings). Instead, this Court has explained that “[t]he Constitution must be regarded as one instrument, all of whose provisions are to be deemed of equal validity.” Prout v. Starr, 188 U.S. 537, 543 (1903). In other words, “provisions of the constitution are equally obligatory, and are to be equally respected.” Cohens v. State of Va., 19 U.S. 264, 393 (1821).

The argument that a constitutional amendment can itself be unconstitutional was considered and soundly rejected by Section 3’s congressional drafters and proponents. Opponents of Section 3 (Democrats and the most conservative Republicans in Congress) argued that, although the provision was designed to become part of the Constitution, it was itself an unconstitutional bill of attainder . . . . But Republicans “rejected the notion of unconstitutional amendments.” Id. Missouri Senator John Henderson “pointed out that nothing in the Constitution prohibited Americans from ratifying amendments making exceptions to the Constitution’s ban
[on] bills of attainder and ex post facto laws.” Id. “He asserted, ‘They tell us that it is a bill of attainder. Suppose it were: are the people in their sovereign capacity prohibited from passing a bill of attainder? . . . It is said that the law is ex post facto in its character; what if it is? Have not the people the right, by a constitutional amendment, to enact such a law?’”

With regard to that last bit from Missouri Senator John Henderson, it is appropriate once again to add this from founder James Wilson, but not included in the Abrams Brief:

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

In short, with the Section 3 disqualification case the Supreme Court teeters on a perilous divide. The Court must choose between a faithful originalist interpretation—as now briefed by Abrams, and with two other concurring briefs now on file from groups of the nation's most-qualified academic historians—or bypass both originalism and legitimacy, to rewrite a constitutional amendment to make it say something it plainly did not say when written.

The stakes could not be higher, for the Court, or for the nation. The Court literally has the opportunity to use originalism to put an end at a single stroke to a constitutional crisis which threatens the survival of American constitutionalism. But the Court could choose otherwise, and spurn that opportunity. If it does that, it takes responsibility for happenstance which threatens to deliver it an infamous record in history, as the author of the most consequential legal blunder known to the annals of national governance world wide.

[Noscitur a sociis]

.

Because if you can’t rule out a harmless or even non-insurrectionary meaning, any lenity at all requires you to assume that was the meaning intended.

Is there any other situation whatsoever where you apply this rule to a political figure?

[Kazinski]

Well there is Chuck Schumer: “I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” https://www.vox.com/2020/3/5/21165479/chuck-schumer-neil-gorsuch-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-whirlwind-threat

I don’t think that Schumer should be prosecuted either, despite the attack on the Supreme court doors, which if they were made of glass rather than bronze, and were as flimsy as Congress’ would likely have been breached. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aenQtPGgYlQ

[Kenneth Almquist]

Standing in front of the Supreme Court doors, as seen in the the YouTube video you link to, is not an “attack on the Supreme court doors.” The notion that protestors might have attempted to break down the doors if the doors were weaker is pure speculation. Schumer did not intend to provoke violence (he was threatening Republicans that they would lose in November, which Republicans did), and he did not provoke violence, so prosecuting him would be a non-starter.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wait, are you under the impression that they just stood in front of the doors?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The "insurrection" Trump is alleged to have engaged in was not (only) the speech. Nor was it (only) the riot. It was the entire course of his actions and the actions of others over the months leading up to January 6, 2021, which were allegedly designed and intended to explicitly thwart the lawful transition of Executive power from Trump to Biden. That is the "insurrection".

Every single aspect of what he allegedly did does not itself need to satisfy the requirements of Section 3 so long as everything he did, taken together, does satisfy those disqualifying requirements.

[Kazinski]

Disney lost its suit against Ron DeSantis for 1st amendment retaliation. As I said months ago suing to overturn perfectly legal acts of the state legislature was a loser, even if the legislature had a retaliatory motivation. If Disney had any due process or equal protection claim they might have done better. Disney couldn't even show any adverse actions the special district board had taken that had injured Disney. The fact Disney had special privileges removed and are now in the same boat as other Florida corporations can't have helped their case either.

Now for those who thought Disney should have won if Federal court for a first amendment retaliation claim, I wonder if they'd want the same reasoning applied in NY's lawsuit against the Trump organization, certainly the AG had made at !east as many prejudicial statements against Trump based on his constitutionally protected activity as DeSantis did about Disney, and the same for Bragg in Manhattan.

I also wonder about what people who might still complain about Citizens United might say about corporations having any 1st amendment rights whatsoever.

[AmosArch]

There is no first amendment right to an eternal no strings attached special economic relationship for a megacorp with a state government. I thought a party consisting of large numbers of self described ‘proud socialists’ and anticorporation activists would understand this but apparently they’re busy shoving their face up Mickey’s rear end these days.

[Randal]

Who have you seen defending Disney's lawsuit? You're shouting into the wind. The left hates Disney more than the right does. As per always, your imagined enemies are figments of the right wing mediasphere's attempts to keep you scared and angry.

[Martinned]

I do. I think politicians who abuse their otherwise lawful powers to punish people or individuals for their (political) speech should be slapped down.

[Randal]

Define "slapped down."

[Nige]

Definitely a 'hope they both lose' situation.

[AmosArch]

I’ve seen tons of leftists simp for Disney on Twitter and Reddit. Almost entirely because they think it has taken their side in the culture war and so all the other exploitation and greed over the years is forgiven because Mickey agrees that minors should have sex change drugs.

[Randal]

Twitter and Reddit randos. Got it.

[Kazinski]

Well there are more of them than there are VC randos.

[Randal]

Yes, just like how Republicans are defined by 8-chan.

[AmosArch]

If people on reddit and twitter don’t count who is a ‘true’ leftist? The general zeitgeist among leftoids, even among commenting officials, is sympathy/seeing an ally in Disney.

I’m not sure what you’re point is with 8chan. Its a drop in the ocean compared to Reddit and Twitter.

[Sarcastr0]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nutpicking

[Randal]

You didn't even say "leftists," which would've been more forgivable. You said "a party," obviously meaning Democrats.

Can you find anyone speaking for the party or as a leader within the party expressing support for Disney's position in this lawsuit? Of course there are people saying how DeSantis and his legislature behaved badly here. I'm talking about anyone contradicting your statement that

There is no first amendment right to an eternal no strings attached special economic relationship for a megacorp with a state government.

[bernard11]

Expressing sympathy for Disney is not the same as claiming they should have won their lawsuit.

They were plainly, and legally, victimized by DeSantis.

[Sarcastr0]

Disney will of course be fine.

But DeSantis’s stupid petty populist war on them was not a great way for a governor to wield their power.

[Commenter_XY]

Governor DeSantis is term limited. He has an expiration date.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He could always run for president again. Maybe if he spends more than $150 million next time he could actually get a delegate or two.

[Dr. Ed 2]

.

[John F. Carr]

"The fact Disney had special privileges removed and are now in the same boat as other Florida corporations can’t have helped their case either."

To the extent Disney's harm is derivative of harm to the special political subdivision it controlled, Disney can't sue in federal court. A municipality may not assert constitutional rights against the state that created it.

[AmosArch]

Is there any recourse against lawfare where your opponent has enough resources to basically drown you in rapidfire neverending court battles picking jurisdictions that they know will be hostile to you in a process designed to wear you down regardless of the merits? Of course there are measures against individual vexatious litigants but this would be for more powerful entities able to litigate as separate entities. Or is our legal system not yet equipped to handle such a strategy?

[Kazinski]

Win a presidential election.

Speaking of which Bloomberg-Morning consult came out with their swing state poll. Trump was ahead by at least 5 points Georgia, Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin, all states he lost in 2020.

In addition 2 other states that he lost he's ahead by 3 in both Arizona and Pennsylvania.

The way the polls sit now he's closing in on 300 electoral votes beyond the margin of error.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Good, according to the polls Hillary is still president.

[Martinned]

What makes you think Amos was talking about Trump?

[Armchair]

There's a good history here of how the Democratic Party has been doing this for years. First against outliers in its own party. Then independents. Now the opposition

https://www.racket.news/p/the-anti-democratic-movement-targeted

[santamonica811]

I don't think there's much recourse. A version of this is why Trump was able to screw over thousands and thousands of hard-working small businessmen over the decades. They would do good work for him (eg, doing plumbing at one of his large buildings), for the agreed-upon price of $30,000.

You've finished the job, and come to Trump for your payment. But he says, in effect, "F. you. I know I owe you 30 K. I'm not gonna pay it. I'll give you $18,500. You can have a check for that 18.5 K right now, or find yourself a lawyer. 1. You'll never find a lawyer willing to work on contingency for such a small amount. 2. I have a dozen lawyers on retainer, so it'll cost me nothing. 3. The case won't be heard for a year or more. 4. And, if you do find a lawyer and win, you will have to pay him 40%...you'll end up with $18,000.

Should Trump have been able to do that over and over (and over and over and over and . . .)? Of course not. But such is the legal system we have, and Trump was genius enough (okay, and evil enough) to take full advantage of his wealth and power.

I'd really like to feel sorry for Trump. But I just can't muster up that emotion for him. I'm feeling something like schadenfreude, but about 10 times more powerful. Not sure even the Germans have come up with an accurate word.

[AmosArch]

>I don’t think there’s much recourse. A version of this is why Trump was able to screw over thousands and thousands of hard-working small businessmen over the decades. They would do good work for him (eg, doing plumbing at one of his large buildings), for the agreed-upon price of $30,000.

I know you’re trying to mock what I said with the uno reverse card hypocrisy but in order to work it has to actually be an example of Trump doing what I said. Not some random other alleged misdeed involving courts and lawyers in some fashion.

And its not even much of a response because I was talking more in general. Like what if Repubs got into a position where they could just pick out a Dem they wanted to do this too.

[Randal]

Like what if Repubs got into a position where they could just pick out a Dem they wanted to do this too.

Then nobody would care. We don't have this sort of sick emotional codependency on our politicians like you do. Nobody cried over Blagojevich... except Trump! Trump just loves a corrupt pol, even if they happen to be a Democrat.

[John F. Carr]

In my state, but not in New York, the claim against Trump would accumulate prejudgment interest far in excess of the rate of inflation.

Kingsley Amis must have met people like Trump when he visited America. An American character with a similar attitude towards payment showed up in one of his novels.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Should Trump have been able to do that over and over (and over and over and over and . . .)?

Well the second time, the plumber is a damn fool. There are other people to work for.

Unless this is the way business is conducted in the industry.

[santamonica811]

I should have been more clear. Yes, it works only once per victim. Fortunately for Trump, there are plenty of plumbers (painters, electricians, painters, etc) in the NYC area, so screwing over one business in 1979 didn't prevent him from finding, and screwing, another plumbing company in 1982.

[Brett Bellmore]

How many of you have actually worked with contractors? I get the impression not many.

Often, shorting the contractor will be the only recourse you have when the contractor does a shitty job. That's why you never pay a contractor more than 50% up front unless you have a continuing relationship with them: SO THAT you can short them if they do a lousy job!

It's a normal part of the building industry. Normally you end up spending the money you shorted hiring somebody else to fix things, when this happens, and don't even come out even.

[John F. Carr]

In public works the sucessful bidder needs a bond to guarantee completion. This guards against some but not all contractor problems. For specialized projects the bond guarantor may not be able to find a different team to do the work.

[bernard11]

So, despite Trump's record of being a deadbeat, in your mind it absolutely must be the case that the plumber did a lousy job, otherwise the oh-so honorable Donald Trump would have happily paid in full on the spot.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, all I'm saying is that if you're at all familiar with general contracting, you won't read much into a general contractor having shorted some of the subcontractors working for him. You'll realize that it's actually a normal part of the business, and that you can't say he was doing it wrongly without looking at the specifics of each case.

For example, the guy who dug the pond behind my house back in Michigan only got half the contracted amount. Am I a deadbeat?

No, he stole all my landscaping boulders and abandoned the job before it was done, and I had to hire somebody else to finish the job. (And learned a lesson about hiring the lowest bidder...)

Now, does this mean that Trump never cheated anybody? No, it does not. It just means that the simple fact that he occasionally shorted a contractor doesn't prove it. You've got to look at the particulars to prove it.

[bernard11]

Look, all I’m saying is that if you’re at all familiar with general contracting, you won’t read much into a general contractor having shorted some of the subcontractors working for him.

What do you read into shorting the plumber when the customer has a long record of not paying?

This was not an isolated incident.

Here you go.

And the excuse was not that there was anything wrong with the pianos, but that the casino was "short of cash." The guy is a fucking deadbeat, but you refuse to believe anything negative about him. He's your god.

[Brett Bellmore]

OF COURSE it's not an isolate incident. The guy was running a billion dollar real estate empire, even if he had the same rate of shorting contractors as any regular general contractor he'd be doing it many times a year, because he was hiring That Many Contractors.

AGAIN, shorting contractors is a routine enough event that you can't read anything into it without looking at the particulars of each incident!

[Nige]

'Cheating people is normal!'

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “AGAIN, shorting contractors is a routine enough event that you can’t read anything into it without looking at the particulars of each incident!”

Again, shooting strangers on Fifth Avenue is a routine enough event that you can’t read anything into it without looking at the particulars of each incident!

Kidding aside, I’m in the business yet I don’t see that many contractors stiffed. Negotiations & threats are followed by results. And it’s not just the retention monies left in the contract either. Subcontractors need contractors; contractors need developers, builders, and architects. It is in everyone’s longterm interest to resolve issues. I had a recent building suffer major facade problems after one year. We had dueling expert reports before finding it was an installation mistake. The contractor and sub are footing the entire cost to strip off the old facade and redo.

And therein lies the difference with Trump that Brett refuses to see. Odds are our hypothetical plumber had long-term cred before he got hired by a contractor to work on the Trump project. Odds are he’d work to fix any issues, both for the money and to maintain his reputation on the street.

But Trump likes cheating people. He enjoys breaking the law. He once tried to stiff Deutsche Bank for a forty million dollar loan payback by claiming a recession was an “act of god” that let him off the hook. At the other end of the scale, he had his charity pay little Don Jr’s seven-dollar Boy Scout fee. The amount of money doesn’t matter. Like many life-long criminals, he’ll go well out of his way to defraud, cheat, or bilk “losers” who try to play by the rules. He loves doing it.

[bernard11]

Damn. Trump has you hooked but good. Were the pianos defective? No. Trump never even claimed they were. He just announced he wasn't going to pay.

Go rationalize that with you everybody does it excuse.

The guy doesn't like to pay, Brett. It's that fucking simple, but you simply can't accept it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Brett Bellmore has switched from kissing Trump's ass to licking Trump's scrotum.

I figure he did it as a gesture of collegiality, to make room for the Volokh Conspirators.

[Brett Bellmore]

I say, "You have to check whether the plumber did a lousy job", and you conclude, "in your mind it absolutely must be the case that the plumber did a lousy job."

Using words, does it even accomplish anything? I get the impression it doesn't.

[Don Nico]

As soon as you short the contractor, you'll have a lean placed on your property.

[Brett Bellmore]

Heck, they place the lien on your property when they start work, and maybe remove it when you pay them.

But it's still fairly ordinary to short contractors who do bad work.

[bernard11]

He must be awfully bad at hiring contractors if hundreds of them do bad work.

But to you, that's the only conceivable explanation.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why do I even bother saying that you'd have to look at the particulars of the cases? You don't seem to actually be reading what I'm writing.

[Bob from Ohio]

"A version of this is why Trump was able to screw over thousands "

Quite a bit of whataboutism here.

[Davy C]

Wait, why is the lawyer *not* working on contingency taking 40%?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The "Art of the Deal"?

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, there is recourse. But not in the Courts.

I think The Smasher (Fani) down in GA is finding about alternative recourse when the courts are no help.

It is not right. But that is the recourse.

[Moderation4ever]

A lawyer once informed me that the legal system is based primarily on money. If you take a good look at the workings, you will see the oversized role that money plays in almost all legal decisions. A person with deep pockets has far more options and chances of winning than a person with fewer resources. Individuals and prosecutors can use their monetary resources against individuals with lessor resources. Cases get interesting as the money balance evens out between the defendants and the plaintiffs. Large corporations going at each other like Dominion and Fox. Or people like Donald Trump against the government. Ask yourself if with your finances could you sue Fox? With your resources could you delay trials as much as Trump does?

[Kazinski]

Sure that's true that the rich fare better and have advantages in some situations in courts,

But the poor have their own advantage that far more frequently overwhelms the advantage of the rich: being judgement proof.

I can call Jean Carroll far worse than Trump did, but she isn't coming after me.

[Moderation4ever]

You are absolutely right. No matter how much Jean Carroll was offended, no lawyer would take the case because there is no money to be gained. Still most people would rather be rich, and most people would be smart enough to avoid defaming Jean Carroll.

[Sarcastr0]

But the poor have their own advantage that far more frequently overwhelms the advantage of the rich: being judgement proof.

You can ruin a poor person with a lawsuit, if you are so inclined.

Defamation suits are not always brought against the rich - the urge for vindication does not require actual money to be attached.

[Brett Bellmore]

I have to say, though, however unfair that whole lawsuit appears to me, Trump sure behaved stupidly. Just because you know they're gunning for you doesn't mean you have to paint a target on your back.

[Absaroka]

"Trump sure behaved stupidly"

Kinda calls into question his fitness for high office.

[Don Nico]

He behave far worse than stupidly. He behave in an ultimately self-destructive and unethical manner.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Oh, I see you've missed the latest "info" explaining that for the acolytes:

Trump's lawyer on the defamation case, Alina Habba, is a "deep state" plant who intentionally screwed up Trump's case in order to cause serious financial damage to him.

https://twitter.com/egavactip/status/1752811251057488189

[Nige]

'I can call Jean Carroll far worse than Trump did, but she isn’t coming after me.'

Must be frustrating, your voice lost in the chorus of Trump supporters heaping abuse at her in the name of the Lord High Defamer.

And you aren't the one who sexually assaulted her.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not lawfare if you actually did a bunch of crimes.

Your premise requires you assume Trump is innocent. That's already not on the table from existing legal findings.

The right has thus been attacking not just litigants, but judges and juries, and investigators, and the intelligence community.

It's not lawfare; y'all are just ridiculous.

[Kazinski]

"and the intelligence community."

That sure is a sympathetic target.

[Sarcastr0]

That sure is irrelevant.

[Nige]

'where your opponent has enough resources to basically drown you in rapidfire neverending court battles'

Did you read anything about Trump before you voted for him? It is perfectly normal for Trump to be constantly ensnared in multiple court cases. Its how he got out of paying vendors and contractors, for a start.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Exactly what is wrong with the media taking the side of a defendant it considers falsely charged?
https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2024/01/31/court-doc-karen-read-had-close-communication-with-turtleboy-blogger/?p1=hp_secondary

Rumor has it that a Federal Grand Jury is investigating this prosecution -- notwithstanding that, if there are no witnesses, which the prosecution alleges, WTF????

[Magister]

This seems to go well beyond taking the side of a defendant. But how can there be no witnesses when the accusation is intimidating witnesses?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well here is Turtleboy's lawyers side...
https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2024/02/01/turtleboys-lawyer-speaks-on-kearney-alleged-communication-with-karen-read/

Personally, I think the whole thing is a corrupt police coverup as to how the cop actually died.

[Magister]

So, there are witnesses? And probable cause for a search warrant because of witness intimidation? We'll see how it goes, I guess.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Someone took bribes to pass people on driving tests -- and as a result, MA mailed them licenses. How does that become mail fraud?

Agreed, he should be prosecuted, but HE didn't mail anything to anyone!

https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2024/01/31/driving-instructor-agrees-to-plead-guilty-giving-drivers-licenses-to-unqualified-applicants/?p1=hp_featurestack

[Brett Bellmore]

Same principle that makes my backyard garden interstate commerce, I suppose.

[John F. Carr]

The mail fraud law is not quite as expansive because the government has to prove actual rather than potential mailing.

[Brett Bellmore]

But, similarly, the mailing doesn't have to be by the person you're applying the law to.

[John F. Carr]

Precedent says you can be convicted of mail fraud if anybody uses the mail in the course of the crime. Some cases have said that foreseeable use of the mail is enough for a conviction. I do not know if unforeseeable use of the mail is enough for a conviction. There are other situations where you can be convicted of a federal crime despite having no way to know that you had triggered federal jurisdiction.

[bernard11]

How did he think the RMV sent out the licenses? According to the story,

Dihn allegedly paid a road test examiner at the Brockton RMV service center to misrepresent to the RMV that certain driver’s license applicants had passed their road test when they hadn’t.
...

“As a result of the fraud, the RMV mailed driver’s licenses to unqualified applicants,” the statement read.

Actually, when I read your comment I thought it was about the latest shenanigans by our wonderful state police.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Well gee Dr. Ed, did you try reading the mail fraud statute to see what conduct it actually covers (I ask, in a boundless fit of optimism)?

[Magister]

This earlier comment was lost when the Open Thread vanished for a while.

18 U.S. Code § 1341

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to ... furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious ... article, ... for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice ... knowingly causes to be delivered by mail ... any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

That seems applicable (assuming I didn't omit anything important). The relevant part seems to be "causes to be delivered by mail".

[Noscitur a sociis]

Why, it's almost like this is an utterly routine application of one of the most frequently-charged federal criminal statutes!

[John F. Carr]

The Washington Post reports on comments made at sentencing by Judge Ana Reyes:

After comparing Littlejohn to the rioters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Reyes said judges had to send a message that “open season on our elected officials” would not be tolerated and that “an independent and steadfast judiciary stands ready to punish anyone who holds his personal political beliefs above the law.”

“Let me be absolutely clear: What you did, in targeting the sitting president of the United States, was an attack on our constitutional democracy,” the judge told Littlejohn. Regardless of how many people may consider Littlejohn a hero, Reyes said, “I want you to know that I am not one of them.”

This from a judge who has presided over January 6 cases, about the man who leaked Trump's tax returns. He got the statutory maximum sentence of five years after pleading guilty to one count of unauthorized disclosure of tax information. In fact there were hundreds or thousands of unauthorized disclosures, depending on how they are counted. He was given the maximum sentence partly because of admitted uncharged conduct related to the offense to which he pleaded guilty.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/01/29/irs-contractor-leak-trump-taxes-sentence/

[Dr. Ed 2]

Didn't they catch him looking for the person who'd leaked someone else's return?

[Commenter_XY]

1,831 days....how long before Littlejohn comes up for parole?

There were way many more people whose private tax information was leaked (and published) than just POTUS Trump (as you point out).

Why didn't each instance of stolen tax data call for a 5-year term?

[John F. Carr]

Since the 1980s sentencing reform there is no parole, only 15% time off for good behavior.

[Commenter_XY]

So 4 years and 3 months, he is out.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, he's out when Biden commutes his sentence, some time after the election.

[Noscitur a sociis]

This fucking guy.

[bernard11]

Don't forget, he was one of those predicting Harris would be President by Spring of 2021.

[Martinned]

Why didn’t each instance of stolen tax data call for a 5-year term?

Because that would have been bonkers even by US sentencing standards?

[Drewski]

"Why didn’t each instance of stolen tax data call for a 5-year term?"

It did. He pled guilty to one and was sentenced to one. Is this your first time reading about a plea bargain?

[Brett Bellmore]

That was the best the judge could do, given that the DOJ had decided to only have him plead guilty to one of the thousands of charges he was actually guilty of. It's not like the judge could restore the charges himself.

[Commenter_XY]

Prosecutorial discretion is really quite malleable, I have learned.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Teachers in wealthy Newton are on strike, which is illegal in Massachusetts. Now Parents are suing the UNION —
“Parent Lital Asher-Dotan, who has three children in Newton Public Schools, filed one of the motions. In another document Wednesday, she requested “damages in the six figures per student, which are growing daily.”

I doubt this is going away because even if the union settled tomorrow, her next suit inevitably will be for union members harassing her children. So this is going to get interesting.

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2024/01/31/newton-teachers-strike-hits-tenth-day/?p1=hp_primary

[John F. Carr]

There was another illegal strike last year in a different city. Government officials are too friendly with public employee unions for them to suffer any real consequences. Cities have mostly contracted away their right to fire employees. In the case of police, the state solved the worst part of the problem. Bad cops are decertified by the state and can't work no matter what the arbitrator says. There ought to be a rule that a teacher who participates in an illegal strike loses her teaching certificate.

If the strike goes on for a few more weeks Newton schools will not be able to complete a school year with the legal minimum number of hours of education.

[Martinned]

Or maybe there should be a rule that teachers should be allowed to go on strike just like most other employees? Having a job where you only have one employer in any given area doesn't exactly put you in a great bargaining position...

[Michael P]

Some of us would argue that's a good reason for the government to stop imposing its own monopsony on that job market. There are other schools that teachers can work at in the US, although right now they collectively employ far fewer teachers than the ones run by government.

[Martinned]

Works for me, but in a situation like that there's still no reason to exempt teachers from the normal right to strike.

[Michael P]

If they went on strike like these teachers, they would likely just end up without jobs; their students would move to other schools.

[Martinned]

Sure, and that constraint operates (elsewhere) in the private sector too. That's why unions usually try to go on strike at all businesses in a sector at the same time.

[Michael P]

Not in the US. We have laws against secondary boycotts / solidarity actions.

[Martinned]

That's not what I was talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Hollywood_labor_disputes

[Michael P]

In your mind, something that happened twice, in one particular field, 63 years apart, and was considered particularly noteworthy both times ... counts as “usually”?

[Martinned]

Here, have a strike against lots of employers in a different sector: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_lockout

[Artifex]

"... there’s still no reason to exempt teachers from the normal right to strike."

Sure there is.

Unions can serve a useful purpose by providing a counter balance to the power of corporate capital. A union of government employees is not pushing back on corporate capital. It is pushing back on the public interest. As a member of the public, I fail to see why we should have special laws allowing those privileged individuals operate against the public interest.

[Martinned]

No, unions can serve a useful purpose by providing a counter balance to the power of employers. Whether those employers are public or private is immaterial to the role of the union in the equation. Absent public sector unions, the equilibrium for public sector decision makers (aka 'politicians') is to squeeze every penny they can out of the employees, just like in the private sector.

https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/out-pocket-spending-school-supplies-adds-strain-educators

[Artifex]

In the case of the private sector we allow special rules that don’t allow for serious union busting because of a belief it is in societies best interest to balance the powers of labor and capital.

If the public sector is the employer, it in no way benefits the public for those employees to unionize. It might benefit a few corrupt politicians with nifty kickbacks, but it in no way makes the public sector more efficient or affordable. The politician managing these things is a proxy for “me” in a representative government and I am not keen on giving perks to folks whom I am forced to fund at gunpoint so they may better negotiate against me.

[Martinned]

The right to unionise isn't a "special" rule, it's a general rule for which we only admit exceptions in limited circumstances. It's right there in your beloved first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-8-1/ALDE_00013139/

[Armchair]

The right of assembly isn't the right to unionize. They're different things.

The workers can assemble together all they want. The collective action on employment is different.

[Artifex]

I am not sure what point you think you are making.

Yes the government cannot prevent the people from assembling peacefully, but they sure as hell can fire them for striking.

[Drewski]

Ah, yes, this is the same reason the government cannot fire employees for going to a concert instead of reporting for work. They're peacefully assembling and, since the government-as-employer is bound by the same rules as it would be otherwise, it cannot take adverse action against them.

(Since I know sarcasm is wasted on you, I'm calling your argument stupid.)

[Martinned]

It seems that the concept that a right exists but also has limits confuses people here. I wonder how you people manage with all the other rights listed in the Constitution.

[Martinned]

Also, the public interest isn't the same thing as the interest of the government as an employer to pay its employees as little as possible. The public interest is the combined total interest of everyone, including the employees.

[Artifex]

Indeed and those employees each have one votes worth of total interest just like everyone else. In a representative democracy the voice of the public interest "is" represented by the government.

[Armchair]

The issue here is, you have your power dynamics skewed. But let’s walk through some sample examples of what you think may or may not be OK.

1. Can independent farmers “unionize” and agree that they won’t sell their crop to the public at the current price, but demand 150% of the current price instead? Why or why not.

2. Can independent tutors “unionize” and agree that they won’t tutor students at the current price, but demand 150% of the current price instead? Also, they can keep any new tutors out of the market. Why or why not?

3. Same as case, two, but in this case, the tutors also have the power to compel payment from people. Is there any issue there?

[Sarcastr0]

one votes worth of total interest

Do you think we live in a democratic dictatorship?
Because if the only way you are free to exercise your interests is voting once a cycle, you have outlined a remarkably unfree society.

[Martinned]

@Armchair: Your 1 and 2 would be a cartel, which may or may not be illegal depending on the details. But that's because Congress made a law that says so, not because there's something inherently wrong with joint selling arrangements. The current US agricultural sector could do with a bit more of that.

https://www.ftc.gov/advocacy-document-tags/agriculture

[Artifex]

"Do you think we live in a democratic dictatorship?"

No I do not, that's the cartoon viewpoint put forth by some bozo. It takes some seriously bad and motivated reasoning to get from a public body managing public business must imply a democratic dictatorship. Herp, Lerp, Derp !

[bernard11]

Armchair,

Both 1 and 2 sound like illegal cartels to me, but even if they were legal they would both collapse in about a week.

Cartels generally require government (or maybe Mafia) enforcement to work. See Wickard.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Unions that represent federal employees are proscribed by federal law from bargaining about wages and benefits, so your objections don't apply to them. As someone who was a member and an officer of a federal public sector union (NATCA), I can tell you that the main benefit of unions in the federal sphere is that they give a voice in how work gets done to the people who actually do the work, as opposed to the supervisory bureaucracy that generally has no first hand experience in the job. In the case of air traffic control, this had made a HUGE difference in the safety and efficiency of the system.

[Michael P]

"Are public unions good? Let's ask the biggest one in the United States!"

In theory, public-sector unions can be a counterbalance to the power of employers. In US practice, they drive the Democrat primary system -- through both get-out-the-vote efforts and financial contributions -- so that union-friendly friendly elected officials stay in office. It's a cozy little cartel.

[Martinned]

get-out-the-vote efforts

Shocking!!

[Michael P]

You really don't see the conflict of interest in having a union work to (re-)elect the government officials making decisions about the union contract?

[Sarcastr0]

This is actually regulated.

It is why unions and a lot of nonprofits have different negotiating and lobbying arms, and rules about how much each can coordinate with the other.

[Nige]

No more or less than billionaires funding politicians who are involved in granting their corporations lucrative contracts or the regulation of their businesses. Or ideologically sympathetic Supreme Court Justices.

[bernard11]

You really don’t see the conflict of interest in having a union work to (re-)elect the government officials making decisions about the union contract?

Is it bigger or smaller than government contractors who work to elect government officials who make contracting decisions?

[Michael P]

Bernard, I can't speak to state laws, but https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/federal-government-contractors/

[OtisAH]

Oh this stupid argument again. Despite all the real world evidence to the contrary, and little to know evidence in support, numpties like Michael P still insist public sector unions control whomever gets elected. Then they’re given everything they want.

This is why “right to work” laws exist. Because public sector unions elect people to destroy unions, which helps unions and forces governments to concede to their every whim. It’s all very high level chess stuff. Normal people wouldn’t understand.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

They're disaffected, antisocial, uninformed conspiracy theorists and grievance specialists. They can't avoid figuring everything is rigged . . . perhaps because they are society's losers in several respects and do not want to acknowledge the reasons they are losers.

[David Nieporent]

Absent public sector unions, the equilibrium for public sector decision makers (aka ‘politicians’) is to squeeze every penny they can out of the employees, just like in the private sector.

No, it isn't. Private sector employers are playing with their own money; governments aren't. Private sector employers are inherently constrained by the need for profitability; if they don't negotiate hard enough, they go out of business. The same is not true for public sector employers. And indeed the politicians you identify as decisionmakers can benefit personally from being overly generous to the unions, in ways that would be illegal if it happened in the private sector.

[Sarcastr0]

Private sector employers are constrained by a limited budget, and lots of priorities of which wages are only one.
It is about the same as profitability, with one flowing from prices and the other from Congressional appropriations.

Except the number of federal employees an agency can have are strictly limited numerically as well as budgetarily.

So if anything, government is more constrained from being profligate in the labor market than the private sector

[Martinned]

Private sector employers are playing with their own money

The vast majority of public sector employers are not. It's HR managers playing with shareholders' money. Case in point: Elon Musk.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Or maybe there should be a rule that teachers should be allowed to go on strike just like most other employees? Having a job where you only have one employer in any given area doesn’t exactly put you in a great bargaining position..."

Or maybe no one should be allowed go on strike with job protections.

But public employers generally can't reduce consumption to decrease prices like profit-maximizing monopsonies can.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The days of teachers living in the town they are teaching in are long gone. They have multiple choices and *do* leave districts for other ones, at least before they get tenure.

[Don Nico]

I like that strike. My grandson's new school is my home.
I definitely am not writing the mayor urging giving in to the teachers' union.

[Commenter_XY]

FDR was right about public sector unions.

https://nationalcenter.org/ncppr/2011/02/19/blog-text-of-fdr-letter-opposing-public-employee-government-unions/

[Dr. Ed 2]

George Meaney felt the same way.

[Doug Huffman]

Create a LIMITED-Language-Model GPT for the legal profession from legal texts, decisions and opinions only.

Compare Magisterium.com trained on only the Roman Catholic Church Magisterium.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's still not going to help, hallucinating is baked into the way large language models function, using the content they're trained on to create extremely complex statistical models of the data.

[Frank Drackman]

Sleepy/Parkinsonian Joe famously advised peoples to 'Get a Shotgun'. Could he be charged as a Conspirator in every crime involving a Shotgun....

[Moderation4ever]

Well shotguns are only a small percentage of murders about 5% compared to handguns at 57%, from DOJ.

[Frank Drackman]

tell that to Malcolm the Xth, and 5 percent of thousands of murders would be more prosecutions than '45' is going through.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/columbia-law-student-senate-rejects-antisemitism-watchdog-club-just-before-holocaust-day/

Nothing to see here. No anti-semitism issue at Columbia. Nah. 🙂

What say VC Conspirators who are Columbia Alumni?

[Randal]

The IHRA definition of antisemitism seems good and innocuous… except for that one clause of that one example cited in the article.

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor; applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation, and equating contemporary Israeli policy to Nazi policies.

As even Eugene has pointed out, no other ethnic group’s right to self-determination implies that they get a country, and if it did, it might reasonably be described as a “racist endeavor” depending on the circumstances.

Imagine, for example, if white South Africans decided they needed “self-determination” in a democratic country of their own, but they realized that as just ~7% of the population, they were going to need to drive out over 90% of the Black people in order for that to work. I would probably call that a racist endeavor.

The rest of the IHRA definition and examples, and even the other clauses of that example, seem fine. But they should strike or clarify that one.

[Michael P]

By the argument that self-determination does not justify the existence of a state, then, Palestine should not be free?

In your hypothetical, what ethnic group do you think would be analogous to Black South Africans in the hypothesis that Israel's very existence is a "racist endeavor"?

[Randal]

The Palestinians, obviously.

And it's not my hypothesis. I don't think Israel is a racist endeavor. I just think it's possible to believe that Israel is a racist endeavor without it being antisemitic. It's a statement about Israel and its treatment of Palestinians, not about Jews (necessarily).

The rest of the IHRA definition is careful not to shield Israeli policy from criticism relative to similarly situated nations... except for this one case.

[Michael P]

Do you mean the Philistines? How long has "Palestinian" been a recognized ethnic group in the relevant sense?

Calling Israel a racist endeavor because of an imaginary South African ethnic cleansing ... is functionally antisemitic.

[Randal]

Calling Israel a racist endeavor because of an imaginary South African ethnic cleansing … is functionally antisemitic.

If that's what I was doing, you'd be right.

I'm not doing that. I'm pointing out that it's possible to believe that an ethno-state is a racist endeavor without it being based on animosity towards the specific ethnic group that the state represents. That's enough by itself for IHRA to avoid prejudging people who may hold such a belief about Israel. Maybe in practice it is antisemitic, but the definition should be able to cover those cases in other ways, such as the "double standard" part of the example.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I can assure you that the Palestinians exist and they are really there, nothing imaginary about them. The length of time they have been a "recognized ethnic group" doesn't really seem relevant to the question of how they should be treated now. Jews certainly weren't the oldest "recognized ethnic group" in the area, despite what the book of Genesis claims.

[David Nieporent]

Although ultimately I'm not sure it matters anymore, I think you misunderstand the import of what he's saying. It's not how long Palestinians have been in Palestine that's at issue, but how long they've been considered Palestinians at all.

By way of example, let's suppose Canada invaded (actually militarily invaded — not illegal immigration — I mean!), seized Vermont, and kicked out all of the residents. We might condemn them for doing so, but we would not consider it "ethnic cleansing"; "Vermonter" is not an ethnic identity. They're just Americans who happened to live in Vermont at the time of the invasion. And if we wanted to try to liberate Vermont from the Canadians, it would be by and on behalf of Americans, not Vermonters, that we'd be doing that.

[Commenter_XY]

If you change the ethnic label to be more accurate, arab for palestinian, the analogy is perfect.

[Michael P]

The Roman empire named that province "Syria Palaestina" to punish Jews for rebelling -- specifically to hearken back to an long-gone ethnic enemy of Jews from that region -- but that didn't create a new Palestinian ethnic group.

Like David N said, these arguments over supposed racism hinge on the legitimacy of "Palestinian" as an ethnic group. It doesn't seem to be a very longstanding idea -- rather, they were mostly considered Jews or Arabs who lived in that region: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)

Israel integrates Arab citizens. It's not exactly full integration -- they're exempt from mandatory military service, for example -- but they're certainly not forced out or legally disfavored or the like. I don't think it is defensible to claim, then, that Israel is racist against Arabs. And I question why someone would allege the existence of a novel ethnic group in order to justify claims that the existence of Israel is inherently racist.

[Don Nico]

Randal,
You might have a fair argument before 1948 when the State of Israel was only an aspiration of Zionists and Askenazim who had escape the Holocaust only a few years prior.

Once a group has a legal, internationally recognized state, decrying the continued existence of that state is "hate speech," in this case anti-Semitic.

[Nige]

I think there's a massive gulf between, say, calling for the destruction of an ethno-state with nuclear bombs and arguing that, in principle, ethno-states are a bad idea, so no, not necessarily.

[bernard11]

Depends on the reasons, and the nature of the ethno-state, Nige.

Sure, an ethnic group living freely, without discrimination or hostility, in some country might not have much of a claim, but then, they are unlikely to advance one.

But the fact is that establishing the state of Israel was the only available option for the Jews. Even before WWII Jews suffered a lot of discrimination in much of Europe.

And after the war the survivors had no place to go. Nobody wanted them, including for quite some time, the US. So what should they have done? Gone back to Poland to be killed?

[Nige]

I appreciate the reasons for the establishment of the state of Israel, and do not think that destroying it will acheive anything other than more suffering, though I also reckon that there was a missed chance to build a peaceful non-ethno-state and avoid decades of horror.

Netanyahu's regime, on the other hand, deserves to rot in hell.

[Randal]

Noting that Israel was a "racist endeavor" doesn't imply decrying its continued existence. If that's what the IHRA really means, they should update the example to say that explicitly. It would be a huge improvement.

Once a group has a legal, internationally recognized state, decrying the continued existence of that state is “hate speech,” in this case antisemitic.

Compare to my South Africa example. Once they get international recognition for majority-white New South Africa, that doesn't suddenly erase the fact that it was a racist endeavor.

[Don Nico]

I see. You are saying that Zionism is Racism. You denied that only to undercut your own statement
I'm glad that we have clarified the issue.

[Nige]

It’s about as racist as Affirmative Action or financial programmes aimed at helping black people. It's about as racist as DEI.

[Randal]

I'm not saying Zionism is Racism. I'm not even saying that someone could believe that Zionism is Racism without being antisemitic.

I'm saying that the IHRA shouldn't unilaterally decree that believing Zionism is Racism is per se antisemitism. That puts Israel in a special category. In all other respects, the IHRA definition avoids putting Israel in a special category, and I think it's fair to object to this one case where the IHRA does sort of attempt to pre-emptively indemnify Israel. That's not what it should be up to.

[Krayt]

They got that because ROW was kind and recognized the Holocaust from WWII.

The people objecting today are in favor of groups sworn to push them into the sea, including the dictatorial leaders of 1.4 billion humans, who'd just as soon nuke Tel Avive if they had the way and thought they could get away with it. Methinks those types doest protest too much.

And if they did nuke it, many would probably scream proportional response as Israel marched across the middle east.

[Nige]

Spare us your quasi-religious apocalypse fantasies.

[Krayt]

These are words out of the mouths of dictators with their boots on the faces of 1.4 billion people.

Meanwhile, you think Trump's "coded language" is definitive so you can git a political opponent.

Spare us fraud and lies.

[Sarcastr0]

You spin off into your own scenarios of blood and fire, which seem to go way beyond anything anyone said.

And then you try and compare your melodramatic exercise with people quoting Trump. With telepathy added to find bad faith, natch.

[Nige]

Not much room between the dictators and the fantasists who want to cleanse the world with holy fire.

Is 'coded language' coded language for lies about the election and efforts to overthrow an election he lost? For which he should face no consequences?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Lurid headlines, questionable use of statistics but still interesting -- an increase in anti-feminist males.

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=gen+z+males+see+feminism+as+harmful&ia=web&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fnews%2F2024%2Ffeb%2F01%2Fgen-z-boys-and-men-more-likely-than-baby-boomers-to-believe-feminism-harmful-says-poll&pn=1

[Ed Grinberg]

“Gen Z males increasing­ly see feminism as harmful”
Which it is, of course.

[Frank Drackman]

I’d call literally nipping 40 million girl babies in the bud [HT B. Fife] since 1973 ‘Harmful’, a good many of them ‘girl babies of Color’. Statistically the next Michelle Obama or Ka-Grungy Jackson-Brown ended up in the suction cannister and were thrown down the drain like used grease at McDonalds.

Frank

[OtisAH]

There are two possibilities wrt to the border and two possibilities only:

Either the MAGA House, Senate, and Media are lying and the US is not under existential threat from an invasion of immigrants at our southern border.

Or the MAGA House, Senate, and Media are aiding and abetting an invasion of immigrants at our southern border that poses an existential threat to the US.

I could go either way. Everything they ever discuss is discussed in bad faith. At the same time, they’ve already tried to overthrow the government once and positively salivate whenever they fantasize about civil war.

So which is it, are they, and by extension their supporters, lying pieces of garbage or just horrible and treacherous? I suspect it’s both.

[Michael P]

As usual, the answer is that you're projecting.

[Commenter_XY]

MP...I was going to go with 'aiding and abetting' just to get Otis' juices flowing. 🙂

[Michael P]

If the GOP is "aiding and abetting", the obvious implication is that Dems are the unnamed principals of the crimes -- much like January 6, where right-wing demonstrators are accused of seditious conspiracy but any actual insurrection appears to have been mostly coordinated by the Deep State's worker bees from the FBI.

[Sarcastr0]

If the GOP is “aiding and abetting”, the obvious implication is that Dems are the unnamed principals of the crimes

LOL, no.
There are more people in the world than the two parties in Congress.

Here's that sentence again: "aiding and abetting an invasion of immigrants at our southern border."
Who is being aided here? They are the principle. You're being really silly.

[Michael P]

Principals, not principles. You don't have any of the latter to speak of.

The principals of that so-called invasion are its masterminds, the ones who pervert immigration law to bring immigrants into the country illegally and in unprecedented numbers.

[Sarcastr0]

Typo police is the last refuge of losers without an argument.

masterminds LOL fuck off and join QAnon.

[Drewski]

Using the wrong word is a grammatical, not typographical, error. But I wouldn't expect you to understand: Those words are pretty long. Please enjoy your outrage over people knowing things you don't.

[Randal]

Sarcastr0 was wrong. Typo police is the second-to-last refuge of losers without an argument.

Grammar police is the last refuge.

[OtisAH]

Then there are the tin soldiers like Michael P, without whom none of this would be possible at its current scale. Michael P isn’t a liar. He’s just not very bright so he’s useful to push the lies/treachery but for little else. We have several “Michael P’s” here and there are millions across the country.

[Michael P]

You're still projecting.

[OtisAH]

Are you sure? Maybe I’m gaslighting.

Like I said, just not very bright.

[Michael P]

We know you are. After all, you started your stupid tirade with a transparently false dichotomy.

[Moderation4ever]

Well first, as has been said before there is no invasion, there is a migration. The thing is that stopping a migration and stopping an invasion are two different problems. So, from the start some Republicans are off on the wrong foot. But even with the wrong start they seem to want the problem more than the solution.

[Kazinski]

As has been stated before no legislative deal is necessary to fix the border, Biden already has the authority to vastly improve the situation under current law.

If fact the GOP should stop negotiating on a deal until Biden shows good faith and starts rigorously enforcing current law, because changing laws that aren't enforced isn't going to help things.

[bernard11]

Picked up the talking points, I see, Kaziniski.

[Kazinski]

Picked up the talking points?

Hasn't that been the criticism from the beginning over Biden's handling of the border?

I first advocated impeaching Mayorcas more than a year ago in the.comments? Why did I think he should be impeached? Because he wasn't enforcing the law.

The only thing new is that the GOP Congress has some leverage now, and there is starting to be pressure from blue states and blue cities to do something about immigration.

If I were running the RNC, RNSC, and the Republican Congressional campaign committees I'd cancel all ad buys and pour all the money into busing illegal aliens into swing states and swing districts. Not that Arizona needs any more.

[Randal]

Neither you nor Brett has ever been able to point to a law that’s not being enforced.

When pressed all you’ve got is “Remain In Mexico sure was nice,” but that’s already been litigated thru SCOTUS and they agreed Biden is appropriately enforcing that law.

So… it’s just talking points, and by now you know they’re false, so really it’s just lying.

[Kazinski]

Sure: asylum seekers must present themselves at a border crossing for inspection instead of crossing informally and then claiming asylum.

[Randal]

No administration has ever had that rule. Anyway do you have a cite to the specific law you're referring to?

[Kazinski]

It's not a rule, it's the law:
Under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1325, it is a crime for any noncitizen to enter (or even to "attempt" to enter) the United States anywhere other than a designated entry point, or "port of entry" or "POE." Therefore, in order for asylum seekers to avoid exposure to criminal prosecution for illegal entry to the United States, they must seek asylum at a port of entry along the border. "
https://www.arizonaimmigration.net/asylum-at-the-border-frequently-asked-questions

[Randal]

Wow, what a blatant lie. Were you just crossing your fingers that I wouldn't click your link?

While many asylum seekers follow the proper procedure by applying for asylum at a port of entry, many asylum seekers continue to illegally cross the border. When they are apprehended by Customs and Border Protection, there are two possibilities. First, they may be criminally charged with illegal entry (a misdemeanor) or illegal reentry (a felony) and, only after they finish their criminal cases, further detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to await their credible or reasonable fear interviews. Second, they may not be prosecuted, and simply detained by ICE to await their interviews in an immigration detention center.

So once again you're left with nothing. Crossing illegally -- even when found guilty -- doesn't preclude an asylum claim. Biden is enforcing all the laws. What a pathetic display.

[David Nieporent]

Therefore, in order for asylum seekers to avoid exposure to criminal prosecution for illegal entry to the United States, they must seek asylum at a port of entry along the border. ”

Yes, an asylum seeker who sneaks across the border is committing the crime of illegal entry. And he can be prosecuted for it, and — if convicted — punished, including being sentenced to prison. But that's a separate issue from his asylum claim. If he is otherwise entitled to asylum, he cannot be deported despite his illegal entry.

[Frank Drackman]

Didn't realize the Presidential Oath of Orifice was a 'Talking Point'

[Randal]

Did you realize your dick was titular, 'Frank?'

[OtisAH]

What parts of the law are the administration not enforcing?

[Moderation4ever]

President Biden says he needs changes to the law to better reduce the influx of undocumented immigrants, Some Republicans say he already has the power. What to be lost by making the changes? Republicans say we made the requested changes and the President still failed. Or the changes do reduce the influx and the Republican can point to their part in the reduction. Why not make the changes?

[Michael P]

What specific changes does he claim are required? How will they enable changes that will effectively reduce immigration? Why can those changes not be achieved now? What specific immigration-driving facts have changed since Donald Trump effectively slashed illegal immigration before the COVID-19 pandemic?

Show your work.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Isn't the point that these are changes the Republicans had (previously) demanded?

[Don Nico]

Otis,
Whatever is happening at the southern border, it is not an existential threat to the US.
However, depending on details it could still be an invasion.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Depending on the details", the Earth could still be flat.

[Don Nico]

Actually, the earth is LOCALLY flat. Ask any mathematician.

[Randal]

No, a mathematician would say that a sphere is locally flat, but the earth's surface is fractal.

[Armchair]

Just curious, what ethically grey (to black) tactics would you consider to stop Trump from winning the election, if you wouldn't be caught.

Is....

A). Threatening to blacklist lawyers (who support Trump's legal case) OK?
B). Ignoring the letter of the law, to accept late ballots from a heavily Democratic area OK?
C). Blackmailing an elector at the electoral college to switch their vote OK?
D) Or something more...

[Moderation4ever]

The thing is you don't really need to do anything illegal. Just count the votes and you don't even need to do that well. Seems every time you do rechecks President Biden ends up getting gets more votes.

[Armchair]

"Seems every time you do rechecks President Biden ends up getting gets more votes."

Funny how that work. "Looks, another box of all Biden ballots!"

[Moderation4ever]

Actually it is not uncommon, recounts and checks are as likely to help your opponent as they are to help yourself. Elections do get reversed but only a small percentage. After the 2016, election Green Party candidate Jill Stein requested and received a Wisconsin recount. Trump still won Wisconsin and he got an additional 131 votes.

[Frank Drackman]

It's a 'feature' not a 'bug'

[Commenter_XY]

AL,

If POTUS Trump represents an existential threat to the United States, then 'D' is the correct choice and any action is acceptable, including assassination. There are no ethical considerations in addressing an existential threat to a country. Existential literally means the survival of the nation is at stake, and death is imminent.

There are many, many people in positions of great power who have publicly stated that POTUS Trump represents an existential threat to the United States. This is a matter of public record.

And BTW, this would also have to extend to anyone that supports the aforementioned existential threat to the country. Incarceration, internment and re-education are all perfectly acceptable means here. And if these three actions fail, execution is also available. Remember, there are no ethical considerations in addressing an existential threat to a country, because existential literally means the survival of the nation is at stake, and death is imminent.

🙂

[Armchair]

Well, let's hear our illustrious liberal comrades here say it.

Assume Trump winning the election in 2024. He's well ahead on election night. He may have lost the popular vote, but there aren't enough late ballots in the key states from letting him win the EC.

Would you quietly support "someone" coming along and stopping the Trump issue with the requisite force necessary?

[Nige]

Are you trying to work yourself up to something?

[OtisAH]

Your house/apartment/cot area must reek of burnt scalp and hair from dreaming up all these idiotic posts.

[Nige]

Remember when Trump called for a ‘2nd Amendment solution?’ The whole point about bearing arms was to resist tyranny, wasn’t it? If you’re a 2nd Amendment absolutist, as many here are, you already advocate violent resistence, and civil war has been promised and threatened and ominously predicted enough times by Trump supporters to be a cliche, and of course we have the example of Jan 6th. Trump opponents, on the other hand, have been content to let him answer for his actions and alleged crimes in the courts and the legislatures. They endure his accusations and lies and invective and wait for the chance to vote against him.

[Ed Grinberg]

"...and wait for the chance to vote against him."
Yeah, except for that whole "disqualification" thing...

[Nige]

It's a legal procedure, like the rest. If his actions disqualify him, that's on him.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's been an expensive price to pay, but I've always said Trump (or someone like Trump) was the best reason for the 2nd Amendment.

[Martinned]

Because you're going to take your rifle and shoot at the Federal government? Don't be silly.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That would indeed be silly.

Firstly, the 2nd Amendment was written at a time when the government had no F-16s parked at their revolutionary-era airports. (That's a joke, Martin.) At the time, citizen militias were a potential force to be reckoned with--and the Founders consciously chose to preserve them, not disband them.

Secondly, that's what the Founders wrote. They were not remotely concerned with preserving the rights of hunters and target shooters to freely engage in their respective pastimes.

Today, there is no chance whatsoever that any citizen militia could defeat the US military in battle, should the government choose to direct the military to engage. But that fact does not abrogate the arguably archaic provision--it just makes it less useful.

So, I think we can agree that if Trump is elected and decides to be a dictator for more than one day, "terminating" the Constitution along the way, his government would have no constitutional legitimacy. Those American patriots who did not become good little Trumpanzis would almost certainly organize an armed resistance movement to reinstate the Constitution (it being America and all).

No doubt, any such dictator would then take all necessary steps to eliminate the armed resistance/saboteurs/rebellion, but the fact that the populace already had access to literally hundreds of millions of firearms would make their complete (or even substantial) disarmament impossible. (As it is now, by the way.)

Who would win such a contest? I have no idea, but making sure the people always have the means to resist tyranny seems like a darned foresighted idea for a constitution--albeit one with the tragically unforeseen domestic consequences Americans are living through now.

[ducksalad]

(D) Take off my shirt, put some horns on a fur hat, and storm the capitol building on the day they're counting the electoral votes.

But only with your guarantee that I wouldn't get caught.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

With your reputation of being a bald-faced liar and running off the moment proof is provided of your repeated lies, why would you pretend to care about ethics?

[Martinned]

Yesterday Ukraine lost most of the first Ukraine v. Russia case on the merits. This is the terrorist financing and racial discrimination case Ukraine started in 2017.

The operative part of the judgment:

“(1) By thirteen votes to two,
Finds that the Russian Federation, by failing to take measures to investigate facts contained in information received from Ukraine regarding persons who have allegedly committed an offence set forth in Article 2 of the International Convention for the
Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, has violated its obligation under Article 9, paragraph 1, of the said Convention;

(2) By ten votes to five,
Rejects all other submissions made by Ukraine with respect to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism;

(3) By thirteen votes to two,
Finds that the Russian Federation, by the way in which it has implemented its educational system in Crimea after 2014 with regard to school education in the Ukrainian language, has violated its obligations under Articles 2, paragraph 1 (a), and 5 (e) (v) of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination;

(4) By ten votes to five,
Rejects all other submissions made by Ukraine with respect to the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination;

(5) By eleven votes to four,
Finds that the Russian Federation, by maintaining limitations on the Mejlis, has violated its obligation under paragraph 106 (1) (a) of the Order of 19 April 2017 indicating provisional measures;

(6) By ten votes to five,
Finds that the Russian Federation has violated its obligation under
paragraph 106 (2) of the Order of 19 April 2017 indicating provisional measures to refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute between the Parties, or make it more difficult to resolve;

(7) By eleven votes to four,
Rejects all other submissions made by Ukraine with respect to the Order of the Court of 19 April 2017 indicating provisional measures.

https://icj-cij.org/case/166

[Commenter_XY]

This is words on a piece of paper, and nothing more. It deters nothing. It does nothing to change the facts on the ground.

[Martinned]

Well no, because the plaintiff mostly lost.

[Commenter_XY]

I don't understand, what are you talking about, mostly lost? Let's see if we can find a pattern here.

(1) By thirteen votes to two,
Finds that the Russian Federation, by failing to take measures to investigate facts contained in information received from Ukraine regarding persons who have allegedly committed an offence set forth in Article 2 of the International Convention for the
Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, has violated its obligation under Article 9, paragraph 1, of the said Convention;

(3) By thirteen votes to two,
Finds that the Russian Federation, by the way in which it has implemented its educational system in Crimea after 2014 with regard to school education in the Ukrainian language, has violated its obligations under Articles 2, paragraph 1 (a), and 5 (e) (v) of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination;

(5) By eleven votes to four,
Finds that the Russian Federation, by maintaining limitations on the Mejlis, has violated its obligation under paragraph 106 (1) (a) of the Order of 19 April 2017 indicating provisional measures;

(6) By ten votes to five,
Finds that the Russian Federation has violated its obligation under paragraph 106 (2) of the Order of 19 April 2017 indicating provisional measures to refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute between the Parties, or make it more difficult to resolve;

An exercise in the futility of the ICJ. Have the Russians started packing up to leave yet?

[Martinned]

That's just how they wrote up the operative part of the judgment. 1, 3, 5, and 6, are the exceptions to the general rejection of the plaintiff's case in 2,4, and 7.

And none of this was about Russia occupying land it wasn't supposed to occupy, because that's not a dispute that the ICJ has jurisdiction to adjudicate.

[Bob from Ohio]

"because the plaintiff mostly lost"

Would not have mattered even if the plaintiff won on everything.

[Martinned]

Not to you, no, because it's well established that you only care about the law if it agrees with you.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Ummm, okay?

[Sarcastr0]

From the 'scientific papers that are timeless testaments to both great thinking and great writing' twitter thread:

Hans Bethe's seminal paper on what makes the sun and stars shine - it's characteristic Bethe: he considers the problem, draws up an exhaustive list of potential solutions and then picks the right one based on the data. Like solving a giant puzzle. https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.55.434

[1939 23 pages.
What the commentary says. Probably because this is enough of my field I can see it, but this one is a banger.
A tight elegance like this requires a baseline uncommon organization of mind, along with a mastery of the subject to allow it to be organized. Really impressive.]

[Absaroka]

OK, 99.44% of that went whoosh right over my head, but two things caught my eye:

"The production of neutrons in stars is likewise negligible"

This seems at odds with the oft repeated 'H bombs use the same reactions as the sun'??

"It seems, however, doubtful whether the energy
production in giants is due to nuclear reactions
at all."

What's the alternative?

============
BTW, you had commented on WWII Soviet cavalry a few weeks ago. My book came, and it's weirder than I thought. I had known that the Sovs used cavalry as mobile infantry, but they carried sabres and weren't averse to using them. A typical action might be a Sov unit infiltrated (in raids that could last for weeks) through the forest, then fell upon a German rear echelon unit trying to keep warm in a village at 0200, and would ride down panicked Germans in a scene from the Napoleonic wars. There were even mounted sabre on sabre battles between the Sovs and Axis (Hungarian, Romanian?) cavalry units. These were still the exception vs just using the horses for mobility and fighting dismounted, but still...

While never disbanded, their usage declined over the course of the war. As the war moved west the road network improved, the vast forests declined, and Sov mobility became better because of something like 400k all wheel drive Lend-Lease trucks. German (including requisitioned) and domestic Sov trucks were usually rear wheel drive, and so a lot less useful militarily. Now you know 🙂

[Brett Bellmore]

H bombs do not, in fact, use the same reactions as the Sun.

H bombs use fission, and D-D and D-T fusion. And some other stuff we don't need to go into.

Stars like the Sun are primarily running on the P-P reaction. The Sun also derives a bit of energy from the CNO reaction, but that's mostly something you see in heavier stars than the Sun. Neither of them are fast enough for bomb purposes, which is why stars take billions of years to burn through their fuel, instead of microseconds.

[Moderation4ever]

You are quibbling here. The basis of both the Sun and the hydrogen bomb is the atomic fusion reaction. Any isotopes of hydrogen within the Sun will undergo fusion just as they do in the H bomb. The sun burns for many years because of the immense amount of matter present to use as fuel. The biggest difference is that gravity drive the start of the stars like the Sun and a fission bomb initiates the H bomb.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Any isotopes of hydrogen within the Sun will undergo fusion just as they do in the H bomb."

The primary isotope of hydrogen, which consists of one proton and no neutrons in the nucleus, can not fuse in a hydrogen bomb.

Because if two protons strike each other, they can't form a new nucleus unless one of them in that instant undergoes inverse beta decay, transforming into a neutron, because the electrical repulsion between them is too great for the nuclear strong force to overcome without any neutron present to bolster it. An event which is literally astronomically unlikely.

This step, two protons fusing to form a deuterium nucleus, is the rate limiting step for P-P fusion, and it is EXTREMELY slow. Ridiculously slow. Mindbogglingly slow.

Any other hydrogen isotopes present in the fusing region of a star are consumed as fast as they're formed, because the fusion cross section for deuterium and tritium is trillions of times larger than for 'protium'.

The other path for hydrogen fusion in the Sun, which is responsible for a small fraction of its energy production because it needs a hotter star than the Sun to go really well, is the CNO cycle, where the proton fuses with a carbon nucleus, which forms an unstable isotope of Nitrogen, that decays back to a heavier isotope of carbon, and on and on until you spit out a helium nucleus and get your carbon back.

That reaction, too, is too slow to occur to any significant extent in a bomb.

So, again, NO, the sun does not rely on the same fusion reactions as a hydrogen bomb.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It IS producing helium, isn't it?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, it's fusing hydrogen isotopes, and ending up with helium, but that's the only thing in common.

[MoreCurious]

There have been endless discussions here over the last several weeks about Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Earlier this week some well-known historians (Jill Lepore, David Blight, Drew Gilpin Faust) submitted an amicus brief in the Trump v. Anderson case. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would appreciate hearing what the lawyers and professors who follow this blog think of the historians' submission.

And, please, if you haven't read the amicus brief -- which is easy to find and easy to read -- do not waste our time telling us what you think the brief should have said or what you think the outcome should be if only the members of the SCOTUS were as smart as you are.

[Sarcastr0]

Section Three was meant to prevent that possibility. Its framers intended Section Three: (1) to automatically disqualify insurrectionists; (2) to apply not only to the Civil War but also to future insurrections; and (3) to bar anyone who has betrayed an oath to uphold the Constitution from becoming President of the United States. It remains in place and in force today

[MoreCurious]

Well, at least one person read the brief.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I'm not a lawyer or professor, so I won't give my opinion. I did enjoy the brief. I liked the Amar brothers' brief even more, although there were aspects to that brief I didn't agree with. But it was interesting, and very well written.

[Kazinski]

The historians brief is well written and very educational, but I'm not sure how much light it sheds on the legal issues. They make much of Jefferson Davis's case with over 25 mentions, which never had a judgement issued, yet it devotes a single paragraph to Griffin's case which did enter a judgement declaring Section 3 was not self executing and required Congressional legislation. It then has a single mention, with no discussion, of the Enforcement Act of 1870 which Congress did enact to enforce Section 3, under Section 5 ( there are 52 references to section three but not a single mention of section five).

But definitely some interesting history. One of the reasons that Davis was never tried for treason is they didn't want to litigate the legality of succession, but the reconstruction Congress itself seemed to acknowledge its legal force by requiring the states that had succeeded to go through a process of readmission to the Union. One of the requirements of readmission was ratifying the 14th amendment. I didn't know that, I had assumed the reconstruction legislatures, elected under auspices of martial law, had ratified it on their own volition.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Did you happen to read Prof. Tillman's amicus brief? I was amused that he made a great deal of Griffin's case and CJ Chase's opinion there that section 3 required Congressional legislation. But he doesn't mention the Davis decision at all, where he reaches the exact opposite conclusion! I'm afraid the brief and most of his scholarly writing read more like legal briefs than objective historical analysis.

[Kazinski]

There was no Davis decision. It was a 2 judge panel and the judges disagreed. Davis was never acquitted or convicted nor was the case tried and presented to a jury, so it is not a valid precedent. It would have eventually been heard by the Supreme Court to break the deadlock and reach a decision.

The Griffin decision was entered into judgement and is a valid precedent.

So its not to surprising they didn't take it up, although it seems worthy of at least a footnote.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Okay, true. But CJ Chase in that non-opinion argued that Congressional action was not required for the disqualification for office to take effect. It might not be valid precedent, but it casts doubt as to the rightness of the argument in Griffin.

[SRG2]

The Supreme Court denied Tillman's motion to file an amicus brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/020224zr_j3kn.pdf

[David Nieporent]

No. There's no need for such a motion under current SCOTUS rules; anybody can file one. What they denied was leave for him to participate in oral argument.

[not guilty]

The linked order does not indicate that filing of Professor Tillman's amicus brief was denied. The Court denied the motion filed by Josh Blackman for leave to allow Prof. Tillman's participation in oral argument.

That denial was entirely predictable. Other than the Solicitor General arguing the position of the United States, it is extraordinary for a non-party litigant to participate in oral argument.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Well, Prof. Tillman's brief is there, both at SCOTUS' website and on SCOTUSBlog.

[OtisAH]

“Get in, losers, we’re going losing!”
-Donald J. Turnip, millionaire, he owns a mansion and a yacht

https://www.reuters.com/world/donald-trumps-lawsuit-over-steele-dossier-thrown-out-by-uk-court-2024-02-01/

[Frank Drackman]

Sounded better when Hillary Rodman said it in 2016

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

That worked out for the best for Democrats because we actually killed more babies since Dobbs than before which is all we Demoncraps really care about.

[OtisAH]

And here’s piece of shit with yet another timely and cutting zinger! You’re killing it, piece of shit! But did you run out of Jimmy Carter jokes?

[Absaroka]

Steven Pinker opines on Harvard admissions:

"Is it a finishing school for the plutocracy? A third-of-a-million dollar IQ and marshmallow test? The ultimate final club? A luxury resort that includes some classes among its recreational activities? A career expo for McKinsey and Goldman Sachs?

If so, Harvard should continue to admit legacies, preppies, elite athletes, culture vultures, conspicuous altruists, and the children of donors.

If instead Harvard is an institution dedicated to the discovery and perpetuation of knowledge, it should favor admissions that are more meritocratic: that bring in the students who are best equipped to parlay the stupendous resources of this institution into the skills that will preserve democracy, enrich our culture, and solve pressing problems."

[apedad]

It can, is, and should be both; legacies/preppies and an institution dedicated to the discovery and perpetuation of knowledge.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

One in the pinker
And one in the stinker

[Mr. Bumble]

Anyone care to venture a guess on the likelihood of Judge Chunka-Bunka's March 4 start date for Trump's DC trial will hold up?
How about the May 4 start date for the Florida trial?

[David Nieporent]

Given that the DC Circuit has (surprisingly, in my view) taken so long on Trump's appeal, there's no chance of the trial going forward then.

[Commenter_XY]

Why are you surprised, David?

[David Nieporent]

Because (1) I think it's an easy case; and (2) based on the oral argument, I concluded that the judges thought it was an easy case.

[Kazinski]

And then the Supreme Court will get its say, and that's not going to be quick either.

[David Nieporent]

And then the Supreme Court will get its say, and that’s not going to be quick either.

Unless there's a good reason to, SCOTUS won't hear the case, and unless it's likely SCOTUS will hear the case, there will not be a stay while SCOTUS is considering whether to hear the case.

[Moderation4ever]

Overall, the case is easy and based on the oral arguments the judges appear to know where they are going. But while making the decision is easy, writing it may take time. This is a unique case, and the court likely wants to get it written up right. Ideally the decision would be bullet proof and the Supreme Court would accept the appellate decision without review. This would insure a quicker trial. The appellate court could also decide to allow the case to proceed while an appeal is made. So, it may be worth the weight.

[Commenter_XY]

David, do you think it might be a timing thing....meaning DC Circuit just waiting for SCOTUS on other Trump cases? Or something else?

[Frank Drackman]

You know those D.C. Courts, they be on 'CPT'

[dwb68]

Trump losing with women, so in an effort to bring them in, he attacks swifties, lol. The women I know, even inclined to vote for Trump, are disgusted.**

Sigh, 6 months of Biden and 3.5 of Kamala a-five-year-old-writes-my-speeches Harris is what I have to look forward to.

** I don’t agree with Taylor Swift’s politics, but I respect her entrepreneurship. Unironically, she is the epitome of a successful capitalist, lol. She is practically a Republican in today's progressive Dem party.

[Ed Grinberg]

So, women are "disgusted" with Trump. What else is new...
From a 2020 Wall Street Journal article:
"[T]he gender gap seems larger than ever, in part because millions of women are turned off by [Trump's] unbecoming presidential language and behavior..."
Personally, I find Democrats' incessant, dissembling grasping for power over their fellow men a lot more unbecoming than anything Trump could come up with. "Unbecoming" isn't a strong enough word for Democrats' devious, underhanded campaign to undermine Trump ever since he won the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

[Krayt]

Both can be true major problems. Neither side should win. Protest vote, otherwise you're voting for the lesser of two evils.

[dwb68]

Not disagreeing with the disgust with the tactics Dems have used over the last 3 years.

But cutting off your nose to spite your face is never a smart, winning strategy. Trump is a loser with suburban women.

[Frank Drackman]

not after the next 9-11 that occurs in a suburb

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Rodentstain appointed Mueller…who appointed Rodentstain??

[NvEric]

End the degeneracy now. Too often it's law and those who pursue it who degenerate not only themselves but society itself in their misguided notions of their actions and pursuits in a quest for wining.

Law is trivial today as it is everywhere and viewed as candy for children's desires. Such profound rot ensues as to gag reality beyond hope.

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2024/02/our-christian-nation

Without solid foundational substance, enforced boundaries of Citizens, and Love to each other, there is nothing restraining Human Nature's evils we all possess. Yes, it takes effort to have a society, and effort it shall be.

[Randal]

When do you plan to start?

[M L]

State of MONTANA takes child away from parents due to opposition to gender transitioning

https://nypost.com/2024/01/30/news/montana-parents-lose-custody-of-daughter-after-opposing-transition-report/

[Nige]

In a statement to The Post, Gianforte’s office said the state does not remove minors from homes to provide gender transition services or use public funds to pay for those services while a minor is in the state’s custody.

“As outlined in its statement of purpose, Child Protective Services protects children who have been or are at substantial risk of abuse, neglect or abandonment,” a spokesperson said.

“Furthermore, the Governor has asked his Department of Public Health and Human Services to codify a formal policy and/or develop a regulation to clarify and ensure the definition of abuse or neglect does not include a parent’s right to refuse to provide gender transition services to his or her minor child.”

[Commenter_XY]

From the article....Upon hearing recent allegations related to a child welfare case, I asked Lieutenant Governor Kristen Juras — an experienced attorney, constitutional conservative, mother, and grandmother — to review it. Consulting with the director of DPHHS and personally examining case documents, Lieutenant Governor Juras has concluded that DPHHS and the court have followed state policy and law in their handling of this tragic case.

An elected official, accountable to the voters, is monitoring this case. The daughter has mental problems, that much is clear. I think I would like to know what Lt. Juras saw before passing judgment.

[M L]

I’m not passing judgment but there is plenty of cause for concern here.

The mere fact that an elected official is weighing in or paying lip service or actual attention, does not make things right, nor alleviate concerns in any way (no matter the letter next to their name). If a people come to think that way as a whole, then that people will slide right into tyranny.

“Don’t worry, I looked into this, and it’s all on the up and up.”

Golly, thanks! Now I can go back to my football/video games.

"followed state policy and law in their handling of this tragic case"

What state policy and law is that exact--- oh, never mind.

[Frank Drackman]

Wonder what Parkinsonian Joe's attack plan is for Ear-Ron? maybe he'll have Delta Force remove all the Desiccant packs from their closets, without adequate dehumidification their clothes will be ruined within 5 years !

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This strikingly male, tellingly
white, right-wing blog has
operated for no more than

TWO (2)

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

FOUR (4)

occasion (so far) during 2024
(that’s at least three discussions
that have included a racial slur,
not just four racial slurs; many
Volokh Conspiracy discussions
include multiple racial slurs,)

This blog is more than matching
its deplorable pace of 2023,
when the Volokh Conspiracy
published disgusting, vile
racial slurs in at least

FORTY-FOUR (44)

different discussions.

These numbers probably miss
some of the racial slurs
published regularly by this blog;
it would be unreasonable to
expect anyone to catch all
of them.

This assessment does not address
the broader, everyday stream of
gay-bashing, misogynistic, Islamophobic,
antisemitic, racist, Palestinian-hating,
transphobic, and immigrant-hating slurs
(and other bigoted content) published
at this faux libertarian blog, which
is presented from the receding
right-wing fringe of modern legal
academia by members of the
Federalist Society for Law
and Public Policy Studies.

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

This is a good one, too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones pointers (by request):

First, Mick Taylor steals the show (which Charlie governs).

Next, another strong showing by Mr. Taylor complemented by one of Keith's finest riffs. The culmination was unrehearsed, captured by chance.

[StonewallDeSoto]

Will this vile blog make it through Black History Month without a racial slur?

[Kazinski]

Hardly seems like honoring black history to refuse to report on racism, or to sugercoat it and sanitize it when reporting on it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You're a lousy person, Kazinski. Thank you for choosing the conservative side of the culture war.

[Randal]

The conservative side is the domestic terrorism side, so it checks out.

[Frank Drackman]

MLK wasn't really on the 'Mountain Top' in 1968, Progressives thought he was too conservative, Older Blacks didn't like his Bro-mance with Ho Chi Minh and Castro, best thing to happen for his 'Brand' was James Earl Ray, and later, yes, Bono

Frank 'I have a Scheme'

[Michael P]

Something to consider before blaming disparities on systemic prejudice or bias: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4597809

Interestingly, we also find that same-sex couples default significantly more (53.9%) than similar different-sex couples, which suggests an unobserved characteristic that causes same-sex couples to default more, and could explain a part of observed disparities in mortgage approval, undermining results in previous research.

[StonewallDeSoto]

Former Mississippi Congressional candidate Michael Cassidy is now facing a felony HATE CRIME charge after he destroyed a Satanic statue in the Iowa state capitol.
https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2024/01/31/michael-cassidy-charged-with-hate-crime-in-iowa-capitol-satanic-display-destruction/72421096007/

[Commenter_XY]

If it was a statue of the Virgin Mary, would you feel the same way?

[Frank Drackman]

Of course not, because she's not the Lord of Darkness, and even if they're made up make believe characters I can still hate those who like the bad guys, like the Yankees.

[Frank Drackman]

I guess the power of God compelled him

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

There shouldn't be "hate crimes" at all.

[mydisplayname]

One of the key elements of Trump's current case before the Supreme Court may be a finding that terms such as "invasion" and "insurrection" are defined by the sitting Executive and are not reviewable by any court. We are at a point where the court (and the members of the academy who serve as its jesters) is dangerously overstepping its charge, perhaps leading a sitting Executive to fail to discharge his duties.

Insurrection was what Executive Lincoln said it was. Insurrection is also what Executive Trump said it was. Invasion is what Executive Abbott says it is.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Sounds likely.

[hobie]

In Lawfare here https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-justice-scalia-thought-about-whether-presidents-are-officers-of-the-united-states

The author addresses silly Blackman's claim that "the Appointments Clause says that the president shall appoint “all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law....” (Italics added.)"

With Blackman's contention being that a president is not appointed ergo he cannot be an 'officer' for purposes of 14-3.

Then the Lawfare guy points out that is incorrect and also that a Scalia concurrence from 2014 said just as much. And here's where it gets interesting for silly Blackman:

"Not surprisingly, I’m not the only person to read those eight words [whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for] to mean the very opposite of what Blackman and Tillman interpret them to mean. Perhaps the most noteworthy among them was Justice Antonin Scalia in 2014. That year, the Supreme Court decided the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning. There, the Court unanimously affirmed a challenge to the recess appointments of three NLRB commissioners. Scalia wrote a concurrence, in which Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined. In it, Scalia wrote: “Except where the Constitution or a valid federal law provides otherwise, all ‘Officers of the United States’ must be appointed by the President ‘by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.’” (Italics added.)

Soon after Canning was decided, Tillman and Blackman noticed that Scalia’s sentence appeared to conflict with their own reading of the Appointments Clause. Tillman then actually wrote to Scalia to ask him to explain what he meant by that particular sentence. To both his and Blackman’s amazement, they acknowledge in their article, Scalia wrote back.

Dear Mr. Tillman:

I meant exactly what I wrote. The manner by which the

President and Vice President hold their offices is “provide[d] otherwise” by the Constitution. As is the manner by which the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate hold theirs.

Sincerely,

/s/ Antonin Scalia

(Brackets in the original.)

So it appears that Scalia—and perhaps even Roberts, Thomas, and Alito, who joined his concurrence—thought the president was an “officer of the United States” for constitutional purposes.

Tillman and Blackman remained unpersuaded by what Scalia had to say on the subject."

Silly, silly Blackman

[OtisAH]

Show me a man like Blackman standing against a man like Scalia, and I’ll show you a man who left the only family who’ll have him.

[Bored Lawyer]

Many Western countries, including the US, Canada, the UK, and the Netherlands, have cut off funding to UNWRA, the agency that is supposed to support Palestinian refugees. The main reason is the participation of UNWRA employees in the October 7 massacres, or support thereof.

A shocking article was published today:

Students at School Run by U.N. Palestinian Aid Agency Boast about Wanting to Murder Jews in Shocking Video https://www.nationalreview.com/news/students-at-school-run-by-u-n-palestinian-aid-agency-boast-about-wanting-to-murder-jews-in-shocking-video/

The documentary was shot in 2022 in a school in the Shuafat refugee camp in East Jerusalem and recently resurfaced amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. In the video, students who appear to be as young as seven or eight years old tell an interviewer “we have been taught that the Jews kill our children.” “Stabbing and trampling Jews brings respect to the Palestinians,” says another child. Another student explains that she is “ready to carry out a suicide attack.”

[Bored Lawyer]

Apart from its utter mendaciousness in spreading Jew-hatred, UNWRA operates on a completely different track from other refugee relief by the UN.
Here is a link to a chart that shows the differences:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/lkyixiaoavhm4lx9plgco/WhatsApp-Image-2024-01-29-at-7.01.18-PM.jpeg?rlkey=c1zmj6ht3qcf29697x2nf5u9e&dl=0

Countries have poured billions into an agency that spreads Jew-hatred and perpetuates a problem rather than try to solve it. End it now.

[Mr. Bumble]

Re: UNWRA and the UN in general:
You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.

[Commenter_XY]

Israel would do well to expel UNRWA: from Gaza, Judea and Samaria. There are other reputable relief agencies that don't have Judeocidal terrorists on their payroll that can do the job.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Israel not only may lose control of the occupied territories but also could have a hard time maintaining control of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv if it doesn't turn away from right-wing belligerence soon.

I find it fascinating that Netanyahu, the right-wing bigots in his government, and Likud seem to be doing more to imperil Israel than any of Israel's foreign enemies have managed.

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur, I don't think you quite figured this out yet. Israel isn't leaving.

[Zarniwoop]

So it seems Trump has spent $55M of campaign contributions on legal fees.

Keep sending those small dollar donations to the grifter-in-chief, the [alleged] billionaire needs your $10!

[Frank Drackman]

How much did Bill Clinton spend

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Did you ever think you would be reduced to “Clinton did it”. Btw, the reason Republicans made such a big deal with Clinton’s extracurriculars was because we had peace and prosperity. Trump on the other hand allowed China to unleash a bioweapon into America while developing a vaccine that is worse than the virus!?! WTF????

[dwb68]

Are Senate Republicans really dumb enough to pass a weak border bill that gives Biden cover for the mess he made over the last 3 years? lol what?

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, they are. Team R is politically inept and politically incompetent.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, they're just trying to do something different from what their voting base want them to do. Being incompetent is a cover story.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Only if they're more interested in actually trying to do something in the best interests of the country, rather than in only doing what's in the perceived best interest of the Republican Party. Or is it possible that they really don't think the issues at the border are really that serious, but make a useful political issue?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Give this some thought. If SCOTUS does anything except disqualify Trump from the ballot—and make that a standard which applies naitionwide—then the nation has a very high likelihood of enduring an ongoing constitutional crisis which will extend all the way to Inauguration Day, 2025. Unless something happens in the interim to wreck American constitutionalism sooner.

Is that not the very situation which Section 3 was written and ratified to preclude?

[Commenter_XY]

No.

(this was another episode of snappy answers to dumb questions)

[Dan Schiavetta]

It’s hard to imagine that if Trump and his supporters get away with Jan. 6, 2021, they won’t try something similar -- and more fearlessly and in a more organized and effective fashion -- on Jan. 6, 2025 if he is again declared the loser.

[Mr. Bumble]

Go back to watching porn so you'll have wet dreams rather than fevered dreams.

[Don Nico]

Remember that on Jan. 6 2025, Mr Biden will be President and Commander-in-Chief of the US military.
If necessary federal troops will defend the Capitol.

[Mr. Bumble]

You mean he'll invoke the Insurrection Act?

[Sarcastr0]

Oh, well that's not a problem then.

[Don Nico]

That is what I think. Those who think otherwise are either frightening themselves perversely or engaging in the politics of fear.

Those who think that President Biden would be unable to control the situation with the entire US armed forces at his commend should not consider voting for him in November.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Biden would not be able to go over the head of the Speaker of the House, who has ultimate control over the Capitol Police. The Speaker will probably (as now) be a Republican beholden to the most extreme members of his party, some of whom might even be among the attackers.

[Don Nico]

Really? I think you are one of those guys that complained that a force vastly superior to the Capitol Cops was not provided to protect the Capitol on Jan. 6.

If Biden wins the EC, you can bet that every ounce of FBI intel will be watching for incipient insurrection and a complete plan to suppress the same will be in place. Trumpista Storm Troopers are not going to overthrow the US government.

BTW, Trump will be a loser and maybe even in prison.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You seem to have erased Jan 6 from your mind. You should watch those videos again.

[Don Nico]

I recall Jan 6 quite well.
Where was serious police power. It sure was not the Capitol Police.
I will repeat what I already wrote.

I have full confidence in President Biden to assure a peaceful certification of the vote of the EC regardless of the outcome. If you don't have confidence in Biden, please tell us why.

[John F. Carr]

Biden can call on other federal resources that obey his orders and set up security outside the Capitol. The Secret Service has authority to protect the Vice President inside the building. I don't expect a repeat of 2021. I'm a little worried that security will be trigger-happy. January 6 could have turned into Kent State. Solid barriers will be good for both sides.

There is a chance, diminishing now, that Trump will be on a short leash pending appeal of a criminal conviction. Then he will not be in D.C. giving a speech to an angry crowd. A short leash and a muzzle. No angry social media posts that are likely to result in interference with the vote count.

[Sarcastr0]

This shit, you don’t shrug and let it go.

Your rosy scenario includes real risk of the military firing on American citizens.

Ho hum.

[Don Nico]

Ho hum.
You really have little confidence in Mr Biden. He and his advisors and the FBI are a lot more intelligent and resourceful than you give them credit for.
You are just peddling bullshit scare talk with your imagined scenario of Trumpista Storm Troopers firing on American citizens.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Not a serious response

[Don Nico]

It is very serious. You and S_0 are just fearmongering.

President Biden will assure that the certification is smooth, efficient and peaceful. If you have no confidence in our President, tell us why.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, your complacency could prove justified. Complacency has its risks. From case to case the risks are variable and contingent. That's why it makes sense to manage unknowable risk in terms of balancing stakes and probability estimates. What is your estimate of the stakes at risk to let Trump who attempted a coup try again? And why do you set yourself against a constitutional decree that any risk at all in such a case is too much risk?

[Frank Drackman]

from the BLM/Palestinians who'll be protesting '45''s re-erection

[grb]

captcrisis : “It’s hard to imagine that if Trump and his supporters get away with Jan. 6, 2021, they won’t try something similar”

You can ignore this concern or reinforce it by discussing military measures to protect the next election’s certification, but that misses the big picture. Remember, Trump tried to steal the election he lost thru multiple means. 06Jan was only his last spasmatic attempt.

A MAGA freak in the Arizonia legislature introduced a bill allowing the state’s legislative body to simply ignore the people’s vote and appoint their own electors for their own presidential choice. The bill is going nowhere, but similar (and more-subtle measures) were part of many GOP’s voter harassment laws passed after the ’20 election. And the major reason Trump’s coup failed was most GOP officials acted honorably rather than follow his dictates. Many of those were targeted for MAGA retribution after the election and since.

Anyone concerned about American’s constitutional order should looked at all the ways Trump tried to subvert democracy, such as pressuring state officials to change their vote count, trying to use extra-legal means to block certification, and weaponizing government institution to promote unsupported allegations of voting fraud. They should look at the fringe things Trump discussed and rejected. They should definately add his last resort to mob violence. And then they should imagine all these things occuring in Republican-controlled states across the country, only doubled in intensity, shamelessness and scope.

That's the danger....

[Don Nico]

"you can ignore this concern or reinforce it by discussing military measures "

I am not ignoring your fearmongering or projection. I have full confidence in President Biden to prevent any disruption of the certification of the EC. Trumpista Storm Troopers will not be surging against the US Capitol. Wake up from your bad dream.

Ideally SCOTUS will rule that Trump is ineligible to serve. But I recognize that is highly unlikely.

[grb]

Such a bizarre response. My “bad dream” barely touched on the question whether rioting before the next election’s certification will be a major problem or cause lasting harm. My “fearmongering” had very little to do with your obssessive tic of a point. You somehow managed to ignore all the substance in my comment. Apparently you prefered to answer what you fantasized I’d say rather than what’s seen in black&white above your response.

If you decide to “wake up”, try reading what I actually said. Feel free to a have a morning cup of coffee to clear your head.

[Don Nico]

SL,
It is not likely that your desired result can get a 8-1 or 9-0 majority will rule definitively that Trump is NOT Eligible to serve as President.
It is also unlikely that SCOTUS will make a ruling that leaves the decision of ballot presence piecemeal to the States.
And even more unlikely that Trump remains on the ballot, secures an EC majority and could be ruled ineligible by the new Congress.
Under those conditions, a more likely decision is that 14A3 does not apply to POTUS. That may explain why Trump's laywers made that their first argument.
Tell yourself that the sky is not falling and get used to it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, it's hard to get used to, given that what you describe as a solution would in fact sharpen a constitutional crisis, while gutting the already-shredded legitimacy of the Supreme Court.

Trump and his MAGA republican alliance (base and office holders together) are in fact mounting a prolonged and increasingly organized challenge to replace this nation's constitutional sovereign with themselves. You apparently cannot see that. I think that is because you mistakenly presume government in this nation is actually sovereign, so if the MAGAs seize control of government nothing important will really have changed.

What puzzles me most is your apparent determination to ignore what you could learn if you paid attention to the host of erstwhile Trump close associates who have already said publicly exactly what I am telling you now. How do you justify ignoring Mike Pence and Liz Cheney, for instance?

[Don Nico]

SL,
How do you persist in your horror show fantasy? BTW, your reading skills failed you. I did NOT offer a solution. I offered a prediction based on the reference of CJ Robert of a unanimous or nearly unanimous decision. There are very few rulings that might satisfy that preference.
But you insist that a 8-1 or 9-0 decision would shred the legitimacy of the Court. You're entitled to believe anything you want. I am entitled to believe that you are wrong.

You seem to believe that idea that someone who disagrees with you is deaf, stupid, illiterate, ill-intentioned or evil is just arrogance on your part.
We disagree. It is that simple.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I will give you this much. I was unaware that CJ Roberts had predicted a unanimous or nearly unanimous decision. Can you point out a reference to that?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, also, it's your reading skill at fault. I did not say it was your solution, I said it was, a solution, meaning in this case a putative means for the Court to accomplish evasion of responsibility for a constitutional crisis. That was no different than what you said yourself, except that I mentioned why it would not work.

grb commenting above has you pegged accurately for ignoring the substance of others' comments, and changing the subject repeatedly to one assertion which apparently makes you feel comfortable—calling everyone a fear monger. To you, the substance of the threat needs no consideration, and folks who point to threatening facts are irrational fraidy cats.

[Stephen Lathrop]

And where is your reference to Roberts predicting a unanimous or near-unanimous decision? Or are you just going to give me a, "That's just what he said years ago that he always wants?"

If that is all you meant, then Roberts' now-publicly-crumbling ambition to unify the Court is but one more stake-raising factor among others which make the Section 3 case such a challenge to the Court's legitimacy.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why would Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir and others in the Israeli government think it acceptable, let alone wise, to provoke Pres. Biden and the American mainstream with continued bigoted, violent, right-wing belligerence?

What a bunch of worthless, superstition-addled, repulsive, dangerous ingrates. Let's hope they get what they deserve.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Let’s hope they get what they deserve."
A Hamas free Middle East.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That's part of it.

See you down that road apiece, clingers.

[Frank Drackman]

to Damascus? I'll believe it when I see it

[Brett Bellmore]

This essay literally gave me a headache. Like reading Lewis Carol in a funhouse mirror, only this guy is serious.

"A judicial decision declaring Trump ineligible for present and future offices in the United States because he engaged in an insurrection after taking an oath of office might strengthen the Roberts Court’s appearance of bipartisanship, weaken opposition to courts among Democrats, enable the Republican Party to nominate a candidate with more appeal to independents, forestall violence, and rid American politics of a particularly despicable figure."

The politics of disqualification

What does it take to simultaneously believe that

1) January 6th was a violent insurrection.

AND

2) Disqualifying Trump from the ballot would forestall violence.

The rest of it makes no more sense. It reminds me of those medieval artists, who having heard of the rhinoceros, came up with the unicorn. I get the impression he has no first hand acquaintance with Trump supporters at all, or even Republicans.

[Moderation4ever]

Well January 6th was violent and that can be seen on camera and it was an attempt to stop the legitimate transfer of Presidential power. Where Trump disqualified from enough ballots that the Republicans would nominate an alternate candidate and most Republicans would fall in line quickly. Trump does not have the power to really raise too much trouble at this point and so less potential for violence. Trump will not win in November, and he is planting the discontent for that now. Let it grow and it will be worse after a general election loss.

That work out the problem for you.

[Sarcastr0]

UeahbBrett thinks violence is guaranteed and righteous but he’s not gonna be out there capping libs.

I remember the ACA passing and the right’s calls for revolt kinda morphing into sullenly kicking e can down the road.

I don’t like the risk, and those trying to be cute about promising but not advocating for violence are immoral. But the hostage taking bullshit insisted based on assumptions about some pretty comfortable but angry people discarding go their comfort.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, IF you think lots of Trump supporters are violent maniacs, (I don't.) THEN you shouldn't think that telling them they can't have their own choice of candidate will forestall violence. You should expect it to have the opposite result. They'll have been told that voting is now futile, what's left after that?

The rest of the essay basically just assumes that conservative Justices, politicians, and voters, all agree with him about all these issues, and just inexplicably are driven to publicly adopt positions they think are BS. But in the end if you force on them Graber's favorite policies, they'll heave a sign of relief at being defeated.

Because Graber thinks they're BS, so obviously the people promoting them must think they are, too, and will be happy to have Graber's views foisted on them, saving them from themselves.

Geeze, at least Lewis Carol was amusing, and knew he was writing crazy stuff.

[Sarcastr0]

No backtracking now, Brett. You said there would be violence and it would be justified just a couple of weeks ago. Want me to dig up a link to your comment?

inexplicably are driven to publicly adopt positions they think are BS.
You mean like someone who is a formalist and textualist to a fault suddenly finding his personal take on historical context to be determinative?

Because that's not inexplicable, it's just shameful.

I used to find you worthwhile to engage with because for all your speculations and partisan apophenia, you were sincere and engaged.
Now you don't read stuff, you repeat yourself, and you have left previous positions you've taken behind in service of defending Trump well beyond anything consistency of principle could support.

You're just another one of the unthinking bomb-throwers now. Talking to you feels like talking to Michael P. Fish in a barrel, but you'll be back with the same comment tomorrow, utterly unaltered, having forgotten all pushback you got the day before.

[Stephen Lathrop]

They’ll have been told that voting is now futile, what’s left after that?

Waiting peacefully until voting is not futile comes to mind. Organizing to advance the day that happens seems a better choice than a violent grab for minoritarian power.

Do you think otherwise, Bellmore?

[apedad]

Oregon Supreme Court rules GOP lawmakers who walked out can’t run for reelection

The Oregon Supreme Court ruled Thursday that 10 GOP state senators cannot run for reelection after they refused to attend Senate sessions for about six weeks out of protest last year in an attempt to stall Democratic-backed bills.

The court ruling upholds a secretary of state decision to keep the lawmakers off 2024 ballots, citing a 2022 referendum that bars lawmakers from seeking reelection if they have more than 10 unexcused absences.

“We obviously disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling. But more importantly, we are deeply disturbed by the chilling impact this decision will have to crush dissent,” said state Sen. Tim Knopp, the chamber’s Republican minority leader.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4442497-oregon-supreme-court-gop-protest-reelection/

Maybe they should move to Idaho which has policies more in-line with their Weltanschauung.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Crush dissent? Right wing minoritarians are in no way content with, "dissent." Their objective is to use one minoritarian lever to leverage another, and so on, until all that leveraged power thwarts completely actual majority rule . Tell them if they want to dissent, they can show up in the statehouse and dissent—or at least their successors in office can do that.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Move to Idaho? Note that some of them are already trying to get Idaho's western boundary moved to encompass eastern Oregon.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think this was perfectly legit: You play stupid games, you get stupid prizes. This tactic is illegitimate when Democrats use it, it's illegitimate when Republicans use it, and Oregon voters had had their fill of it.

Glad the Oregon supreme court upheld the measure.

[Bored Lawyer]

A Conservative MP, Mike Freer, who is gay and married to a husband, and a supporter of Israel, has determined not to seek reelection, because of threats and arson against him and his constituency office. The threats are from Islamists in Britain.

"There comes a point when the threats to your personal safety become too much," he said. In a message on social media, the MP for Finchley and Golders Green said: "Since my election as MP in 2010 I have sadly had several serious threats to my personal safety."

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/finchley-golders-green-mp-mike-freer-quits-personal-safety-concerns-b1136223.html

Britain is usually about 10 years ahead of the US on these things. So expect such intimidation to come here soon.

[Martinned]

Well, that's what he said anyway. Because of a thorough decade of self-selection and selection by the leadership, the only people left who are Tory MPs are all lying scum. And that lying scum is going to get an unbelievable spanking at the general election that will probably take place in the autumn. So the Tory MPs have been running like rats off a sinking ship, with excuses of varying levels of credibility to explain why they can't stand for re-election, why they have to resign their seat even before the election, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Mid_Bedfordshire_by-election

Point is, maybe this is all true. But it would take more than him saying so to really convince me.

[Bored Lawyer]

A different MP was killed by an Isalmist, and his local office was firebombed. Those are hard things to lie about.

[Imreasonable]

what's on my mind. Know this is not this thread, but Thanks Federalist Society, for destroying the environment. https://stateline.org/2023/12/05/after-clean-water-act-ruling-states-that-want-to-protect-affected-wetlands-need-millions/

[Brett Bellmore]

You mean, it's expensive if you have to pay for stuff, instead of just stiffing the people you take it from? Go figure.

[Nige]

It works out pretty expensive if you don't protect them, as they're belatedly working out.

[Bwaaah]

The EPA screwed untold numbers of people by asserting, falsely, that wet areas of their land were navigable water ways. As the Supreme Court decision described in this case, The EPA classified the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot as “waters of the United States” because they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake.

We’re a nation of laws. And you are on some kind of mission from God. But however holy you feel, try to tell the truth when you’re pursuing your higher purpose. The lies make you look dishonest.

(And don't stand near a ditch. One of your buddies might be nearby scheming.)

[David Nieporent]

Not only that, but although there were aspects of the ruling that were disputed, it was a 9-0 decision against the EPA.

[John F. Carr]

Judge Jeffrey White of the Northern District of California has dismissed the lawsuit against Biden demanding he stop supporting genocide in Gaza:

There are rare cases in which the preferred outcome is inaccessible to the Court. This is one of those cases. The Court is bound by precedent and the division of our coordinate branches of government to abstain from exercising jurisdiction in this matter. Yet, as the ICJ has found, it is plausible that Israel’s conduct amounts to genocide. This Court implores Defendants to examine the results of their unflagging support of the military siege against the Palestinians in Gaza.

[Bored Lawyer]

He should be removed from the bench. He is pretending he does not understand what "plausible" and "found" mean. Just because you can state a claim does not mean you have one.

[not guilty]

The State of Georgia has filed its response in Fulton County to motions to dismiss the indictment or disqualify the District Attorney General filed by three defendants. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24401470/da-office-rseponse-to-roman-motion-to-disqualify-020224-exhibits-removed.pdf Unlike the defense motions, the State's response is supported by the affidavit of Nathan Wade, based on personal knowledge of the facts recited therein.

According to Mr. Wade's affidavit, he and District Attorney Fani Willis were not in a personal relationship when he was hired in 2021; such a relationship did develop thereafter. There is nothing evincing an actual conflict of interest.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

At least lawyers are screwing each other for once.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Not that disqualifying the DA would have seriously affected the prosecution of Trump anyway. Grist for the mill.

It was probably good for prompting a few extra donations to the Trump Lawyer Full-Employment Fund.

[David Nieporent]

Not that disqualifying the DA would have seriously affected the prosecution of Trump anyway. Grist for the mill.

According to what serious Georgia lawyers have said, disqualification under these circumstances extends to the entire office, not just the individual prosecutor. And, yes, disqualifying the Fulton County DA's office would seriously derail the prosecution. Even if the appointed replacement wasn't a Republican who just decided to drop the prosecution entirely.

Note that her office was disqualified last year with respect to one of the defendants because of a conflict of interest, and the appropriate agency still hasn't appointed a replacement prosecutor.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This remarkably male, tellingly
white, right-wing blog has
operated for no more than

SIX (6)

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

FOUR (4)

occasion (so far) during 2024
(that’s at least four discussions
that have included a racial slur,
not just four racial slurs; many
Volokh Conspiracy discussions
include multiple racial slurs,)

This blog is more than matching
its deplorable pace of 2023,
when the Volokh Conspiracy
published disgusting, vile
racial slurs in at least

FORTY-FOUR (44)

different discussions.

These numbers probably miss
some of the racial slurs
published regularly by this blog;
it would be unreasonable to
expect anyone to catch all
of them.

This assessment does not address
the broader, everyday stream of
gay-bashing, misogynistic, Islamophobic,
antisemitic, racist, Palestinian-hating,
transphobic, and immigrant-hating slurs
(and other bigoted content) published
at this faux libertarian blog, which
is presented from the receding
right-wing fringe of modern legal
academia by members of the
Federalist Society for Law
and Public Policy Studies.

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

This is a good one, too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones selections (by request):

First, a hot one.

Next, a cool one