Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Bigbenis]

I think AR-15 is exactly the same as the M16 and anyone who says differently is wrong and misleading people.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and your point is?

[Martinned2]

That, as his user name suggests, he has a tiny penis, but a big gun to compensate.

[Mr. Bumble]

AR platform is hardly a "big" gun.

[Longtobefree]

Would you want to get shot by a .22?

[VinniUSMC]

Depends what my other choices are. If it's "shot by .22 or not shot at all", the choice is easy. If it's "shot by something", .22 is a pretty safe choice. You probably meant .223, which would imply center-fired AR platform. Even then, .223 is not a big gun. The damage comes from the action of the round internally, not from it packing a particularly big kinetic punch.

[Davedave]

"If it’s “shot by something”, .22 is a pretty safe choice."

ROFL. US gun nuts are nothing if not stupid. You could choose to be shot with - not by - a water pistol, or a camera, or any number of things that aren't (potentially) lethal weapons.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Hoplophobes are nothing, period. It's a hypothetical, his. Your hypothetical is yours. They are distinct.

Only a quibbler would demand that his hypothetical replace somebody else's.

[VinniUSMC]

Hi dumbdumb. Never change.

[Riva]

In a comment chain discussing AR-15s, M-16s and, .22s, you felt the subject matter included water pistols or cameras? On the bright side, your grasp of firearms may exceed that of certain S.Ct. Justices, still within the f’ing stupid range but a little higher.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I'm not prepared to state definitively that this is the single lamest attempt at a gotcha that I've ever seen, but it's certainly in contention.

[Davedave]

And here we see the Overton window - aka 'living with extremists rots your mind' - in action.

In civilised countries, guns are not the first thing that comes to mind when someone suggests the least injurious thing to be shot with.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

In civilised countries...

...they apparently don't understand the concept of "context".

[Kazinski]

So if I have a snub nose revolver then your conclusion would be?

[gVOR08]

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

That’s called a King Kong Dong because gorillas have tiny penises. And when you can’t satisfy a woman we call that a 3 Pump Trump.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

You think wrong. AR-15 is semi-auto. M16 is full-auto.

[Dr. Ed 2]

AR-15 is to M-16 as pickup truck is to Ford F-150

All M-16s have the basic styling of an AR-15, much as all Ford -150s have the basic styling of a quarter ton pickup truck.

[Stella Link the dog]

"quarter ton pickup truck."

So says Mr Ed, the talking horse's ass.

[Dr. Ed 2]

My bad -- half ton.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

All M-16s have the basic styling of an AR-15

"styling" functionality.

[Bigbenis]

the original AR-15’s were full auto. The m16 is just a military designation for the AR-15 so in all aspects they are both still the same.

[defaultdotxbe]

If that is how you're drawing your distinction then it's inaccurate to call modern AR-15s "AR-15s" since they were never produced in full auto for the civilian market.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think every pickup truck is exactly the same as the Ford F-150 and anyone who says differently is wrong and misleading....

[jimc5499]

You have it exactly backwards. The M-16 was derived from the AR-15. The main differences are the ability to fire fully automatically and the 3 shot burst function. So basically the Military adapted a sporting rifle to military use.

[Stella Link the dog]

"So basically the Military adapted a sporting rifle to military use."

Why do people say such things?

The AR-15 was developed as a result of US military rifle development. This is not a secret.

[Kazinski]

Jeez, how’s EV going clean up this mess?

I can’t say much though as a computer programmer for 30 years I can tell you its not uncommon to spend more time debugging than coding.

Its a good thing design only takes a about 5 minutes for even an enormously complex system otherwise we’d never get anything done.

[John F. Carr]

I think the double threads are human error. He posts them ahead of time with post time set to 3:00 AM Eastern. They appear when the time arrives. It's easy to post a second thread when none has yet appeared on the main page.

[Longtobefree]

Triple threads; there is a link on the reason 'latest' page as well.

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

EV appears to be making pollution MUCH WORSE. Now don't miss the boat here, it is not whether this is true or not but why YOU will bet the future of the country on your answer

Electric vehicles release more toxic emissions, are worse for the environment than gas-powered cars: study
By Social Links forShannon Thaler
Published March 5, 2024

But you say, what about solar power...well that is WORSE
"Thousands of solar panels in the Needville area were destroyed in a heavy hail storm on March 16 and residents are concerned about possible chemical contaminatio"
and this is what you are betting on in a huge way

"BLM proposes to open 22 million acres in Western states to solar development"

[Sonja T]

Solar farm near Ft Bend Texas got destroyed by hail storm
That solar farm is 350mw encompassing 3,300 acres - approx 1mw per 10 acres. Also note that the 350mw is rated full capacity, while the actual capacity for solar is approx 30% of rated capacity.

for comparison, the cordova gas generation plant is on approx 30 acres generating 260mw. 11mw per acre

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

You said nothing. It appears you are saying that using solar for power is like standing in your backyard blowing on a turbine like it's a birthday cake. Okay but my point was
ISn't this a horrible idea

Jan 2024
BLM proposes to open 22 million acres in Western states to solar development

[Nige]

Oh man, wait'll you learn about oil spills.

[Kazinski]

Kind of wild that Jack Dorsey bans Trump from Twitter, and Trump ends up making 3.5 billion out of it.

[David Nieporent]

Funny how the same people correctly noting that the government shouldn't be taxing unrealized capital gains are pretending that Trump's unrealized capital gains are real. Unless he can bully the company into letting him sell his shares now, rather than in six months when they're valued at roughly zero.

[Mr. Bumble]

So you'd be happy to be taxed on your unrealized gains?

[David Nieporent]

No. What about what I said would make you think that?

[Krayt]

These aren't unrealized gains, as in real, actually exists.

This is real as in romance language real, royal. These are unroyalized gains, wealth the crown has not simply seized yet in its role as sovereign.

[Kazinski]

Oh no, we both know its not real.

Right now he’s locked up for about 6 months, and anyone financially savvy knows if he does try to sell all his stock then it will collapse and he’d be lucky to get 20 cents on the dollar.

However he can probably borrow on it at about 5 cents on the dollar, and probably more in a few months after it has a little history on the exchange.

Plus its a “meme” stock too in that the fundamentals aren’t the most important thing driving the stock price. see GME for an example which went from $1 to 80, now its at 14, but $1 was probably about right.

[David Nieporent]

At least Gamestop was an actual ongoing concern, even if there was just some weird Internet trolling that caused its stock price to be badly overvalued. There's no actual business in play here; my kids' lemonade stand is a more viable business model.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Almost anyone's paltry domestic economy will prove more valuable than Enron did. But that doesn't mean Enron was not a means to set up more-lavish domestic estates. Funny how that works.

[Kazinski]

Were I inclined to translate that what language should I use?

[David Nieporent]

Lathropian.

[Kazinski]

I actually. downloaded It yesterday, and I was quite surprised at how good the software was, look and feel was at least as good as X. If Elon hadn't taken over Twitter it would be worth at least twice as much.

Probably a good comp would be Rumble, which only exists because YouTube censors conservatives. Its got a market cap of ~2.5B. and has been listed over 2 years.

I also downloaded Rumble recently, to watch Climate: The Movie, which I couldn't find on YouTube, even though it features NASA scientists and a Nobel prize winner in Physics. It must be something they said.

https://rumble.com/v4kl0dn-climate-the-movie-the-cold-truth-martin-durkin.html

[Brett Bellmore]

I was going to download it when it first came out, but couldn't get past the terms of service. I'd be interested in an uncensored platform, but just trading censors didn't motivate me that much.

[David Nieporent]

Once again: there is no actual business anywhere that has an "uncensored platform" as a business model. It is not a viable setup. There are two sources of revenue: subscriptions and advertising. No advertiser wants to advertise with Nazi content, spam, and porn, and who would pay (other than Nazis kicked off of other platforms) when there are so many free alternatives out there?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sheesh, again with the pretense that it's "Nazis" being censored.

[Jacob Grimes]

I will never, ever understand this reasoning.

The internet has all sorts of horrible websites. Some of those websites have advertisers on them. But I will never know who those advertisers are unless I go looking for those horrible websites. And if I choose to look for those horrible websites, why would I be offended by advertisers who are there with me?

[JasonT20]

You seem to understand it just fine. Platforms and websites are not going to want content on their services that is going to offend a sizable portion of its users. For a service with a wide, diverse audience, that means keeping off things that would offend and drive off a lot of the users. For a service aimed at narrow audiences that want that stuff, they will welcome it because it won’t drive users away and might actually attract them.

[Brett Bellmore]

What you don't understand is that you don't see this stuff unless you go looking for it.

Do I drop my phone company because I'm aware people are having phone conversations I don't approve of? No, of course I don't. Do I get mad at Amazon because they carry books I disapprove of? No.

People need to get over this business of going out of their way to be offended by the very existence of stuff they'll only encounter if they go out of their way to see it. It's deeply pathological.

[David Nieporent]

Weirdly, I didn't see Brett lecturing conservatives that it was insane for them to boycott Bud Light because a trans person posted a single promotional spot on that trans person's own account. It's only people getting upset at Nazis that gets him worked up.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, if I actually drank beer, (Maybe a radler once in a while.) rather than using it occasionally for cooking purposes, (It goes well with sausage.) and if I had really bad taste in beer, what happened with Budd light wouldn’t have altered my purchasing decisions. I’d still buy the dreck. I don’t boycott companies based on trivialities.

But end consumers are perfectly entitled to make their purchasing decisions based on any stupid basis. They’re spending their own money, after all! If they’ve already decided to spend it on bad beer, why not pick the bad beer on a basis unrelated to the taste?

Publicly traded companies with fiduciary responsibilities to their stock holders? Not so entitled to be arbitrary. They’re supposed to be making economically rational decisions, because they’re making decisions about how OTHER peoples’ money will be deployed. They’re agents, not principals.

This sort of thing is NOT an economically rational decision, faithful to the agents’ fiduciary responsibilities to stockholders. Even if platforms weren’t algorithmically placing advertising appropriately, but just randomly distributing it, you have to seek out the offensive content in order to see the ad next to it.

So if you see an ad for Apple products next to an Aryan Nation post, you’re probably a member of the Aryan Nation, and this will actually RAISE your opinion of Apple! And Aryan Nation money spends, just like anybody else's, so why would you object to them buying your products?

No, this sort of boycott isn’t an economically rational decision, it’s the corporate decision makers satisfying their personal feelings at the expense of stockholders. I don’t have to like that sort of fiduciary abuse by management, I don’t have to pretend it’s noble and moral. They’re just diverting stockholder funds to advance their own politics.

[David Nieporent]

Just when Brett's ideas about law couldn't get any dumber, he tops himself with, "CEOs have a fiduciary duty to put out Nazi ads."

To state the position is to refute it, but even if it weren't inherently crazy and wrong as a matter of law, it's dumb as a factual position. He somehow thinks that if I don't read neonazinews.com, that I won't find out that Apple is advertising there. But I will. Because that will get out. And then Apple will be faced with headlines like, "Apple supports neo-nazis." And then I will not buy Apple products anymore.

[Absaroka]

The good 'ol boys who stopped drinking Bud Lite probably weren't looking at ?Mulvaney's? instagram or whatever either; they saw a Fox article titled 'Bud Goes All In For Trans Rights' or something.

Apple doesn't want some publication their customers do read publishing an article 'Apple Pitching Neo-Nazis!' with screen shots of guys doing Heil Hitler salutes next to an Apple ad.

That is very much an economically rational decision.

[Brett Bellmore]

Precisely. Suppose you sell Aryan Nation merch for a living; You're going to be offended by "Nazis" using a site and seeing your ads?

With directed advertising, that whole "Menorah company ad showing up next to Nazi content" thing doesn't happen naturally. It has to be deliberately engineered, the way Media Matters did.

And who the hell is going to be offended by it? You have to actively go after that sort of content to encounter it more than very rarely, why would somebody actively looking for hate group content be offended by hate group content?

[Nige]

I don't know how to tell you this; some people really don't like Nazis.

[David Nieporent]

But I will never know who those advertisers are unless I go looking for those horrible websites.

Or unless someone tells you.

[Jacob Grimes]

I don't know how anyone could have anything but contempt for those hall-monitor types.

[Nige]

Like telling you a trans person drank some beer. There's getting mad at that, and there's getting mad at Nazis. Ne'er the twain shall meet.

[jb]

I think if you go to horrible websites you'll find that the ads are all from pretty questionable companies. So regardless of whether you agree with them or not, advertisers have made their preferences clear.

In any case, the issue here is that if an site is not actively trying to be horrible, they don't want a mix of mostly not horrible and a some horrible content, because advertisers don't want to risk their ads showing up next to the horrible content, especially since on a general purpose platform you might end up seeing content that you're not deliberately seeking out. So essentially all general purpose platforms need some sort of filtering mechanism to make sure that highly objectionable content doesn't show up. This doesn't mean they're necessarily also going to remove PragerU content or Marsha Blackburn ads or whatever is outraging conservatives lately, but DN is absolutely correct that there's no viable business model that doesn't include some amount of content filtering.

[David Nieporent]

because advertisers don’t want to risk their ads showing up next to the horrible content,

Yep. As I'm sure Lathrop would be happy to explain at extended length, advertisers don't even like having their ads next to the wrong kind of stories in a mainstream newspaper, even if it isn't morally objectionable like pro-Nazi content. If there's a story about, say, a massacre in Ukraine or a school shooting in Iowa, you're not going to find a furniture store ad next to it.

[Jacob Grimes]

If by "general purpose platform," you mean social media, I can't remember any time I've seen content (as opposed to advertisements) that wasn't in some way related to whatever inputs I entered, whether its my social connections or interests. I'm struggling to understand the exact way in which I could unwittingly encounter horrible content and then associate it with a nearby advertisement other than by some freak accident of programming.

Even if its user-generated content, say, one post in a thread of 20 that has something horrible in it, I'm not going to associate it with anything or anyone but that poster because it's an outlier.

[Nige]

'I’m struggling to understand the exact way in which I could unwittingly encounter horrible content '

Of course you do. You're not the sort of person who gets deliberately and remorselessly targeted by the sorts of people who post the terrible content.

[jb]

"Even if its user-generated content, say, one post in a thread of 20 that has something horrible in it, I’m not going to associate it with anything or anyone but that poster because it’s an outlier."

It doesn't matter what you think; it matters what advertisers think. If you think I'm wrong, find me the horrible site that has a bunch of Fortune 500 companies advertising on it.

[Kazinski]

It goes far.beyond censoring Nazis, one prominent example was Rush Limbaugh's radio show. Rush clearly not a Nazi, or racist, was the target of advertiser boycott campaigns for decades.

While it might of hurt his revenue a little bit, it certainly benefited a lot of advertisers who built their whole business around advertising on his show.

[Nige]

But that's not censoring. Boycotts cut across all political lines. If all boycotts are like censoring Nazis, then everybody does it.

[bernard11]

I don't get the complaint here.

What's wrong with advertisers deciding they don't want to advertise on certain shows?

[SimonP]

In China, they ban the popular apps, so users are forced to use the ideologically censored versions of those apps.

In the US, MAGA voluntarily segregates itself so as to avoid exposure to any points of view they don't want to see.

It's a little like how right-wing twitter blamed DEI and migrants almost immediately after the bridge disaster in Baltimore, which recalled how Putin immediately blamed Ukraine for the ISIS attack. You people are just fundamentally disinclined to think for yourselves, and are just begging to be told what to do.

[Brett Bellmore]

"In the US, MAGA voluntarily segregates itself so as to avoid exposure to any points of view they don’t want to see. "

You've actually got that backwards. I don't mind exposure to points of view I disagree with. I have a long blog roll I regularly read, most of which I disagree with. Reading people who agree with me is boring. Well, unless maybe the topic is trading recipes, or something of that nature.

MAGA end up in online ghettos because the left censors them everywhere they can. Same as my group of old farts on FB had to migrate to MeWe because FB kept shutting our private group down for unidentified wrongthink. (Literally, they would not tell us what they were finding 'objectionable', we were supposed to guess and self-censor to their satisfaction.)

[SimonP]

I don’t mind exposure to points of view I disagree with. I have a long blog roll I regularly read, most of which I disagree with. Reading people who agree with me is boring.

Brett, you say things like this, but you're never very specific about what you're actually reading, and your links here consistently demonstrate an extremely narrow information diet. So one has to surmise that what you're referring to as "people you disagree with" is probably just mainstream Republican conservatives who aren't as extreme as you'd prefer.

MAGA end up in online ghettos because the left censors them everywhere they can. Same as my group of old farts on FB had to migrate to MeWe because FB kept shutting our private group down for unidentified wrongthink.

Again, you intentionally leave out the specifics. You really couldn't guess why FB kept shutting your private group down?

Whether you were able to know where the specific line was is one thing. But I'm guessing you're very clear on why they shut down the private group. You just didn't want to stop discussing the topics you were shut down for, and didn't want to guess at how close to the line you could get before you got shut down.

[not guilty]

Reading multiple sources through an IOKIYAR filter is unlikely to be enlightening. Confirmation bias (to which I am as subject as anyone, but I never pretend to opine from a perspective other than that of a partisan Democrat) can be a bitch.

Upton Sinclair observed that it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. The commenters on this blog demonstrate that the same difficulty applies when one's identity depends on not understanding.

[Sarcastr0]

He reads the election law blog, which seems legit.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Brett, you say things like this, but you’re never very specific about what you’re actually reading,"

Hm. Balkinization, Election Law blog, Crooked Timber, Obsidian Wings. That's pretty much my "sometimes violently disagree with, but read anyway" list.

On the mostly but not always agree with list, you'd have Instapundit, Volokh, and a few substacks like Don't Worry About The Vase, or The Upheaval.

Now, of course if I go looking to document something right-wing, I'm not going to find the documentation in a left wing source; Those sorts of admissions against interest are pretty rare these says, like Burge says, "Journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving." When you want to link to a story, you're obviously going to be linking to somebody who's willing to report on it.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you read the comments on here? Self-segregating by MAGA has become a purity test. Don't use Google, or facebook, or Youtube. Don't read newspapers. Don't watch Hollywood movies. Don't live in cities.

Plenty on the left doing the same anti-social thing (e.g. sever from Trump-voting relatives), but on the right it's directed at society and it's mainstream institutions and sources of information, not just individuals.

You have stopped bothering to read primary sources. Often you opine without any sources at all, just based on how you expect things to be (and are invariably wrong).
Not sure if that's laziness or what, but it's a great way to keep your world smooth and easy and ignore reality.

[Bob from Ohio]

The number of burning strawmen in this post will double global warming.

People on the right are exposed to left media [CBS, NYT, ABC, CNN etc.] all the time.

[David Nieporent]

They used to be. Not anymore. Unless you're at an airport you don't see CNN unless you want to see CNN.

[Kazinski]

I guess I'm impure then, my general attitude is who cares what that idiot thinks, just shut up and sing, or act, or play.

I don't boycott Sean Penn, Matt Damon, or Susan Sarandon movies because I don't care what actors think about economics, climate, or politics.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I don’t care what actors think"

Agreed. I have however maintained a 50 year boycott of the traitor Jane Fonda.

[not guilty]

I joke that I tried the Jane Fonda workout videos, but the only one I could get the hang of was Klute.

[Jmaie]

I gained a slight respect for Brad Pitt, he was being interviewed and was asked a political question. His answer (paraphrased) was, "Why would you care what I think, I'm paid to pretend to be other people."

[bernard11]

MAGA end up in online ghettos because the left censors them everywhere they can.

Paranoid horseshit.

[Ed Grinberg]

Are you auditioning for Gaslighto's job?

[Davy C]

A bunch of right wingers did that. But a bunch of left wingers, not long after ridiculing them for that, left Twitter because they didn't like that Musk was more conservative.

[David Nieporent]

was quite surprised at how good the software was,

It's a rebranded Mastodon.

[Moderation4ever]

It is good to know that you are smart enough to realize that the Truth Social is not real. But like many other schemes Trump can make money off his marks. Listening to a guest on Michael Smerconish's radio program I noted that the Truth Social buys were mostly by individual and not by institutional investors. That means the manager who watch stocks for a living don't think it is likely to succeed. The stock is being pump by Trump lovers. Just another way for Trump to take the little person's money. And when the stock is worth nothing they will be wondering what happened.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is impoverishing Trump supporters bad? Maybe they won't be able to scrounge gas money for their next planned insurrection. Maybe they won't be able to afford internet connections enabling them to congregate with other disaffected misfits. Maybe they'll have to miss a few militia meetings or Oath Keepers rallies.

[Frank Drackman]

Thats just the kind of thing Jerry Sandusky would say

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are you daft? Sandusky is a lifelong Republican and was a well-connected conservative in the can't-keep-up, conservative backwaters of central Pennsylvania.

[Frank Drackman]

don't be so hard on yourself

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or the institutional investors are a bunch of leftists and boycotted it.

[Moderation4ever]

Think about how stupid that sounds. Business and financial people generally run center right to right.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

They don't become Volokh Conspiracy fans with adequate education, good judgment, appropriate credentials, or strong insight.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Blackrock?!?

There is a reason why several Red states are divesting them.

[bernard11]

These lockups often prohibit borrowing against the stock. I don't know if there is such a provision in Trump's agreement.

Plus the current valuation is a joke, and unlikely to be maintained.

[Zarniwoop]

Reputable media (I believe NPR, I’d have to double-check) reports that there is indeed a “no use as collateral” provision in Trump’s lock-up agreement.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Reputable media" and NPR is an oxymoron.

[jb]

This demonstrating the "conservatives don't like to be exposed to information ecosystems that don't just parrot and reinforce their own views" discussion from above.

[Dr. Ed 2]

NPR being right and NPR being reputable are not the same things.

[Sarcastr0]

They are unless you don't like facts.

[Bob from Ohio]

A good reputation does not mean any specific story is correct.

[Frank Drackman]

National Pubic Radio? Might as well be Al-Jizz-eera

[Zarniwoop]

Mr. Bumble, please enlighten us concerning the “reputable media” you get your info from.

Note: this will require you to actually say something affirmative, not tear something down with your usual stupid one-liner. Do you even have that capability in you?

[Moderation4ever]

Worth noting that Trump has the shares to control the board and so could change the lockup agreement.

[bernard11]

Maybe, but I'm not sure who all the parties to the agreement are.

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

NO, David, you misstate the law and the economics.

Under a new proposal, Bidenis pushing for households with net wealth over $100 million would be required to pay a minimum effective tax rate of 20 percent on an expanded measure of income that includes unrealized capital gains.

Now, David, for 20 points and a free refrigerator, Does the net wealth include unrealized or not??? tick,tick,tick

[Sarcastr0]

The number of people in the US with household net worth of over 100M is 10,660 as of October 2023.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/10/number-of-people-with-100-million-has-doubled-since-2003.html

.003% seems a pretty pedantic rule to stand on.

[Bob from Ohio]

You think that they stop at 100M if they successfully start taxing phantom income?

Maybe look how the first income tax was levied a 100 years ago.

[Brett Bellmore]

They might as well stop at 100M; Given the projected deficits, won't be long before that's a middle class income.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And Brett, *that* is how the middle class wound up paying income tax -- inflation pushed them up into it.

[CountmontyC]

Inflation alone will start ensnaring more and more people as time goes along. And once that tax is in the system it won't take them long before some financial "crisis " comes along and they say they need to tax those making less than the $100 million. And of course another financial "crisis" will follow the first and the amount at which the tax begins will be lowered a second ( and third and fourth and so on and so on) time. It will eventually even affect the middle class.

[Martinned2]

Yes, definitely. /s

https://www.newyorkfed.org/microeconomics/sce#/

[Joe_dallas]

Countmonty
Good point on ensnaring more and more taxpayers.

The Alternative minimum tax (AMT) was very similar. It started out in 1976 (?) designed to hit only the top 1/2 of 1%. However , by 2010, it was hitting around 5% of taxpayers. By 2017 AMT was hitting around 6%-7% of taxpayers.

[bernard11]

Does net wealth include unrealized gains?

Of course it does. What do you think Bezos' or Musk's wealth consists of?

[Don Nico]

Does Mr Biden propose to allow deduction of unrealized capital losses?

[Mr. Bumble]

You can't even take the deduction for real capital loses except against real capital gains. Any excess must be carried over.

[Joe_dallas]

Don - good point on one of the multitude of problems with taxing unrealized gains

Likely would include netting unrealized gains and unrealized losses as of the end of each year as is currently done for realized gains.

Unlikely to allow a deduction for net unrealized losses if the aggerate change for the year is unrealized losses. Even if the unrealized losses would be allowed, then the deduction would likely be capped at $3k or some other low amount.

To what extend would unrealized losses be allowed to be carried back against unrealized capital gains taxed in prior year. Currently realized capital losses can only be carried forward.

Would unrealized capital losses be allowed to offset realized gains?

Most likely would not adjust the unrealized gains for the portion that is due simply to inflation. One of the major problems in the 70's and 80's was a significant portion of the taxable gains were attributable to inflation, often paying capital gains tax on economic losses.

Then of course is the valuation of holdings. Closely held assets are very difficult to value. Any guesses as to the litigation going on about values.

Valuation of publicly traded equities - become a problem with large blocks of stock that are often held by the wealthy.

One of the primary justifications for taxing long term cap gains at 20% vs 37% (50% -60% in days of yore) was that a portion of the taxable gains was due to inflation.

In summary, The proposal is a really stupid idea both from a compliance standpoint and from a coherent / rational tax policy standpoint.

[bernard11]

I don't know. They would certainly have to figure into the net wealth calculation.

[Riva]

Who are these people and what do you mean by “real”? The real projected value? How does estimating a value on something in any way commit someone to agreeing that that value estimated should also taxable as a realized gain before sale? Or maybe another question, how stupid are you? Really, I’d like a projected estimate on that.

[Nelson]

The state of New York will gratefully accept Trump's payment now. Or in 6 months, with interest.

[Mr. Bumble]

Two open threads again.

[David Nieporent]

Maybe it's a sociological experiment by Prof. V.

[Bwaaah]

Will one thread die out and the other become the one became the de facto Thursday Open Thread?

[darkknight9]

So what would need to happen in the realm of law to let Snowden come home and be safe from further prosecution?

If he gets a pardon that just forgives him for current crimes right?

[Commenter_XY]

Sadly, the ship sailed on Snowden. He has a life in Russia now. The time to bring him home was years ago. Edward Snowden exposed clearly illegal domestic surveillance activity by a host of alphabet agencies. No one disputes that. And those alphabet agencies are still spying on us; and much more.

Edward Snowden is an American Patriot for exposing the illegal activity that was happening. America owes him a debt. He has paid a steep price for his patriotism.

[Bob from Ohio]

He's just a traitor. Your admiration is badly misplaced.

[Commenter_XY]

We disagree here. Listen, nobody is perfect. 🙂

[Nelson]

"Edward Snowden is an American Patriot for exposing the illegal activity that was happening. America owes him a debt. He has paid a steep price for his patriotism."

Agreed, XY. Putting exposure of illegal behavior ahead of blind devotion to the State is guaranteed to fuck up your life, but he did it anyway.

You knew that the "America has never done anything wrong and, even if we have, who cares" crowd was going to go apeshit over revelation, not the surveillance. Rabid nationalism will always put avoiding embarrassment over the rule of law.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

[NvEric]

No crimes at all. Should get a Medal of Freedom !

[VinniUSMC]

Fuck Assange and the Traitor. Free Snowden.

[Krychek_2]

Edward Snowden did massive damage to our ability to surveil terrorists and China. He gave our enemies much valuable information about our methods of data collection and destroyed intelligence capabilities that had taken decades to put in place. If I were the judge, I'd give him 40 years. Failing that, he can stay in Russia.

There's a lot our intelligence agencies do that I don't like, but so long as the world includes Putin, China, and Hamas, we can't just unilaterally disarm. The man is a traitor.

[Brett Bellmore]

He exposed a lot of stuff that shouldn't have been exposed, but it's still true that he exposed a lot of flatly illegal stuff that should have been exposed, too.

Stuff that's still going on, by the way.

And I think our government is madder at him about exposing that, than they are about the legal stuff.

[Bwaaah]

Barack Obama just kept whistling like he didn't know what Snowden was talking about. "Spying on Angela Merkel? Somebody should look into that."

He always had clean hands. Could that have been a superficial thing?

[#FFFFFFPride]

I know right? If we disarmed our intelligence agencies, just imagine the horrors:

1.) No Administrative State interference in our State and Federal elections
2.) No illegal spying on us
3.) No meddling in foreign democracies
4.) A wide open border where military aged men from China, Russia and Hamas freely come over.

[Krychek_2]

You really think we would be better off without being able to keep tabs on North Korea, Iran, and al Quaeda?

It's a tradeoff. As I said, there's a lot of stuff they do that I don't like, but I like the idea of us being in the dark about Iran's nuclear program even less. And there are ways to rein in the abuses.

So, as far as I'm concerned, Snowden can stay where he is, unless he's willing to come back and stand trial. Maybe he'll get drafted and sent to the Ukraine now that he's a Russian citizen.

[Commenter_XY]

If there are ways to rein in the abuses, then why hasn't that been done?

[Krychek_2]

You'll have to ask Congress. Probably for the same reason lots of other things haven't been done. But the argument that the only two choices are to leave things as they are or dismantle our intelligence services is just silly.

[Brett Bellmore]

Congress is too dirty to rein in the guys who specialize in digging up dirt, would be my guess. Kind of like back during the Clinton impeachment, when Livingstone got outed, and replaced with the pedophile Hastert.

J. Edgar got away with crap for a long, long while, because he had the goods on important people. And limited what he did because some people had the goods on him... You think the NSA has less goods on fewer people?

[Sarcastr0]

Another evidenceless conspiracy by Brett.

All of Congress is being blackmailed by the intelligence community. Probably the Supreme Court too, eh?

Was Hastert installed by the CIA?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, you're right, once Hastert retired, Congress was clean as the driven snow. And there's no way the nation's chief spy organization, in spying on Americans, would intercept any dirt about members of Congress.

Back in 2013, the ACLU thought this was a realistic concern. At a time when the NSA's capabilities were considerably less.

You want the honest truth? If Trump is reelected and bombs the NRA's data centers, I'll cheer. They're a bigger threat to us than anything foreign, at this point.

[Sarcastr0]

You're excluding the middle in an extremely disingenuous way. Some Congresspeople doing crimes does not mean they are all being blackmailed.

Your ACLU commentary article is corkboard and string. "If we allow the NSA to retain the powers it wants, it’s not at all crazy to worry about how those powers could be used now or in the future to grab even more frightening power through blackmail of ostensible overseers" just shows the left can be paranoid dumbasses as well.

"If Trump is reelected and bombs the NRA’s data centers" I presume you mean the NSA. And neither you nor I know much about what they have accomplished.

I'm not sure how I feel about our big pivot under Ike towards covert ops over large military engagements. But scorched earth on something you're not cleared to understand exactly seems badly thought out (though easy to type on the Internet).

[not guilty]

Lyndon Johnson famously said of J. Edgar Hoover, "It's probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in."

[CountmontyC]

I am an advocate for a Federal Bureau of Internal Affairs ( FBIA) whose only purpose is to police the federal agencies. I would give them the same investigative and prosecutorial powers if the DOJ. As long as we have federal agencies those agencies and their people will be tempted to abuse their authority. We need someone who can rein them in when that happens.

[Sarcastr0]

Congress, the IG, OMB, and the GAO all do tons of oversight.

Though to my knowledge Congress is the only one that has high enough clearance to hit the black stuff.

[#FFFFFFPride]

What did Congress, the IG, OMB and the GAO do when it was discovered the FBI illegally searched Americans over 280,000x?

Anything?

[Jmaie]

"Congress, the IG, OMB, and the GAO all do tons of oversight."

I have some swamp land I can let you have at a really good price.

[CountmontyC]

IGs are worthless. They have only very limited investigative powers( can't compel testimony from anyone who doesn't currently work for their agency) and can only recommend prosecution and if told no that is the end of it, OMB is basically just budget matters as is the GAO. I want an agency that has the power of the FBI to investigate and the power of attorney generals to prosecute and I want that power directed at federal agencies.

[Sarcastr0]

GAO does a lot more than budget stuff. And so does OMB these days.

But yeah, if you want a DoJ level organization dedicated to internal affairs focused largely on highly classified initiatives, you want something impractical and unrealistic that no institution in the world does.

[David Nieporent]

Not to mention that actually existing internal affairs departments do not appear to be particularly effective at rooting out police corruption.

[Commenter_XY]

How silly of me not to ask the FISA Court judges WTF they were thinking and doing, approving 99% of surveillance applications? Should they not also be held to account?

[Nelson]

“You’ll have to ask Congress.”

It was already illegal. What do you expect them to do?

That’s like saying that if someone gets murdered, people should take it up with the legislature. It’s insane.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Why would we simultaneously need to spy on and be afraid of Iran while also giving them billions of dollars?

Look at what our agencies do when China is caught spying on us. They run cover for China to protect their reputation.

[Krychek_2]

To ensure that Iran is holding up its part of the bargain under which we returned to them billions of dollars of their own money.

[Sonja T]

Krychek - returning Iran's "money" isnt what happened

Cutting through the talking point - the reality is that the Obama/Biden policy toward Iran is facilitating the funding of Iran's terrorist activities.

[Krychek_2]

So why would Obama/Biden want to facilitate the funding of Iran's terrorist activities? I keep hearing outlandish accusations about the terrible, evil things Democrats do but so far I've never heard an explanation that makes sense as to what their motivation would be for doing so.

Obama made a deal with Iran to return money that we seized from Iran in 1979 in exchange for shutting down Iran's nuclear program, with checks in place to ensure Iran complied. One can quibble about whether Obama might have gotten a better deal, but the deal he got is well within the boundaries of reason.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, why would prosecutors want to free easily convicted criminals who've looted stores, or let squatters take over private property? Why do illegal aliens with violent criminal records get released?

You demonstrate your belief in the infinite redeemability of your enemies by giving them unlimited second chances. Why not feel good about how enlightened you are? It's not like you'll personally be paying the price.

[Sarcastr0]

You demonstrate that once someone is your enemy, all means are on the table to go after them regardless of legality.

Or else you love Iran.

Realpolitik didn't take us to anywhere good.

[Krychek_2]

Which prosecutors freed which easily convicted criminals who looted stores? It's my understanding that the cases that could be proved got prosecuted.

Squatters on private property is primarily a civil matter. And with as many illegals as we have coming through the border at the moment, no doubt some violent ones are occasionally slipping through, but I doubt that's our policy.

[Don Nico]

You scare yourself into accepting the unacceptable. In the same way many people accept the militarization of the police.

[Krychek_2]

Again, it's a continuum. The only two options aren't leaving things as they are or Edward Snowden.

[Nelson]

When the government is doing it, what other method would work to expose the perfidity? Sending it to a watchdog within the government would inevitably be silenced with the "national security" ploy.

So what is it that would stop the government from doing illegal things, in your view?

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

How naive, it would INCREASE because it would have to be out of the public eye, but there would still be huge gain from having it.

I am not defending the current nanny state. But disarming is pollyanna-ish in the extreme.

[Longtobefree]

None of those events involved the use of arms.

[Nelson]

So as long as America has enemies the government should be allowed to break the law and violate Constitutional protections?

Well, that doesn't sound authoritarian (as well as creepy and terrifying) at all.

[Davedave]

"So what would need to happen in the realm of law to let Snowden come home and be safe from further prosecution?"

He spied for Russia and China in exchange for money. There is nothing that can happen in the realm of law which will change that. Only things outwith the realm of law, like a Trump dictatorship/monarchy.

[Nelson]

"He spied for Russia and China in exchange for money."

He did no such thing. You can't say something further from the truth than that.

[Davedave]

I don't know what the point is in you lying about such basic facts. We know what he did. It's not in question. The only issue here is that those (like you) who share his treasonous bent lie about what he did.

[Nelson]

"We know what he did."

Yes, and it wasn't spying for the Chinese.or the Russians. Snowden was never been a spy, although technically you could say that he was a spy for America since he worked with the NSA.

[Nige]

And in short, Snowden is a land of contrasts.

[Martinned2]

Yet another reason why jury trials are stupid:

Juror suffers ‘stage fright’
Murder trial can go ahead after forewoman’s error corrected

A jury forewoman at the Old Bailey delivered the wrong verdict because she was suffering from a “form of stage fright”, the High Court said yesterday. Senior judges offered guidance to reduce the risk of that happening again.

As a result of the forewoman’s error, three defendants accused of homicide were told they had been acquitted. The High Court agreed that the mistake could be corrected and that a retrial could go ahead.

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/juror-suffers-stage-fright

[Commenter_XY]

No jury trials might work for Europe. Here, we have a Constitution that guarantees our right to trial by a jury of our peers. I like our system better, thank you very much.

[VinniUSMC]

With a jury of people anywhere in the ballpark of martin, Europe would be better off without.

[Bwaaah]

In media gazing, online conversation, and general rumination, they get to kick around abstract theories of crime, justice, history, and victimization. But then, in a trial, they get to look a predator in the eye and hear some firsthand facts about his/her actions. And for the moment, there's nothing ambiguous about fully cognizant, willful wrongdoing. So they convict the wrongdoer, and then retreat back to their abstract pretense of a world in which the predators are the victims.

[Martinned2]

I have a right to a fair trial, which includes the right to be tried by someone who can accurately read out what their decision is.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don’t want to claim to be an expert on the scope of rights that Europeans make up to pretend they’ve got a real civilization, but does it in fact guarantee that a judge won’t make a comparable mistake in writing or reading a decision?

[Martinned2]

No, but it guarantees that it will be set right, on appeal if need be. Decisions by jurors are basically legal magic. Nobody knows how they got to their answer, and nobody can appeal anything. (Unless they find a workaround to pretend that's not what's happening.)

[Absaroka]

"nobody can appeal anything"

You are misinformed. The prosecutor can't appeal a conviction, but the defendant can (and many/most do) appeal a conviction.

[Absaroka]

....ooooops, should be 'prosecutor can’t appeal an acquittal'

[Bob from Ohio]

You can't appeal the acquittal per se but some states permit appeals to correct errors of law. No re-trial but precedent so the error is corrected for future trials of other people.

[Bwaaah]

“Decisions by jurors are basically legal magic. Nobody knows how they got to their answer.”

Yeah…a unanimous vote reflecting a consensus thumbs-up/thumbs-down opinion of a randomly selected group of local people is so mystical.

Why would anybody choose that over the thumbs-up/thumbs-down opinion of an executive of the state?

[ducksalad]

Lucia de Berk - incompetent use of stats by Dutch judge, resulting in a woman spending several years in prison.

Rather than list more examples, here's a whole article about miscarriages of justice in the Netherlands:

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003251484-4/miscarriages-justice-netherlands-linda-geven-karien-van-den-doel

[Davedave]

Then there's Kathleen Folbigg, who was convicted on roughly the same basis by a jury.

[Noscitur a sociis]

No, but it guarantees that it will be set right, on appeal if need be.

You mean like what happened in the case you’re talking about?

Nobody knows how they got to their answer, and nobody can appeal anything.

That is incorrect. In the U.S., other than an acquittal in a criminal case, a jury verdict can be overturned or vacated by the trial judge and on appeal. (And of course there’s nothing inherent in the jury system that requires that special treatment for acquittals, if that’s your objection.)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Good thing judges never commit misconduct, or you'd be calling for abolishing judicial trials, too.

[Martinned2]

When judges commit misconduct they are punished. What happens to a juror who doesn't follow the law or otherwise behaves unethically?

[ducksalad]

“When judges commit misconduct they are punished. ”

In theory.

“What happens to a juror who doesn’t follow the law or otherwise behaves unethically?”

One reason for juries is the recognition that sometimes mindlessly following the law is not the most ethical or just action. And juries would be useless as a check if judges could just jail them for disagreeing.

[Martinned2]

Ah, so you're one of those commenters who think that jurors don't have to follow the law. That sounds like a great system.

[Don Nico]

That is part of the theory of jury nullification

[Brett Bellmore]

So, you're one of those people who thought William Penn and Zenger should have been convicted.

[ducksalad]

I think jurors should normally follow the law. Just like normally one shouldn’t shoot people, start a fire in a forest, or jump onto the subway tracks. There will be rare situations in which any of those “laws” needs to be ignored.

Handling those exceptions is one of the reasons for having a jury. What kind of situations? Most commonly it would be a judge or prosecutor that’s obviously being unreasonable, or a case that literally violates the law but very obviously isn’t what the lawmakers had contemplated. But it could also be a case like Penn or Zenger where the law itself is a piece of shit.

BUT, an alternate view is that the jury is part of every law and regulation we have. Then there is no conflict. “Section 14.347: It is illegal to go faster than 25mph if (a) it is a school zone, and (b) a jury later disapproves.” Then we say part (b) is implied throughout the code. Happier?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I thought that even the *opponents* of “jury nullilfication” support the centuries-old decision in Bushel’s case. Is there a modern jurist who believes judges have the power to fine and imprison jurors for giving verdicts the judges don’t like?

[Davedave]

In England & Wales, judges can overturn 'perverse' jury verdicts.

It's pretty clear that it's mainly the far right, and to a lesser extent the far left (to the extent that is a group distinguishable from the far right) who hype jury nullification, usually referring to several cases of perverse acquittals which normal people find extremely worrying, such as vigilantes who have murdered criminals rather than allowing the justice system to do its work - but in fact, almost all instances of perverse verdicts are the opposite, where juries have convicted people who are plainly not guilty of the charges because they don't like them, usually (but not solely) because of racist bullshit.

It's no surprise the racist types round here like the idea.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Nice tirade, I’ll give it an A+ for sheer, incoherent sputtering.

The fact remains that you can’t find an example of anyone, whether a supporter or an opponent of “nullification,” who questions the Bushel case of 1670. You can’t find anyone who supports the judge fining or imprisoning jurors simply for giving a verdict the judge doesn’t like.

And to assume that if the jury disagrees with the judge it’s because the jury is nullifying the law…that's sheer unadulterated bootlicking arrogance.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I am not aware of any free country that punishes judges for merely reaching an incorrect decision. And I would say jurors are punished for actual misconduct at about the same rate as judges are.

[Bob from Ohio]

Misreading a form is not "misconduct", its just a mistake.

I don't understand why you have to have a whole new trial though.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I once had a very experienced federal judge instruct the jury (while reading from the correctly-written jury instructions!) that if they had a reasonable doubt, they should find the defendant guilty.

I don’t even disagree with you about the utility of jury trials, but I don’t think one example of one person making a stupid mistake that didn’t affect anything says much about anything.

[Zarniwoop]

It's common practice in US courts for the judge to poll each juror individually, after the foreperson reads the verdict form, rather than having everything hinge on one person who could (as here) flub the delivery. Which would correct the issue right on the spot.

A retrial seems silly to me. And if I agree with Bob From Ohio, we just might be on to something here.

[Noscitur a sociis]

To clarify: in Martinned’s case, the juror reported that the defendants had been acquitted, but then shortly after told the judge that the the jury couldn’t actually agree on a verdict. The appeal was over whether the prosecution could retry the case, or whether they were stuck with the “acquittal.”

[Mr. Bumble]

So when will CA finish counting the votes in their recent primary?

[Longtobefree]

When the right democrat has enough votes to win.
As always,

[Nige]

Anyone who thinks there won't be at least one Jan 6th in 2024/25 is not paying attention.

[DonP]

Cook County/Chicago is still counting the votes for the new SA, heir to the Kim Foxx empire.

The party approved "Progressive" candidate wasn't the obvious winner by a long shot.

2 days ago 10,000 uncounted votes suddenly appeared. Amazingly, the vast majority were for the Party approved candidate. An election board press release suggested there may be more uncounted votes out there.

Imagine that, Chicago having a crooked election with out a Daley running things?

[Commenter_XY]

3A: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Thought experiment: The Peoples Republic of NJ decides to welcome 'Newcomers' (AYFKM...newcomers? LOL) to our socialist paradise. Suppose the NJ Duma passes a law that randomly chooses a 4+ bdrm home in the state (based on property tax records) to host a Newcomer; meaning, the homeowner will be forced to accept the newcomer and provide housing and food (at their expense). The home could be in Alpine (a very nice town), or in Camden (this city is a dump) - totally random selection. Could a municipality do it?

I understand Takings....but would this scenario also be a 3A violation? 3A specifies 'Soldiers', meaning military. So I believe it would not be a 3A violation, because of the text. But what of compelled housing and support of illegal aliens (newcomers) in your own home?

Just a thought experiment; I am wondering about the bounds of 3A.

[Kazinski]

More of a taking than a quartering.

Being a snowbird in a border state, I have thought about my options if I get squatted while I'm gone. I figure the best thing to do is go in hot, not shooting, but gun in hand, right after I call the police, or better yet have my wife call them.

If you just call the police then they will say its just a civil matter, A homeowners in their own home with an unauthorized intruder isn't going to face any legal jeopardy in my state.

[Voize]

Are you confident that in your state the law wouldn't consider you to be the intruder?

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously? If the police show up at a violent dispute at a home, they're going to determine who the intruder is by finding out who owns the house, not by inquiring if the squatters had been living there for a while.

[Absaroka]

I think the police are going to ask 'what happened?', and I think the following answers are going to have different results:

1)"I live here, I was watching the game when that dude broke open my door ... when he raised the crowbar like he was going to hit me I shot him"

2)"I got home from a vacation, opened the door, and stuff looked funny. I started looking around the house and found that dude in the bedroom. When he attacked me I shot him"

3)"I got home from a vacation, looked in the window and saw someone watching TV. I thought 'gosh darn it, a squatter ... if I call the cops it will take forever to get him evicted, so I drew my gun and went in hot'"

I think you are going to regret #3.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, slightly different results between 2 and 3, depending on the state. I think you'd be well advised to go with #2 in most states, though in Texas or Florida you'd probably be fine with #3 after all the dust settled.

[bernard11]

Are you saying you would be willing to shoot the intruder if he refused to leave?

Doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

[Brett Bellmore]

Me? I'd prefer holding a gun on the trespasser while waiting on the police, personally. Though you don't hold a gun on anybody you wouldn't be willing to shoot, obviously, doing so doesn't mean you'd prefer shooting them.

Even a righteous shooting would likely give me nightmares, in addition to being legally fraught.

[Nige]

Honestly, you'd be lucky if the police didn't end up shooting you.

[Kazinski]

Well I said I'd call the police almost simultaneously with going in, and let them know an to expect armed homeowner on the premises.

There's no need to shoot someone if they don't resist.

[David Nieporent]

And on the flip side:

1) "It was cold and rainy out and this place looked unoccupied, so I went in and made myself at home. Then this guy showed up and claimed he owned the place and I should leave, but I don't want to leave."

2) "I needed a place to stay a few months ago and talked to this guy who had been advertising a place for rent. We agreed I could move in, and I've been living here and paying him rent, but he showed up today and started ranting and raving about how he wanted me out immediately, without even giving me a reason, and then he threatened me if I didn't leave right now."

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, 1 is a complete non-starter, it's confessing criminality, short of a life threatening blizzard.

2? Better have the receipts.

[David Nieporent]

2? Better have the receipts.

And if they don't?

I am an upper middle class person; I pay for anything more expensive than lunch with credit cards or checks or Venmo or the like. I want a paper trail, both for my own accounting purposes and for proofs if there are legal disputes. Lots of people do not operate that way. If you're dealing with a large management company, they probably want you to pay your rent by check. But if you're dealing with an individual property owner, he may be perfectly happy to take cash from you; he may prefer it. (We routinely have vendors — e.g., the guy who comes to fix our furnace — who offer to knock 10% off the price if we pay cash. (And we all understand why.))

[Martinned2]

If you’re dealing with a large management company, they probably want you to pay your rent by check.

Seriously? Do direct debits not exist in the US?

[ducksalad]

Of course we have them, but it's not uncommon, at least where I live, to call anything that comes out of a checking account a "check", regardless of whether it's a debit card, direct deposit, direct debit, electronic check, etc. My employer will say my check went out and what they mean is they did the deposit.

You have to say "paper check" if you literally want the piece of paper.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure do, and they leave tracks you can use to prove transactions, too.

[Absaroka]

yeah ... I have heard of situations where people buy a house and when they show up with the moving van a week later someone is living there, and they say 'We answered an ad, paid a guy first/last in cash and moved in'. And it seems they really did get scammed by someone 'renting out' houses he didn't own. I hope there is a special room in Hades for those scammers.

Which isn't to say they should get to stay in the house.

If you think about it, it's actually kind of a hard scam to avoid. That's sure how we rented places - see an ad for a house, meet the purported owner there, their key opens the door. It's not like we ever did a title search to make sure they owned it.

[Kazinski]

When you have the homeowner who's DL lists the address, and is registered to vote there the police are going to arrest the intruder and then he can bail himself out and show the receipts to the judge.

Its not a likely scenario since my neighbors do watch my house for me.

Where I live its so conservative Paul Goser is my congressman and he ran virtually unopposed and won over 97% of the vote in 2022, after going all in on 2020 election denial and getting censured by Congress for a violent meme directed at AOC.

[Kazinski]

"I think you are going to regret #3"

Not where I live in Arizona.

We have constitutional carry and no magazine limits for a reason.

My mother related her family history about squatters taking over their homestead outside of Tucson in the early 30's. They were gone for a few weeks and my Grandmother came back with her 5 kids accompanied by her brother, bootleggers had taken over the house storing whiskey in it in kegs. My great uncle rolled the kegs down to the wash, stoved them in with an axe. Then a few days later the bootleggers came back, my great uncle fired a warning shot from the house and told them where the could find their empty kegs. My mother was 4 or 5 at the time, but her older brother and sisters remembered it well.

[Voize]

I'm not talking about some cop's opinion.

[Longtobefree]

If your wife is there, have her yell rape loudly as you gun down the attackers.
Just remember the Pirate Code; dead men tell no tales.

[John F. Carr]

A Texas woman was sentenced to prison for falsely crying rape. Her husband killed the man she accused.

This was one of a few similar incidents about 10 or 15 years ago. Another accuser was not charged because she was a minor. Her boyfriend snuck into her room. She denied knowing him. So dad shot the boy who was trying to rape his daughter.

[Bwaaah]

For your sake, I hope they don't discover your Kazinski profile on VC.

[Kazinski]

Well that would suppose that i would be planning to do something illegal, going into my primary abode armed, even if I expect a confrontation isn't illegal, in fact its my right.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Somebody tell me if I am wrong about this.

Seems to me that since his indictments, when Trump goes to court he never loses. He may not win outright, but he always gets something to further his campaign to evade justice. Every trip to court delivers a net gain for Trump.

Trump racks up losses of course, but they are losses offset by crucial delays, which matter more. Trump also gets most-favored-defendant treatment when he commits contempt. And he gets helpful hints from the judge about how to frame his Florida case, to set up further delays. Or Trump gets an unexplained and apparently gratuitous reduction by more than half of his bond. Or Trump—under the guise of a gag order, no less—gets solicitous 1A balancing of his supposed right to provoke death threats against judges and their families—an example which cannot fail to impress ostensibly better-protected jurors and witnesses.

The pattern I see is that no judge has fortitude to deal Trump an outright defeat. Instead, with each piddling serving of justice, they always throw in a generous helping of MAGA-sweetener, to help bad medicine go down. The pattern is a repeating series of net gains for Trump, in apparent defiance of justice.

I cannot understand why a defendant as dangerous—and as outrageously defiant of the legal system—and as likely guilty of sedition as Trump is—is not being held in custody awaiting trial. I do not think anyone supposes Trump gets only the same treatment any other defendant who did likewise would get.

It is very hard not to conclude that death threats have intimidated the judges. Political threats have intimidated the prosecutors. And all the legal participants struggle understandably against fear.

I also think those running the legal system reckon that fully energetic and conscientious prosecution for Trump will be negated by a Supreme Court corruptly in the tank. They fear SCOTUS plans to thwart justice by delay, or to let Trump off despite proof of his guilt—and empower Trump to do his worst in retaliation.

Thus, judges and prosecutors who operate a justice system fully aware of the threat not only to the nation, but to themselves personally, and to their families, hedge all their bets. Each feels separately and personally exposed. None counts on the collective power of their system to prevail.

Bet hedging seems to come naturally to Attorney General Garland, and to President Biden. I wonder what President Lincoln would have done differently?

[Absaroka]

"It is very hard not to conclude that death threats have intimidated the judges."

Obviously!

[Kazinski]

It worked against.the Supreme Court in Dobbs didn't it?

Well maybe that's a bad example.

Funny Lathrop would think virtual Twitter randos would be so much more effective than actual mobs outside justices houses for weeks and months.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, if so-called Twitter randos were anonymously threatening a child of yours, could you be impartial and unmoved while provoking legally the person who named your child, to expose her to the threats?

[VinniUSMC]

SL has a bowlful of TDS-addled mush where a brain should be. This would be funny if it wasn't so idiotic.

[DaveM]

"It couldn't possibly be true that Trump is innocent" is what you are trying to say, I believe. Alternatively, "if Trump is found innocent, it proves the court is rigged".

How ironic. That's the same style of motivated reasoning that Trump himself uses.

[not guilty]

A jury is not tasked with determining innocence, and a criminal trial is not a search for truth. It is a test of the prosecution's evidence or absence of evidence.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Your career and privilege is due to the racist institution of the Bar exam.

What anti-racist steps are you taking in pursuit of justice?

[Drewski]

Asks a user who goes by "white pride."

[#FFFFFFPride]

Don't be a hexophobic bigot. I can identify however I wish and you have to accept it with dignity, honor and respect.

[Michael P]

And in a disturbing number of jurisdictions, simply a test of how many Democrats hate Donald Trump.

[ducksalad]

It’s months, maybe years, before any actual verdict, but you’re already getting ready with “not guilty doesn’t mean proven innocent” thing.

Sure, innocent by default isn’t exactly the same as proven innocent. Nevertheless, innocent until proven guilty.

And we’ll say “found” innocent anyway, just to get on your nerves.

[not guilty]

Uh, I'm not saying anything today that I haven't said for decades.

[ducksalad]

Of course. People emphasize this point when they don’t like an acquittal, and no doubt there have been acquittals you didn’t like for decades.

BTW, in reference to your original comment: in about 5 seconds you can google up examples of judges saying the trial, and jury service, is a “search for truth” even using those exact words.

https://www.register-herald.com/news/court-conversations-trial-by-jury-a-search-for-the-truth/article_05240776-fa44-5bb7-9644-aab78ee5406d.html

I’m not denying that you’re right. But maybe you lawyers should cut back on the soaring rhetoric about justice and truth if you don’t want laymen believing you and then getting uppity.

[not guilty]

I recognize that a criminal trial is often said to be a search for truth. I dispute the correctness of that description. A hypothetical will illustrate.

Suppose the jury is sworn, and the prosecution at that point rests its case. The accused in that circumstance is absolutely entitled to an acquittal. But that judgment has no bearing on whether the accused did or did not in fact commit the charged offense.

A criminal trial is a test of the prosecution’s evidence, including consideration of the absence of evidence. And FWIW I don't say that because I don't like an acquittal. I practiced criminal defense law for decades. A not guilty verdict from a jury is better than sex.

[Krayt]

Or maybe, having dealt with government officials all his life, he knows it’s all a game, the outrage a tool the officials use to direct you in their quest for power.

Having said that, it's cynical to pick up and use tired but proven-out methods of power blabber. But unfortunately that's the response as well.

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

Both wrong,in that you excuse the system

Give me the man and I will give you the case against him

the Soviet secret police chief Lavrentiy Beria It refers to the miscarriage of justice in the form of the abuse of power by the jurists, who can find the defendant guilty of "something" if they so desire. The saying is related specifically to the concept of the presumption of guilt.

[Kazinski]

He hasn't even been tried criminally yet, and that's because the DoJ, and Fani Willis were trying to hit the sweet spot on the calendar to disrupt his campaign.

They screwed up.

Bragg might pull it his trial before November but not many people take paying off a porn star that seriously.

The Leticia James persecution is serious financially, but its civil, and as I note above its not that big financial hit after the windfall he's gotten from being censored.

But go ahead, indict him again, another couple of points in the polls can't hurt.

[not guilty]

In either the D.C. trial or the Fulton County trial (but not both), it is foreseeable that jury selection can begin sometime this summer. Donald Trump will be required to attend. That will not make his campaign for president impossible, but it will make it far more difficult.

[Commenter_XY]

Define impossible. 🙂

[Longtobefree]

Democrat poll workers not finding enough votes for the democrat (whoever it is) to win.

[Kazinski]

Thanks for buttressing my point that they were trying to time the trials to disrupt his campaign.

If his guilt was as open and shut as was.claimed they didn't need to.wait over 2 years to charge him.

[windycityattorney]

I think it took so long because so many witnesses challenged subpeonas etc… to come testify or submit documents. Every grand jury empaneled against Trump (or cases involving Trump as a co-def) there was hearing after hearing and appeals about removing the State cases to federal court; asserting executive privilege, lawyer-client privilege etc…

It took forever for all that shit to get hashed out. Trump himself complains about why didn’t they charge him 2yrs ago…knowing damn well that his PAC paid for half the grand jury challenges and appeals which obstructed (not legally but practically) the grand jury investigation.

How soon everyone’s memory fades.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Observing an objective fact is not the same as supporting your partisan stupidity.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you've got that backwards: Trump can't be barred from attending jury selection, but it's a right he isn't obligated to exercise.

Defendant’s Presence At Trial

[not guilty]

You are correct as to Georgia, but not as to D.C. (BTW, original sources matter.) Fed.R.Crim.P. 43(a) states:

(a) When Required. Unless this rule, Rule 5, or Rule 10 provides otherwise, the defendant must be present at:
(1) the initial appearance, the initial arraignment, and the plea;
(2) every trial stage, including jury impanelment and the return of the verdict; and
(3) sentencing. [Emphasis added.]

It does not appear that Georgia has a corresponding rule.

Where a defendant who is present at the beginning of trial is voluntarily absent after the trial has begun, the trial can continue in absentia, per Rule 43(c)(1)(A) — otherwise the accused could manipulate proceedings by fleeing — but that absence would nevertheless contravene Rule 43(a)(2). If Trump tried that stunt, he would likely be forcibly returned to court and have his bond revoked.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I have been complaining that google is getting ever less useful; My search string had specified "federal court", but google apparently decided to just ignore that part.

[Moderation4ever]

While the indictments have tightened Trumps hold on his MAGA base, I would not be too sure that it helps in the general electorate. Trump has been shown to be a corrupt businessman and a sexual abuser. People can see that he has no defense for the criminal cases and is seeking to run out the clock. All these will weigh him down in the long run. The weight of the charges, the increasingly belligerent tone in public, the lack of any real agenda will take their toll. Trump will lose in November and the trials will still be held.

[windycityattorney]

There is an agenda though. Racism, nationalism, tribalism. Biden is the worst president in US History! The radical commie left is destroying our country. America is turning into an even bigger shit hole. The border crisis is an existential threat! Crime is out of control and the worst its ever been in the history of the world. Fuck Ukraine, fuck Nato! While were at it, fuck free trade. 100% tariff on China.

Just a never ending parade of horribles.

Elect Trump and he will fix it. Just like he did in his first term. Remember when he eliminated the national debt? His infrastructure plan? The replacement of Obamacare? The 2400mile border wall that Mexico paid for? The drained swamp which is D.C.?? Your skepticism that these things didn’t happen is misplaced because they would have happened if it weren’t for the damn RINOs and radical commie dems. Please buy Trump bibles and invest in truth social stock. The world’s neediest billionaire needs your 20dollar recurring donation because he can’t be bought by the Swamp (which was eliminated but resurrected when the election was stolen).

[Don Nico]

"It is very hard not to conclude that death threats have intimidated the judges. Political threats have intimidated the prosecutors. And all the legal participants struggle understandably against fear. "
SL, you have now gone off the conspiracy theorist's deep end.
I expect that next you will be calling for Trump's assasination.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, existence of those threats, and Trump's deliberate mobilization of them by naming intended victims publicly, is beyond question. If you are unaware of that, you do not know what you are talking about.

If you had a daughter, and Trump publicly named your daughter as an enemy, and she was then deluged with threats, would you consider that inconsequential? Would you feel fully ready to invite more of that by doing anything further to provoke Trump, while he remained at liberty to mobilize anonymous attacks against yourself, your wife, and your children?

Are you unaware that this practice by Trump has driven potential witnesses against him from their homes, and into hiding?

I will not call for violence against Trump. I do call for revocation of his bond, with confinement in custody to await trial. In short, I call for treatment of Trump alike with what any other similarly dangerous and incorrigible defendant receives.

[Don Nico]

"I call for treatment of Trump alike with what any other similarly dangerous and incorrigible defendant receives."
No, you are calling for the extraordinary treatment of Mr Trump because you personally fear him. He is play the legal system; no disagreement there. But that does not mean that you get your extraordinary wish.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, refute any of the particulars I mentioned, and I will pay more attention. Until then, you strike me as an aspiring Very Serious Person, with the usual reliance on Overton Windows and blinkers that type relies upon. Do you really think Trump publicly excoriating a judge's daughter as someone who hates him is a normal example of someone, "play[ing] the legal system?"

[Riva]

You didn't post anything meriting a reasoned rebuttal, just a rant full of President Trump hating vitriol.

[Nige]

You're really defining 'conspiracy theory' way, way down if you think it includes 'death threats are designed to, and possibly do, intimidate judges.' The jump to assasination shows you've really lost the plot.

[gVOR08]

As someone observed, our system guarantees as much due process as the defendant can affords. Trump has bought a lot of process. Mostly with other people’s money. “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to keep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

[Don Nico]

You have it quite right. Maybe SL will listen to you rather than his internal boogeyman.

[jimc5499]

So you have pretty much said that you consider Trump guilty before there even is a trial.

Did you ever think that the charges against him are pure bullshit?

Probably not.

[Sarcastr0]

Where did he say anything like that?

[Riva]

So, in a nutshell, your problem is that the victim of the Biden regime coordinated republic ending lawfare has not yet been convicted and/or jailed in a one of the police state kangaroo court trials? Wrong is not sufficient for you. You’re either blindly stupid as to the dangers of this legal abuse of process or a cheerleader for the police state. Either option is not good.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Lincoln wouldn't have prosecuted Trump.

And much of what you describe as "deference" is actually a really accurate understanding of how truly incendiary all of this is.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Lincoln’s Dec. 1963 proclamation announced his intention to offer pardons to Confederates, but explicitly excluded people in the higher ranks of the Confederate government. I don't think that it’s at all clear that if he had lived, he would have eventually pardoned Jefferson Davis. Suggesting that a present day Lincoln would have pardoned Trump is even more speculative.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Has there ever been the case where a week or so after an election the vote counters "discover" thousands of ballots that close the gap and put the conservative candidate ahead of the liberal one?

Is it weird that these post-election ballot discovers seem to trend in one direction?

[Moderation4ever]

Wisconsin Supreme Court Race April 2011.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wisconsin-election/ballot-find-threatens-to-upend-wisconsin-election-idUSTRE7350J920110407/

https://archive.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/119410124.html

[David Nieporent]

I applaud you for knowing about and/or finding that, but do you really think it was a good faith question?

[#FFFFFFPride]

I shouldn't qualified the ballots as "mail-in/dropbox". You know traceless, auditless, no-chain-of-custody ballots.

Also, compare the Republican's response:
"Waukesha County Executive Dan Vrakas, who sat in on Nickolaus' news conference, said voters can be confident in the results because "all the votes are in that office. If anyone wants to look at them and verify, they can.""

See the confidence and transparency? The exact opposite response you get when Democrats steal elections. No criminal charges filed against the questioning opponents. No censoring or silencing of critics. No FBI raids on skeptics. No collusion with big-tech to censor contrary evidence. No "Sacred Democracy" handwringing. No destroyed ballots, videos, or paper trails.

Just straight up sunshine and transparency.

[Zarniwoop]

Bad faith troll asks question, gets correct answer at odds with his blinkered world view, moves goalposts even further. Film at 11!

How about you provide a concrete example of the “always left, never right” behavior you posit exists so that can be debunked too with another solid counter example?

[#FFFFFFPride]

I didn't move any goalposts, moron.

I acknowledged how I should've better written my statement to capture my intent.

[Zarniwoop]

I acknowledged how I should’ve better written my statement to capture my intent.

In other words, you replaced a vague question you got called out on with a more specific one in the hopes of avoiding the specific counter-example.

You're the one making excuses for moving the goalposts.

So, howzabout those examples where you believe "the left" has actually done what you claim? Put up or STFU.

[#FFFFFFPride]

I "replaced"? I didn't replace anything. I didn't substitute and pretend I didn't, then argued as if I had always said untrackable ballots. I acknowledged and moved on.

Holy shit you're not very bright. You don't even know what "moving the goalposts" is.

These 150,000 still secret 2020 unfolded mail ballots with the perfect ovals protected by court order for 3 years may have gone missing, and the county’s lawyers have just quit.

https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1722728364564271206

[Nige]

It's always Republicans accusing others of massive quantities of voter fraud; actual voter fraud almost always turns out to be relatively tiny and by Repubicans.

GOP official who claimed 2020 was stolen voted illegally nine times, judge rules

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/28/georgia-republican-illegal-voting/

[Krayt]

[apedad]

Youngkin vetoes Virginia assault weapons ban, signs 2 gun control measures

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) vetoed an assault weapons ban that passed the state Legislature last month, alongside multiple other gun control bills, in a 30-bill veto session on Tuesday.

The governor did sign two more limited gun regulations into law, however — one that bans gun trigger switches that can make firearms fire automatically and a second that allows criminal charges against parents who allow children deemed threats to have access to weapons.

Youngkin also proposed six amendments to gun control measures instead of vetoing them outright.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4560487-youngkin-vetoes-virginia-assault-weapons-ban-signs-two-gun-control-measures/

Gov. Youngkin vetoed 30 other gun control bills but at least some progress here in Virginia (home of the NRA).

Some of you may recall in Jan. 2023, a 6-year-old shot his teacher which I'm sure helped in getting these gun control laws passed.

[Brett Bellmore]

None of this stuff would be viable in Virginia if they didn’t border on DC. DC is so toxic they’re warping the neighboring states, too.

I can’t say I’m totally outraged by the two laws he did sign. The auto sear is distinct from bump stocks or hellfire triggers, it actually DOES convert the gun into a machine gun. So you don’t have that issue of a regulatory agency deliberately misconstruing statutory text, the sears were already illegal under federal law. (Unconstitutional federal law, IMO, but that’s another issue.)

Duplicative of federal law, of course. But states are allowed to duplicate federal laws the feds actually DO want to enforce, unlike immigration laws.

And if you’re living with somebody who’s already been adjudicated to be dangerous, an obligation to secure your firearms isn’t a terrible over-reach.

[Kazinski]

I don't think outlawing fully automatic glocks is unconstitutional, they would be too dangerous to use for a militia or regular army or self defense or even on a range.

Dangerous and unusual and not useful.

[Brett Bellmore]

So long as the military uses machine guns, it's not constitutional to ban machine guns, under a proper reading of the 2nd amendment. Though I'll concede that the case for selective fire sears is better, since the military adopted selective fire for their normal issue weapons.

Of course, federal gun laws are generally unconstitutional even without the 2nd amendment, just as exercise of an unenumerated power. (There's a reason the original NFA was written as a tax law: At the time the feds were still admitting they had no constitutional authority to ban things.)

But Virginia, as a state, doesn't suffer from that particular limitation.

[Zarniwoop]

So long as the military uses machine guns, it’s not constitutional to ban machine guns, under a proper reading of the 2nd amendment.

Do you also believe these are true?

“So long as the military uses howitzers, it’s not constitutional to ban howitzers, under a proper reading of the 2nd amendment.”

“So long as the military uses nuclear weapons, it’s not constitutional to ban nuclear weapons, under a proper reading of the 2nd amendment.”

Overly simplistic Constitutional interpretation rapidly leads to absurd results.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "So long as the military uses machine guns, it’s not constitutional to ban machine guns..."

So long as the military uses nuclear cruise missiles, it’s not constitutional to ban them under a proper reading of the 2nd amendment. See? Sometimes argumentum ad absurdum works!

[Brett Bellmore]

Ask yourself: Did the founders, in including in the Constitution a provision for letters of marque and reprisal, not expect private ships to be armed with canon?

The Constitution means what it means, and if people 233 years later don't like the meaning, maybe they should amend it.

[apedad]

"None of this stuff would be viable in Virginia if they didn’t border on DC."

Nope!

The Great State of Northern Virginia is behind Virginia's progression from solid red to purple to blue within the past 20 years.

You should see the influence defense/govt contractors, lobbyist groups, etc, have built up here in NOVA and which extends to the capital in Richmond.

VA has seven of the top 25 richest counties in the US - all in NOVA.

1 Loudoun County, VA $147,111 (median household income)
2 Falls Church, VA $146,922
5 Fairfax County, VA $127,866
7 Arlington County, VA $122,604
19 Stafford County, VA $112,247
23 Fairfax (city county), VA $109,708
24 Prince William County, VA $107,707

[Randy Sax]

Richest counties - per capita. Important distinction. I've lived in both fairfax county and falls church.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Isn’t that Brett Bellmore’s point?

[John F. Carr]

The parental liability law is HB 36.

1. Any parent, guardian, or other person who is 18 years of age or older and is responsible for the care of a child under the age of 18 whose willful act or omission causes or enables that child to gain possession of a firearm (i) after having received notice of a preliminary determination pursuant to § 22.1-79.4 that the child poses a threat of violence or physical harm to self or others or (ii) when such parent, guardian, or other person responsible for the care of the child knows or reasonably should know that such child has charges pending for or has been convicted or adjudicated delinquent of a violent juvenile felony as defined in § 16.1-228 is guilty of a Class 5 felony.

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link. Will the crowd that treasures their popguns more than they love their children kvetch that this provision will not pass constitutional muster under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)? (FWIW, they are probably correct.)

As Garry Wills bitterly (and accurately) observed in the wake of Sandy Hook, the gun is our Moloch. We sacrifice children to him daily. https://www.nybooks.com/online/2012/12/15/our-moloch/

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

Silly to act like you're HIllary Clinton and the answer we are looking for must be the "perfect answer" . Guns cause deaths, guns prevent deaths

Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.
Every year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.
60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.
Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.
Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime.

=======================
YOU sacrifice people to your ideology,l Hillary

[not guilty]

Guns don't kill people.

But gunshot wounds do kill people, whether the shooter intends that outcome or not.

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty, you have nothing to teach to gun range pistol packers. They are familiar with gunshot wounds. They look like dry little holes in pieces of paper.

[Mr. Bumble]

Now do knives:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13248685/christian-ivan-soto-rockford-illinois-suspect.html

[not guilty]

Which is more likely to occur? Accidentally shooting someone to death or accidently stabbing someone to death?

[Stella Link the dog]

“or accidently stabbing someone to death”

I cut myself with a sharp knife not too long ago while trimming a brisket. I could have died!* As we all know, a knife wound is much more dangerous than a wound caused by a .22LR. Just ask world renowned firearms expert VinniFUBAR.

*I guess I'm lucky that it wasn't a Glock knife.

[Brett Bellmore]

Cousin of mine slipped in the kitchen, and ended up with a carving knife wedged in her chest. She got to the phone in time, they saved her life.

But she had a tough time persuading the cops that her husband hadn't tried to murder her.

[Stella Link the dog]

As Donald Trump said to Stormy Daniels, “Accidents happen.”

[Dr. Ed 2]

A knife would to an extremity is far more likely to be lethal.

[Stella Link the dog]

"A knife would [sic] to an extremity is far more likely to be lethal."

Exactly my point (or blade)! My risk of death was much more from my knife would to my hand than wound have been a round from a 22 LR -- or even a 22 short. Good thing it was a sharp knife and not a dull one. Using a dull knife, that's dangerous. I've been told that it's the way most accidents happen though I haven't been able to find statistics on it. Perhaps you could try Google for me -- with Brettmore's assistance, of course.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Dull knives are more dangerous because of the greater force put behind them.

[Nige]

'Now change the subject!'

[Bob from Ohio]

"gun is our Moloch. We sacrifice children to him daily."

The abortionist's tools is our Moloch. We sacrifice many more children to him daily.

[Stella Link the dog]

"We sacrifice many more children to him daily."
Save the zygotes!

[John F. Carr]

There is a historical tradition of limiting minors’ access to dangerous weapons. For more information, find the blog post here discussing the challenge to limits on gun rights of 18-20 year olds. States limited the right of a minor to purchase or acquire a gun or in some cases a scary knife. In the 19th century the age of majority was 21. The court was asked to decide whether that tradition means “20 year olds’ rights can be limited” or “legal minors’ rights can be limited”.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There are a lot more problems with that 6 year old than he had access to a firearm, starting with them not being able to find it in his backpack.

The child should not have been in that school....

[Moderation4ever]

In other gun news, Wisconsin man shoots self in hand.

https://madison.com/news/local/crime-courts/wisconsin-mcfarland-police-gunshot/article_75c46966-eaa7-11ee-855e-c79ade1dac47.html

I as have noted the Constitutional right to own a gun does not means it a good idea for you to have one.

[ThePublius]

I haven't read the article yet, but I'll bet that it was a Glock.

[ThePublius]

O.K., no mention of the type of gun. But, they arrest the guy for reckless endangerment. Why? It was presumably an accident, no?

[Noscitur a sociis]

What do you think reckless endangerment means?

[apedad]

I guess it's better to shoot yourself in the hand then kill your daughter looking for your keys in your purse.

----

A Tennessee mother is mourning the death of her daughter — who died when a gun in the woman’s purse fired as she searched for her keys.

“I didn’t know my gun was loaded in my purse and shot through my bag . . . . ”

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/i-just-want-to-hold-my-baby-mom-fatally-shoots-teen-daughter-while-rummaging-in-purse-for-keys/

[ThePublius]

I'll bet that was a Glock, too.

It's like when you read about a dog mauling someone, odds are it's a pit bull.

My opinion is that Glocks are inherently dangerous. I don't own a handgun where a casual touching of the trigger will fire it. It's either a high trigger pull, like 5+lb., or a "lock" as on the 1911, or a safety with a hammer dropper, as on a PPK.

[Brett Bellmore]

I knew somebody who kept pit bulls, once. He said they had some kind of genetic need for occasional violence, but that you could satisfy it by just letting them destroy chew toys on a regular basis. He thought the people who had trouble with them just weren't treating them right.

[Frank Drackman]

So how's Michael Vick doing?

[Stella Link the dog]

Take your PPK, insert a magazine with rounds, rack the slide and insert it in your purse. What's the measured trigger pull force?

[Frank Drackman]

Only pussy's carry a PPK, Pussy Gun, Pussy Round, Pussy Galore,

[Stella Link the dog]

"Only pussy’s carry a PPK"

So, the pistol of choice for both you and Pubicus.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, I do have an East German Makarov (and a Roosh-un, and a Hungarian, and a Rumanian) the Warsaw Pact version of the gun (meaning it works) in a slightly more robust round than the .380.
East German craftsmanship was really great, and even the magazines have serial numbers, (it was East Germany after all). Seems you'd like their system, only the military and Stasi got to carry them.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

WHY carry it with a round chambered?
I've never understood this...

[Stella Link the dog]

"I’ve never understood this…"

Add that to the infinitely many other things Mr Ed doesn't understand.

[Frank Drackman]

you know, because it takes so long to rack a slide (love racking my slide) I mostly carry revolvers that always have a "round in the chamber" don't require racking, or a safety. If I'm feeling particularly John Wayne-ish I'll carry one of my 1911's but never "Cocked and Locked" Something about the sound of a 1911's slide slamming shut has a deterrent effect all it's own. Car gun is a Remington 870 Police Magnum (recommended by Sleepy Joe himself)

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

Doesn't the fact you had to do an epic trawl to find your point illustrated ----- show that you have no point.

One mother in Tennessee. Yes, that is horrible but really to let the mom off totally is sorta psycho 🙂

[grb]

It’s only a paper moon, Nominalists : “… you had to do an epic trawl …”

The U.S. has the highest child and teen firearm mortality rate of any similarly large and wealthy OECD nation. It’s not even close. Using firearm mortality rates per 100,000 for children and teens ages 1-19 years for the U.S. (2021 numbers) and peer countries (2019 numbers), the U.S. is first with 6; Canada second with .6.

So no “epic trawl” is necessary. You only have to follow the news. Then you see what happens when an entire country is awash with guns.

[Mr. Bumble]

Of course those results are including gangbangers.

[Frank Drackman]

How many lives did George Zimmerman save by plugging Travon whatever his name was?

[ReaderY]

It seems to me that Chiafolo v. Washington and Trump v. Anderson provides a future Supreme Court with all the precedent it needs to turn federal elections into purely ceremonial affairs ratififying pre-selected candidates, with this country effectively having one-man rule.

First, the 17th Amendment designates the people as the electors for members of the Senate. But Chiafolo establishes that an “elector” in the constitution is a purely ceremonial role with no implied decision-making rights. Electors can be fined, imprisoned, or replaced if they fail to vote as instructed. While Chiafolo was nominally about presidential electors, Trump establishes that this country has a UNIFORM system of federal elections with the same rules for all. This uniformity principle was critical to Trunp, which applied cases about congressional elections to determine rules for presidential elections. So a future Supreme Court would be completely faithful to Trump if it applied Chiafolo to Congressional elections and held that uniformity means that Electors, in all federal elections, have exactly the same responsibilities and rights.

2. Trump established a strong federal interest in uniformity, standardization, and predictability. Federal elections need to be conducted the same way across the country. The decision spoke with horof about the chaos that would ensue if each individual state, which by the text nominally appoints Presidential electors, was permitted to make its own judgment about who was qualified. But by that standard, it seems pretty obvious that permitting individual citizens to each make their own judgment about Presidential qualifications is much more horrible still, introducing far more chaos and non-uniformity into the process than merely permitting 50 states to each have different opinions. Presidential wualifications must be determined in a uniform way. Only having federal officials make that determination can provide the constitutionally required uniformity.

3. An additional consideration the Court raised was the chaos that would ensue if states were allowed to dissent about who was qualified. the President, the Court said, must represent all the people; having states stamp the President as unqualified would cast doubt on the President’s representation and inhibit his ability to lead the country. It’s pretty obvious that permitting citizens to dissent would impose a far greater obstacle to effecting these strong federal interests. The only way to ensure the President truly represents all the people is to ensure he is elected by acclamation. Permitting dissent of any kind in federal elections carries with it all the horribles the Trump court described. If anything, the damage to the strong federal interests and the likelihood of chaos that the Trump Court articulated is stronger if citizens were permitted to dissent than states.

The only way to ensure uniformity, standards, and predictability in Federal elections that Trump tells us the Constitution demands is to have a federal official, perhaps the current President, perhaps the Supreme Court itself, determine the one constitutionally qualified candidate for each office for which all parties identified in the Constitution, states, electors, citizens, ceremonially appoint and ceremonially vote. That way, indeed only in that way, can there be no doubt the President truly represents all the people.

Chaos, doubt, and non-uniformity are endemic to constitutional republics, and intrinsic to diversified sovereignty and power of any kind, whether distributrd among states or people. You want uniformity and predictability? A constitutional federated republic is not for you.

You think originalists might quibble about this? The Court is packed with self-described originalists. But they are Bayesian originalists, prepared to discard their priors and look to their posteriors to reach results when posterior considerations outweigh the priors. These “originalists” didn’t quibble with the states’ textual right to appoint Presidential electors and determine the manner of their appointment. They didn’t quibble with the fact that the Constitution’s text describes Presidential electors in language similar to Congressional ones.

Why would we think a Supreme Court of equally self-described originalists would quibble with merely taking these cases to their obvious logical conclusions?

[Commenter_XY]

ReaderY, one hopes we are a very long way from Federal elections merely being ceremonial.

[Krayt]

We sit with two octogenarians as our presented, practical choice, by our masters.

[Josh R]

.

But by that standard, it seems pretty obvious that permitting individual citizens to each make their own judgment about Presidential qualifications is much more horrible still.

Not even close. There is huge difference between uniformity in the running of an election (who is qualified to be chosen by the voters) and uniformity in the outcome (who is chosen by the voters). Putting it another way, you are conflating two distinct meanings of qualified: 1) eligible to run, and 2) worthy of receiving an individual's vote.

[ReaderY]

But that’s precisely the conflation the Trump Court made. Per the Constitution’s bare original text, Colorado the state appoints its electoral voters. Colorado’s decision that Trump isn’t qualified to receive its state electoral votes did not in any way prevent Trump from running and courting any other states’ electoral votes. The situation is exactly as you said.

And yet the Trump Court held that a public state decision that Trump isn’t qualified to receive its electoral votes would have horrible uniformity consequences, and not only that violate Trump’s First Amendment rights. Permitting a state is permitted to dissent supposedly casts doubts on the President’s legitimacy.

But when individuals make decisions that someone isn’t qualified, the consequences are no different from when the state makes the decisions, if anything bestowing more chaos. A critical element of the decision was that if states were permitted to withdraw their electoral votes from a candidate, the President could no longer be said to represent all the people and there would be doubt about the validity of his election. But exactly the same horrible consequences ensue when citizens are permitted to withdraw individual votes based on grounds they personally think a President unqualified. A Presidential candidate not considered qualified to receive each and every citizen’s vote is a President who does not represent all the people.

I don’t see that the reasoning behind the Trump opinion depends in any way on whether states or citizens make the decision on who is qualified.

[Josh R]

You are still conflating eligible to be chosen and worthy to be chosen (the Court is not).

A state cannot choose its own eligibility requirements where the Constitution has specified them (e.g., age, citizenship, 14.3). But, it can say a person is not worthy (by appointing its electors to another person) because of some reason other than a constitutionally-recognized eligibility requirement.

[David Nieporent]

I don’t see that the reasoning behind the Trump opinion depends in any way on whether states or citizens make the decision on who is qualified.

You're doing that thing where you act as if law is clever word games. Voters do not "make a decision on who is qualified." They vote on who they want to have the job.

[ReaderY]

That’s precisely the clever word game the Supreme Court played. According to the bare text of the constitution, the state appoints the electors however it wants and they decide. Chiafalo established electors have no actual power of decision, they do what they’re told or else. Trump concluded a state has no actual power to be involved in the decision by saying a state can’t determine who is qualified.

The decision leaves it completely open for a future Supreme Court to play the same word game on the citizens. Just as a state can’t veto a candidate but must simply pass through an external process not of its making because vetoing a candidate is deciding qualifications, it’s open to say that an individual can’t veto a candidate but must similarly pass through the candidate determined to be qualified by an external process because vetoing a candidate is deciding qualifications.

Sure, you would choose not to interpret the case this way. But you COULD. The door is completely open to do it.

The court completely eviscerated a state’s textual power to appoint the electors however it wants by playing a clever word game of distinguishing “qualifications” from “decision.” The constitution has no such distinction. By the bare text states can allocate the decision process however they want.

A Court that can eviscerate the textual power of the parties actually named in the Constitution’s text – the electors’ and the states – can equally well eviscerate the power of a party that is never named in the Article II description of how Presidents get chosen and has no textual rights at all. The same clever word games the Supreme Court used to turn the Electors’ and the States’ express textual power to decide into a mere ceremony can easily be used to take away citizens’ completely atextual involvement into a mere ceremony.

[Josh R]

.

Just as a state can’t veto a candidate but must simply pass through an external process not of its making because vetoing a candidate is deciding qualifications, it’s open to say that an individual can’t veto a candidate

An individual is free to not vote for anyone for any reason. That decision is not part of the qualification process.

Sure, you would choose not to interpret the case this way. But you COULD. The door is completely open to do it.

No one wants to walk through that door and it is straightforwardly easy not to.

[Estragon]

Well it was a rough week for the lawyers to the would-be orange caudillo.

First, feast your eyes on this whopper of a decision out of California recommending that the VC’s favorite candidate for California AG, John Eastman, be disbarred. It’s a delightful 120+ pages. Will any contributor have the courage to comment on this, or will DB simply threaten to call my boss again?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24521262-eastman-decision-trial

And secondly we learn Pat Philbin testified for over two hours in Jeffrey Clark’s disbarment proceeding in DC.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/26/white-house-trump-2020-00149195

While Mr. Philbin was surely downplaying the malfeasance of his longtime friend and colleague there were some tasty tidbits, including Pat’s opinion that Clark showed “lack of judgement” (that’s putting it mildly!) and, even more fun, that Clark was prepared to accept the theory that “smart thermostats” had altered vote counts! As a service to the VC I will now rate the usual commenters by the percentage likelihood that they too believe Trump won and votes were changed via thermostat:

Mr Ed: 100%
Brett Bellmore: 95%
Rloquitor: 94%
Joe Dallas: 91%
BCD and his sock puppets: 89%
Vinni: 87%
Armchair: 86%
Footling pianist: 81%
Kaz: 78%
Bob from Ohio: 65%
Bumble: 51%
Wuzzie: 59%
Life of Brian: 45%
Drackman: 33.33333%
C_XY: 28%

Have a blessed day!

[Brett Bellmore]

"that Clark was prepared to accept the theory that “smart thermostats” had altered vote counts!"

Mocks somebody who isn't familiar with why computer professionals refer to IOT (Internet of things) as the internet of insecure things. You actually CAN use a smart thermostat as a backdoor into a system. Heck, it's to the point where you can hack into somebody's network through some brands of light bulbs!

And security on the voting machines themselves is total crap.

So, was the 2020 election stolen? I suppose it depends on what you mean by stolen. Were there enough fraudulent votes to swing the result? I don't think so.

Where there enough illegal changes to election procedures to swing the election? Yeah, maybe. But you'd never be able to prove it.

[Estragon]

LOL 95% spot on! Never change, Brett.

What are your views Bamboo ballots from China?

[VinniUSMC]

"It's not impossible for such a thing to occur" versus "I believe this is a thing that occurred."

Chance that Estragon is a typical, room temperature IQ Lefty?

100%

[Estragon]

Congrats! You are more skeptical than the guy Trump wanted to make acting AG! One gold star for you.

[OtisAH]

It’s not impossible that Vinni likes to pretend to be a Marine despite being deemed unfit to serve.

[Frank Drackman]

Project much?

[OtisAH]

I’m sorry that “projection” is another item on the lengthy list of things you know fuck all about, piece of shit. But you’re piece of shit so I’m not sure why I’d expect differently.

[SimonP]

Your choice of wording obscures this, Brett, but I hope you'll recognize that characterizing the 2020 election as "stolen" due to "illegal changes to election procedures to swing the election" is the same trick that liberals are using, when they describe voter ID laws and changes to voting rules that make it harder to vote (and have your vote counted) as "vote suppression."

Whatever the legal merits of the changes made to election procedures at the height of COVID, without a further factual (rather than speculative) assertion that they actually resulted in people voting fraudulently, it is nonsensical to refer to the 2020 election as "stolen." All you're saying is, "We illegally changed the rules so that too many legal voters could participate." That's not "stolen" in any meaningful sense.

(And I realize that your follow-up will be: the rule changes mean that we can't be sure whether there was a material amount of voter fraud. But that again isn't enough. That would just mean that you're saying, "We illegally changed the rules, meaning that we don't know whether enough people voted illegally to sway the outcome." Again, that's not the same as saying the election was "stolen.")

[Brett Bellmore]

"but I hope you’ll recognize that characterizing the 2020 election as “stolen” due to “illegal changes to election procedures to swing the election” is the same trick that liberals are using, when they describe voter ID laws and changes to voting rules that make it harder to vote (and have your vote counted) as “vote suppression.”

Not at all. I'm talking about changes to election procedures that were made extra legally, often changes the legislatures had considered and rejected. They're complaining about duly enacted laws that make voting slightly less convenient than they want. These are not the same thing.

[Sarcastr0]

Extra legally to Brett just means he disagrees with the court case finding it legal.

Brett is not one for the humility to realize that judicial institutions say what the law is, not his personal hot takes.

[SimonP]

I grow weary of this stupidity, whether feigned or authentic.

I'm talking about the nature of your equivocation, Brett. You are using the term "stolen" to refer to changes to election procedures that made it easier for people with the right to vote, to vote. They are using the term "suppression" to refer to changes to election procedures that make it harder for people with the right to vote, to vote.

It is actually very difficult to engage you in any kind of rational exchange, Brett, because it takes only the slightest trigger to push you into this obnoxious grievance recitation. I am beginning to believe that you are just psychologically immune to any kind of self-reflection or self-awareness. I wonder if you read blogs that you disagree with only because you like feeling outraged.

[Brett Bellmore]

" You are using the term “stolen” to refer to changes to election procedures that made it easier for people with the right to vote, to vote."

Yes, I'm using the term "stolen" to refer to ILLEGAL changes to election procedures that made it easier for people with the right to vote, to vote.

No different than something we see all the time, where the people running some polling place decide to keep accepting new voters after the legal hour for the polls to close. Doesn't mean those people didn't have the right to vote. Just that they'd let the clock run out on exercising it, so those votes were cast illegally.

Look, we have rules and procedures for voting, and basically all of them carry with them some increment of inconvenience, and I am sick and tired of the Democratic pretense that even one iota of inconvenience more than you desire at any given moment is "vote suppression".

As I said, there wasn't really any remedy after the election was past, so there wasn't really anything to do but make sure there was no repeat, but it was still illegal as hell, and may have resulted in a stolen election.

[David Nieporent]

No different than something we see all the time, where the people running some polling place decide to keep accepting new voters after the legal hour for the polls to close. Doesn’t mean those people didn’t have the right to vote. Just that they’d let the clock run out on exercising it, so those votes were cast illegally.

No, we don't see that happen all the time. We see court orders to keep specific polling places open longer because of some problem that happened at those places. Which, notwithstanding your expert conclusions based on your years of legal training, is entirely legal.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “So, was the 2020 election stolen? I suppose it depends on what you mean by stolen”

The Rev Kirkland occasionally says Brett was a Birther back in the day. The truth of that I can’t say since it was before my time and I’ve seen Brett deny it. But I bet he weaseled just like this back then: Equivocating just enuff to keep solidarity with his brother wack-a-loon tin-foil-hat crazies, while maintaining denialibility for his own mental state.

He asks : “Were there enough fraudulent votes to swing the result?” Well, the AP found fewer than 475 cases of potential voter fraud in six of the 2020 battleground states, so his hesitant “no” is correct. Good call, Brett!

He asks : “Where there enough illegal changes to election procedures to swing the election? Yeah, maybe. But you’d never be able to prove it.” The problems with this bit of weaseling are threefold:

1. Only Brett is still pretending they were “illegal”. Please note that majority includes SCOUS.

2. What he calls “illegal” happens to some extent in every election. The only distinction in ’20 was a greater number of changes due to the pandemic. (Plus, Brett’s desperate need for an excuse to say the election was stolen)

3. And there’s Brett’s theory that measures to make voting easier in a pandemic were unfair. But we know he loathes voters in general, wanting them discouraged and harassed to near extinction. But – hey – that’s just today’s Right. Nobody hates voters like today’s Right.

[Mr. Bumble]

You will never find what you aren't looking for.

[grb]

On the other hand, if mastubatory fantasies work for you in lieu of facts, you can find anything you want!

[Mr. Bumble]

What are these facts you speak of?
Check out the Chicago SA election where 10,000 votes mysteriously turned up when the chosen candidate was behind.

[Estragon]

Should I bump your percentage a bit higher bumble? Perhaps I give you too much credit after all

[apedad]

You will never find what doesn't exist.

FTFY

[Davedave]

The thing about people like Brett is that they're so abundantly certain the election must have been rigged that it makes it clear Trump tried to rig it, but, with his usual ineptitude, failed, so they can only conclude it was rigged the other way, rather than understanding that it wasn't rigged at all.

[David Nieporent]

The Rev Kirkland occasionally says Brett was a Birther back in the day. The truth of that I can’t say since it was before my time and I’ve seen Brett deny it. But I bet he weaseled just like this back then: Equivocating just enuff to keep solidarity with his brother wack-a-loon tin-foil-hat crazies, while maintaining denialibility for his own mental state.

He absolutely did that. "I don't think it's likely, but… I'm not saying I believe this, but…" He couldn't be 100% sure the birth certificate was genuine because, after all, he wasn't in the delivery room when Obama was born.¹

Note that Brett, being Brett, had a meta-conspiracy to fall back on once the so-called "long form" certificate was released and the actual birther conspiracy fell apart: that Obama deliberately withheld it to trick racist loons into focusing on that fake issue.
​
​
​
¹I'm not sure how that would prove anything anyway. After all, who's to say that the guy strutting around the campaign trail in 2008 was the same person who was born in that delivery room?

[Frank Drackman]

Hillary Rodman Clinton was a "Birther" back in the day of 2008 when her Cam-pain posted photos of Barry in his "Native African Garb"

[Brett Bellmore]

My position, consistently held through the entire controversy, was that while it was theoretically possible that Obama had been born abroad, the idea that there would have been some massive conspiracy to make sure some unknown brat who nobody knew would run for President decades later had faked natural citizenship was utterly implausible. Just the birth announcement in the paper was enough to establish that.

None the less, I am not fond of the notion that there are unenforceable clauses in the Constitution, and as I said at the time, I thought the birthers should have their day in court, where they would predictably lose on the merits.

Rather than fighting that for years, Obama should have just asked for an expedited hearing, and disposed of the controversy. That he spend so much in the way of (other people's) resources to keep the fight going, instead of ending it so easily, said to me that he found it useful.

Maybe because it kept his foes focused on a red herring he knew would never amount to anything. Maybe because he enjoyed being an asshole. I don't know why, but he had some reason for keeping it up.

Anyway, as I also repeatedly pointed out, there was a candidate in the race who genuinely wasn't a natural born citizen. It was McCain, not Obama.

[Sarcastr0]

If your position on something as simple as birtherism takes 5 paragraphs to explain, you may be a weasel trying to have it both ways.

[Brett Bellmore]

Or maybe, just maybe, I'm not willing to sign onto your simplistic position, or the other side's stupider simplistic position, and actually take a reasoned stance.

[Sarcastr0]

It's a simple issue.

Insisting it's complicated is not some brave stance, it's weaseling. You want to be a partisan asshole AND you don't want to have the self-image of a partisan asshole.

It puts you a cut above some on here, but it also makes you in for some pretzel logic that does not cover you in glory.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, it IS a simple issue.

You had evidence that Obama was born outside the country, under circumstances where he wouldn't, under then existing law, have gotten natural born citizenship. Sure, it was crappy evidence, and there was contrary evidence, too, but it WAS evidence.

And you had a clause of the Constitution, the highest law of the land, saying that somebody who wasn't a natural born citizen couldn't be President.

And you had people who complained about this, and would have been potentially subjected to an unconstitutional President if it were ignored.

That's enough for a hearing on the merits, which, as I've said, would swiftly dismiss the concern. Very simple indeed, and your taking offense at the complaint has nothing to do with it.

[Nige]

The shittiest evidence in the world is enough to implicate a black man.

No amount of evidence is enough to even hint at implicating Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

Did you somehow fail to notice my complaints that McCain actually WAS the naturalized citizen the birthers claimed Obama was?

I don't recall McCain being black...

[bernard11]

Maybe because it kept his foes focused on a red herring he knew would never amount to anything.

Well, if that was Obama's plan then why criticize him for it? He successfully played the birthers for fools. If you want to criticize anyone it should be the birthers.

But I doubt that was his plan. More likely he suspected that there would be no end to BS claims and requests for documents from those loons, and decided just to put a stop to it.

And why did you think, "the birthers should have their day in court?" Should any group of crackpots, with no evidence at all, be able to go to court and start demanding that candidates produce whatever documents they feel like asking for? Isn't it the job of state election officials to verify a candidate's eligibility?

[Voize]

Isn’t it the job of state election officials to verify a candidate’s eligibility?

Not according to the Supreme Court, at least if that state is Colorado.

[Brett Bellmore]

I said why I thought they should have their day in court: I don't believe in unenforceable clauses of the Constitution.

They had enough to justify a hearing on the merits, they had little enough to lose when they got it.

If I'm pissed off about anything, it's actually McCain getting to run for President, when he genuinely was not qualified under the natural born citizen clause. But Democrats didn't want to disqualify him, and potentially end up with a candidate who'd try to win, I guess.

[Drewski]

Birthers brought at least 17 challenges to Obama's eligibility, many of them asking state courts to disqualify him from their ballots.

[Brett Bellmore]

And every one of them was rejected on standing, instead of getting a hearing on the merits.

[Brett Bellmore]

"And there’s Brett’s theory that measures to make voting easier in a pandemic were unfair."

Who said anything about "unfair"? I think how to balance voting security and expense against voting convenience is a judgement call. A judgement call the legislature, and only the legislature, is entitled to make.

Not the executive branch, or judiciary.

Where the legislature actually made that call in favor of increased convenience, I might think they'd made the wrong policy decision, but it was at least a decision they were entitled to make.

Where the judiciary and/or executive usurped that choice from the legislature? Nope, sorry, they're not entitled to do that, and a pandemic that had been going on for over a year, and which the legislature had plenty of time to address, was a piss poor excuse for such a power grab.

As I said, the illegitimate changes to election procedures could very well have altered the outcome, illegitimately, and in that sense alone, it's possible the election was "stolen".

But you'd never be able to prove it, so there was no remedy save making sure it didn't happen again.

[bernard11]

we know he loathes voters in general,

Just urban voters. He's made it clear that anyting that holds down the urban vote is a great idea. Only "real Americans" should be voting.

[VinniUSMC]

I made the list!

Votes changed via thermostat? Sorry, to burst your bubble, but there's a 0% chance that I believe that, and a 100% chance that you're just a raging lunatic.

[Estragon]

Wow, then you are more in touch with reality than the guy who trump wanted to make acting AG! Well done.

Is it possible Clark was just cynically looking for any excuse to not accept the results, banking on the resulting unrest being enough to justify invoking the insurrection act? Because it’s starting to look like that was the plan!

[VinniUSMC]

Anything's possible.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Internet of Things in the Cybercrime Underground

Yes, you can hack into a network through a thermostat, if it's not configured right, and once in the network, if the voting machines are foolishly connected to the network, hack your way right into the voting machines.

Government is enormously too casual about security concerns with voting machines. They seem mostly devoted to "security through obscurity", just hiding the security holes and hoping nobody finds them, instead of fixing them.

[grb]

Estragon : “Is it possible Clark was just cynically looking for any excuse to not accept the results …”

Of course. He was also peddling this bullshit as means to leapfrog up to Acting Attorney General. He was a man on the make, selling a con to the Conman in Chief.

Speaking of whom, Trump was definately looking for a fraudulent reason to block the legal process of vote certification. Remember:

All of Clark’s machinations came to a head during a 03Jan meeting between Trump, Acting AG Rosen, and other members of DOJ. By then, White House call logs were already refering to Clark as the acting head of DOJ, but Rosen refused to back down. He told Trump there was no evidence of fraud sufficent to demand states delay certification. Trump’s reply per multiple witnesses? “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen.”

He didn’t care about facts. He didn’t care about evidence. All he wanted was enough noise to put the election into a political sphere where it could be stolen. When Trump goes on trial for the attempted theft, that meeting will get some play.

[Estragon]

“Well, Pat, that’s what the Insurrection Act is for,”

I mean, he’s openly saying it.

The people in Trump’s orbit at this point are either brain damaged nut jobs (see Giuliani, Rudolph) or cynical opportunists who think they can ride the tiger without getting their faces eaten. I’d put Clark behind door number 2 but could be convinced otherwise.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's the middle not holding.

Trump1's people were playing by Obama's rules.

Trump2's people will be playing by Brandon's rules.

Be afraid, be very afraid -- and realize what you have done...

[grb]

Nostradamus Ed's most cryptic prediction yet!

[OtisAH]

It’s not cryptic in the slightest. He means to blame the things a second Turnip administration has publicly boasted about intending to do on the Biden administration. It’s just more “You made us do these things we were planning on doing anyway.” Like how raising the minimum wage “forced” businesses to automate.

[Estragon]

An important concept in a certain… ahem… ideology is the idea of prior innocence. “We suffered first so anything we do to make others suffer is justified.”

Ed here is really an avatar for this idea.

[Estragon]

“Be afraid, be very afraid — and realize what you have done…”

Tiresome

[Estragon]

Any comment on John Eastman, btw?

[not guilty]

There are some Eastman comments on the other Thursday Open Thread. But nothing from Conspirators anywhere on the blog.

[Estragon]

Oh now I see where Mr. Ed is hiding

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Every law professor associated with the Volokh Conspiracy who is not a cowardly, paltry, partisan hack has expressly addressed John Eastman’s un-American, unethical conduct at this blog.

Everynone of them.

Carry on, weak-ass clingers.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I should have included all of the links to statements by courageous, decent, patriotic, admirable Volokh Conspirators who have discussed John Eastman (since Profs. Volokh and Bernstein enthusiastically endorsed that un-American asshole for important public office):

In case you missed those links the first time, I shall repeat them:

Carry on, cowardly ("Trump got your tongue") clingers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sorry to burst your bubble but it is entirely possible to corrupt ANY system connected to the internet and why a thermostat (with its own IP address) would be connected to the voting machine is beyond me, if it WERE, then it WOULD be possible.

It's why large ships, eg the one in Baltimore, are NOT connected. They have transponders that speak to satellites but the transponders aren't connected to anything, and neither are the sat phones.

A "smart" thermostat has its own IP address, usually one your network has assigned it, but it's a soft target.

[Estragon]

So— could have happened? Or definitely happened?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Eliminating effective legal representation for unpopular people is one of the first thing that the National Socialists did.

It really should scare you, if you think about it for a few minutes.

Look at it a different way -- what would have happened had there been a similar campaign in the 1950s to disbar every attorney who represented the NAACP??? What would the country be like today?

[Estragon]

This is not about denying someone a lawyer. We are talking about people who were involved in a criminal conspiracy together.

Do you believe thermostats affected vote totals in 2020? Yes or no?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I haven't seen the voting machines, but if any had a smart thermostat attached to them for any reason, YES I could believe that.

[Estragon]

“YES I could believe that.”

Have you seen any evidence of that— four years later?

[Brett Bellmore]

It wouldn't have to be attached to them, just being on the same network would suffice, if the voting machines weren't configured to use a VPN.

That's the point of the network, after all: To allow everything on it to interact.

[Estragon]

“It really should scare you, if you think about it for a few minutes“

This concern trolling is especially rich coming from you— the guy who approvingly quotes (and always misconstrues) that billy Shakespeare line about lawyers

[bernard11]

Eliminating effective legal representation for unpopular people is one of the first thing that the National Socialists did.

Really?

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://x.com/abrahamhamadeh/status/1773188092284821759?s=46&t=swfuX8A13L7H9PAYSakPtA

It’s not great that a guy who doesn’t know how default judgments work was just a few hundred votes away from becoming the Attorney General of Arizona.

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://x.com/mrddmia/status/1773099532206608794?s=46&t=swfuX8A13L7H9PAYSakPtA

Oh no. It gets dumber and worse. A former Gorsuch clerk and former counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee responsible for helping to move nominations through committee ALSO doesn’t know how default judgments work.

One way to tell that law is extremely fake is that you can rise to the "top" levels of the legal profession and then say stuff that would get you an F in Civ Pro or would constitute malpractice if you told a client that.

I'm putting "top" in quotes here because the prestige and power associated with some positions often bears no relationship to knowledge or ability.

[David Nieporent]

Oh no. It gets dumber and worse. A former Gorsuch clerk and former counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee responsible for helping to move nominations through committee ALSO doesn’t know how default judgments work.

Wrong. Hamadeh may really be that dumb, but Davis is just dishonest.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Good call. So Davis is apparently older than I thought and actually did over ten years of civil litigation at firms and didn't just go through the clerk-to-political hack-to-grifter/twitter idiot pipeline. So he does in fact know better and is lying. (Of course even if he isn't dumb per se, his point surely is)

[Zarniwoop]

When someone accused of murder only puts on a “mitigation of sentence” type defense, no one thinks they’re unjustly accused of the heinous crime itself.

My take on the xitter posts is a little different. The lawyers do know exactly what the impact of a default judgment is, but they’re trying their level best to spin it for the rubes who are desperate to latch on to any excuse to continue following Ms. Lake. Some of those rubes will probably praise Ms. Lake’s acumen right here on the VC (see also: “must own teh libz at all costs”).

The second one in particular (claiming “not worth time/money to defend”) will look pretty damn silly if there’s a 7 or 8 figure judgment against Ms. Lake. I’m not licensed in AZ, but a quick Goog tells me there’s no cap on punitive damages.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And, apparently, no longer an 8th Amendment, either...

When all the leftist groups get bankrupted by 8 figure judgments, don't come crying to me...

[Zarniwoop]

Oh look, in completely-not-a-surprise: Grampa Ed doesn’t know that the 8th Amd has no application to purely civil matters … like defamation between private parties.

The Eighth Amendment generally applies in criminal proceedings, as the most common locus of government punishment, but the Supreme Court has held the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines can apply in civil forfeiture proceedings, noting that the text of the amendment is not limited to criminal cases.6 Instead, the Court said the relevant constitutional test is whether the government is imposing punishment, focusing on the purpose of a sanction.7 In addition, although the Eighth Amendment (like the rest of the Bill of Rights) was understood originally to apply only to the federal government, the Supreme Court has held its prohibitions were incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, making them applicable to states.8

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt8-1/ALDE_00000258/

Try educating yourself before spewing clearly-incorrect bool and sheet, Grampa. You’re beclowning yourself.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"the Court said the relevant constitutional test is whether the government is imposing punishment, focusing on the purpose of a sanction"

Thank you for making my point.

[SimonP]

The right-wing twitter response to the bridge collapse in Baltimore has convinced me that, if there's another civil war, it won't be over big issues like slavery or "state's rights." Rather, it'll be between two constituencies - one that is interested in organizing ourselves under a competent government that serves us and makes life better for everyone, and another that is just fundamentally unserious and has no interest in governing.

Reviewing the sequence of events, it seems like (notwithstanding the catastrophe itself and the loss of life) everything was handled pretty well. The ship lost power and had difficulty getting back on course; warnings ahead of the crash allowed officials to close off traffic and avoid a greater loss of life; it seems like the main failure was in getting the road crew off the bridge in time. Not a perfect handling of the events, but it could have been far worse.

But right-wing twitter immediately blamed every bugaboo of the culture war - a "DEI" mayor, DEI efforts at the shipping company, migrants piloting the vessel, Biden's infrastructure bill, and on and on. I'm amazed they haven't managed to fit trans kids in there. No interest at all in considering the issue seriously and seeing what kinds of improvements could be made to avoid stuff like this in the future. Just point-scoring for the MAGA crowd.

I don't know how you continue in a participatory democracy with people like this. It's like trying to drive a car with a passenger who has nothing to contribute besides constantly tugging on the wheel and pulling the emergency brake. They don't like where you're going, but they don't have some other place they'd like to go, instead; they're just petulant children who don't wanna. Let them splinter off into their own Idiocracy, I say. Let Trump lead them off the cliff into the oblivion they so desire.

[Estragon]

Fear not— it’s mostly boomers who won’t be voting for that much longer. But your larger observation is well taken. I am reminded of the wisdom of that ancient sage, St. Constanza:

“You know, we’re living in a society! We’re supposed to act in a civilized way!”

[Sarcastr0]

This kind of paranoia-cum-ignorance does not lend itself to organization, or op-sec.

This is why I believe January 06 was the high water mark for right-wing mass violence.

[apedad]

And they didn't really do a good job there either.

Mainly just made a mess and ended up with hundreds of people publicly saying how stupid they were (plus their family and friends turned on them, they lost their jobs, etc.).

[Davedave]

They were so inept that most of their countrymen don't even realise it was an actual attempted coup.

[Don Nico]

You got that right.

[Krychek_2]

Simon, that is one of the best comments I've read since I've been here. You're absolutely right. And I would go a step further and say that of the government that doesn't work well, about half of that can be ascribed to active sabotage by the GOP.

[Dan Schiavetta]

SimonP:
+1

[Davedave]

"if there’s another civil war, it won’t be over big issues like slavery or “state’s rights.”"

Not sure about that. The constitutional issue, such as it was, that led to the attempted secession, was never actually resolved.

Obviously the secession was over slavery, but the reason it became a war was because the constitution doesn't really have anything to say about whether or not people who believe in things that are unconscionable have to be governed by their betters if they are to remain part of the union.

The arguments today aren't all that different to the slavery issue, or the civil rights stuff from the 60s. The US has a long and sordid history of doing things that are harmful to the people doing them, as well as the ones they do them to - the Civil War took place long after it had been proven that slavery was economically bad _for slave owners_ compared to freeing the slaves and employing them - because it's more important to fuck people over than to do what's sensible.

So, the things you cite aren't evidence of an unwillingness to govern, but of a very different set of aims. The MAGA crowd actively want to crash the car, in the terms of your analogy. They would rather crash the car and not get to their destination themselves than get their with certain other people. Their aim is to destroy the US, because people they don't like are having good things. It really is that simple. The answer is equally simple: tweak the treason laws, execute a few tens of millions of the bastards, and replace them with immigrants who actually want the US to be a successful country.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Reviewing the sequence of events, it seems like (notwithstanding the catastrophe itself and the loss of life) everything was handled pretty well. The ship lost power and had difficulty getting back on course; warnings ahead of the crash allowed officials to close off traffic and avoid a greater loss of life..."

BULLSHYTE/BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

0: There should have been protective "dolphins" (marine guard rails) protecting the bridge. There should have been something there for the ship to hit *before* hitting the bridge -- every engineer who is commenting on this is saying that.

1: This is not the first time a bridge has been hit -- nor the first time that THIS bridge has been hit -- and there is no fucking excuse for not installing dolphins after the first time it got hit. None!!!

1A: Particularly when you have Brandon's free money to waste...

2: There is no excuse for not requiring the tugs (which it HAD used) to not accompany the ship until it got below the bridge. None. (And watch, they *will* now...)

3: For the ship's engine to (I presume) be running fine and suddenly stall here makes me think dirty fuel, the good fuel in the line being exhausted and then the dirty fuel being drawn in. Contaminated fuel being sold is the lack of competent government oversight.

3A: I noticed that the ship's engine was running in one of the post-accident news videos (exhaust from stack) --- that's interesting. It's legitimate to have it running if you have people aboard -- it's your electricity, heat and ventilation -- but it's interesting that it is running that cleanly.

4: I don't see mention of the ship's horn being blown, and may have lost it along with the engine. The construction guys may not have known what 5 short blasts means (Danger!) but a ship that close repeatedly blowing that would encourage them to get off the bridge.

You wouldn't even have to know how to speak English to know that -- the horn faces forward and at that height & distance, it would be painful to remain there....

5: This does not appear to be the case, ships registered in Singapore tend to be in fairly good shape, but the USCG is responsible for not letting ships with defective engines (if it had one) leave port. Likewise the Baltimore Harbormaster.

6: She had two local pilots aboard. Those are cushy hack jobs and if we don't see them interviewed shortly, I think we can all make accurate conclusions about Affirmative Retribution & DEI.

7: The port anchor was dropped -- maybe it skipped across the bottom (and my guess is that the USCG will send a diver down to see), or maybe it was dropped too late. If the latter, was it the pilot's fault?

8: The problem with a single span bridge is that you lose the whole thing if anything happens -- somewhat similar to what happened to the Murrah Building in Oklahoma. There is a real question if you should build this way. And that gets into corruption and things getting by because of corruption.

8A: Spiro Agnew was a REPUBLICAN....

"But right-wing twitter immediately blamed every bugaboo of the culture war – a “DEI” mayor, DEI efforts at the shipping company, migrants piloting the vessel, Biden’s infrastructure bill, and on and on.

Go through the above list and tell me which of those 9 items you disagree with. And many of them CAN BE blamed on DEI...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually, there was Obama's "stimulus" money to spend on dolphins.

Is it right wing extremism to inquire as to why they didn't???

[Zarniwoop]

Did you take your meds this morning, Grampa?

[John F. Carr]

The bridge was designed 20 years before AASHTO called for increased protection for bridge supports. It takes a lot of bargeloads of rock to absorb the impact of a 100,000 ton ship moving around 8 knots. The government could fund a hundred ceremonial ribbon cuttings for projects that win votes for the cost of protecting one bridge.

The ship doesn't have as much redundancy as I would expect. In particular, I thought ships would have continuous rudder control despite one engine failure. Not much we can do about that in the short term.

A YouTuber who knows about the shipping industry predicted we would not see pilot interviews made public. It is not customary to release interviews. One of the pilots ordered an anchor dropped. What else could they do?

[Dr. Ed 2]

‘The bridge was designed 20 years before AASHTO called for increased protection for bridge supports. It takes a lot of bargeloads of rock to absorb the impact of a 100,000 ton ship moving around 8 knots. The government could fund a hundred ceremonial ribbon cuttings for projects that win votes for the cost of protecting one bridge.’

A competent government spends money on stuff that matters. As does private industry — note the protections around the adjacent power lines.

It’s not “stop” as much as “redirect” and that doesn’t mean that you won’t have damage (remember the Tobin Bridge?). And while Massachusetts did not require sprinklers in 20+ story buildings back in the 1960s, they do now and lots of buildings were retrofitted in the ’90s.

I wouldn’t go with bargeloads of rock, btw — those are likely to drift in the current and then also likely to wind up somewhere else where they cause you problems. No, you want concrete and steel — notice that the damaged bridge abutment is still there…

“The ship doesn’t have as much redundancy as I would expect. In particular, I thought ships would have continuous rudder control despite one engine failure. Not much we can do about that in the short term.”

It may have been possible to move the rudder from down below (it was possible in Battleships, but they were designed on the presumption that the enemy would be damaging them) — if it is, there is the question of who knew that, and how long it would take them to get all the way down there. This happened fast.

Even then, without a propeller turning, I’m not exactly sure how much good a rudder would actually do you. Particularly when compared to something like bow thrusters (small propellers in the bow) but then I believe those are electric and did they (a) have them wired to the emergency generator and (b) could it have even powered them.

Sure, putting the rudder hard over will stop a lobster boat, but something this size?!?

“A YouTuber who knows about the shipping industry predicted we would not see pilot interviews made public. It is not customary to release interviews.”

True, but…

“One of the pilots ordered an anchor dropped.”

We don’t know that. It’s likely although we don’t know that — the Captain could have done it. Same thing with the Mayday call, bridge crews are supposed to be able to speak English, and coming from India, they probably do.

That close to shore, a 4 watt (transmission power) handheld (“walkie talkie”) could have done it, and we don’t know who did. Likely one of the Pilots, but we don’t know that….

For all we know, the Pilots could have been drunk. It’s happened before, I know someone who lost his Pilot’s license for showing up in Bangor drunk and the ship decided to call for another Pilot instead. And this was in Maine which was honest at the time, and either an American or Canadian flagged ship so the Captain knew he’d have credibility versus the White Pilot.

Throw in Affirmative Retribution, DEI and not having that credibility and *if* the Pilots were drunk, I can see ignoring that and hoping for the best. Now be assured that they have been ETOH/Drug tested although we haven't heard about the results, have we?

What else could they do?

Not released the tugboats -- particularly with the wind blowing the way it was. Usually tugboats are paid for by the port so money paying for them is money that can't be spent on graft or DEI.

Even if the ship has to pay for them, that's going to make a call in Baltimore more expensive, fewer ships will pay the port fees, and again less money for graft and DEI.

It's a good question if two tugboats could have redirected the ship -- they definitely would not have been able to stop it -- but even if they weren't able to prevent a collision, she wouldn't have hit the bridge as hard. A survivable collision with damage.

To give an idea what it takes to actually stop a ship, smaller ships (carrying gasoline & Diesel to Bangor) have already stopped their propeller when they pick up the Pilot 30 miles offshore, and they will then go to full reverse as the go up the Penobscot to slow down.

[Dr. Ed 2]

One other thing -- the Ted Williams Tunnel (I-90) is on the bottom of the Boston Harbor and there was a concern (legitimate) that a ship at low tide could hit it, which would stop being fun when it almost instantly flooded.

There were big rocks placed for the ship to hit first and thus to protect the tunnel, but rumor has it that the tide/current has moved them away from where they are supposed to be.

You wouldn't even have to send divers down to verify the rocks are where they are supposed to be, you could do it with fish-finding sonar (or at least *I* could do it -- but do you honestly have enough faith in MassPort to actually check, and if it does, to do it right?

I don't....

QED.....

[SimonP]

I'm flattered that my comment managed to elicit such a lengthy comment from you, Gramps.

I'm not reading it.

[PaulS]

6 - There is NO DEI in the bay pilots union - It is a very close knit group that is hard to get into, the nepotism has been a complaint for years. Having said that They are generally very very good at what they do (every group has some problems)
7 - Dropping the port anchor likely turned the ship - the hindsight question will be should it have been dropped at all

[Bob from Ohio]

"right-wing twitter "

X is not real life. Its a few randos, I think Sarcasto calls it nutpicking.

[SimonP]

Hence, "right-wing twitter."

It's odd to me that you feel the need to clarify something I was explicit about within the first several words of my own comment.

[Mr. Bumble]

Looks like two open threads all day. Choose your poison.

[Longtobefree]

Post in both. We need to get the clicks up before most of us get dumped for being cheap.
Any bets on 3/31?

[Dr. Ed 2]

ARE they going to dump us from here, or just all the other places?

[John F. Carr]

There are no plans at present, the announcement said, to require payment to comment on the Volokh Conspiracy.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How many of this downscale blog’s broke-ass fans could afford a subscription?

[Martinned2]

Sam Bankman-Fried got 25 years in prison.

In case you were wondering why I think those kinds of sentences are draconian, let me mention the assassination of Pim Fortuyn as an example. His murderer got 18 years.

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

[Bob from Ohio]

"His murderer got 18 years."

Europe being super lenient does not make US sentences "draconian", it makes European sentences laughable.

[Martinned2]

We shipped all our religious nuts to the present-day US. Fast forward 300 years, and you still can't swear on TV, and they still take an Old Testament approach to criminal sentencing.

12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.

14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.

15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

[Bob from Ohio]

I am aware that all your good genetic stock either came to America or died in your senseless 20th century wars.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."

That sorta outlaws slavery...

[Sarcastr0]

Only formally nonconsentual slavery. Being born into it or selling yourself into it or even being forced into it by your debts all would not fall under this prohibition.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Being kidnapped in Africa and tossed onto a ship oughta count...

[Sarcastr0]

Those weren’t real people.

[Davedave]

It's still the case that when a European emigrates to the US, it raises the average IQ in both.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is going to backfire, just like the long drug sentences of the '90s.

Yes, I think the schmuck should be in prison, and the bigger the crime should result in the bigger time, but still....

[John F. Carr]

The value of a life is a small number of millions of dollars. When you intentionally do billions of dollars in harm a long sentence is appropriate.

I do think American sentences are excessive. If I could wave my magic constitutional law wand I would decree that sentences over 20 years or so shall be judged as critically as sentences of death.

[Martinned2]

Over 20 years or so, you'd better have committed premeditated murder, or a whole pile of crimes, or a serious crime with lots of priors.

[John F. Carr]

Drug crimes and sex crimes can be several decades.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I could live with 12.5 years, which well may be what he winds up doing.

"SBF may serve as little as 12.5 years, if he gets all of the jailhouse credit available to him," Mitchell Epner, a former federal prosecutor, told CNN."

"Federal prisoners generally can earn up to 54 days of time credit a year for good behavior, which could result in an approximately 15% reduction."

"Since 2018, however, nonviolent federal inmates can reduce their sentence by as much as 50% under prison reform legislation known as the First Step Act."

----CNN

[Commenter_XY]

SB-F now has years to think about the nature of his actions. I don't think it is over yet. The parents will probably get sued as well. Maybe next time, SB-F won't treat his paramours like dogshit. But next time for SB-F....is at least 12 years away.

Buh bye Sammy. Stay away from the sodomites, if you can.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The interesting question is what if he has enough family income to reimburse everyone.

Not saying he does, but it is theoretically possible.

Should that reduce his jail time. (I am inclined to say no.)

[Zarniwoop]

Adam Unikowsky's take on the mifepristone arguments before the S.Ct. is worth a read.

[Darwinnie]

Trump is arguing his sensational and false statements at issue in the Georgia case are protected political speech. Is there no limit to what politicians can say? It’s a farce to allow those with such a powerful pulpit from which to sway people for bad ends can do so and say “it’s political!”

[Dr. Ed 2]

Are you prepared to limit what Team Brandon can say?

That's the price you appear to be willing to pay -- and I'd encourage you to seriously think about it.

Think about the consequences of an "Official Secrets Act."

[Darwinnie]

It can’t be unlimited for any politician. Setting a workable standard isn’t easy, but I think it’s clearly necessary.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No.

Far more important is having a forum for an opponent -- even a fringe opponent -- to call him a liar.

Policing the speech of politicians is a very slippery slope that I do not wish to go down.

[not guilty]

Professor Volokh has now designated this as the preferred Thursday Open Thread, so allow me to repost some comments that appeared on the other one.

Following a 34 day evidentiary hearing, a judge in California has recommended that John Eastman be disbarred for, among other things, conspiring with Donald Trump to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24521265/sbc-23-o-30029-decision-trial.pdf

It’s about time!

[not guilty]

A lawyer’s duty of zealous advocacy does not extend to aiding his client in criminal conduct. Judge Yvette Roland dealt with that at length in her order. For example, the order states at page 124:

While attorneys have a duty to advocate zealously for their clients, they must do so within the bounds of ethical and legal constraints. Eastman’s actions transgressed those ethical limits by advocating, participating in and pursuing a strategy to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election that lacked evidentiary or legal support. Vigorous advocacy does not absolve Eastman of his professional responsibilities around honesty and upholding the rule of law. While his actions are mitigated by his many years of discipline-free practice, cooperation, and prior good character, his wrongdoing is substantially aggravated by his multiple offenses, lack of candor and indifference. Given the serious and extensive nature of Eastman’s unethical actions, the most severe available professional sanction is warranted to protect the public and preserve the public confidence in the legal system.

[Commenter_XY]

I wanted to add my comment from the other thread, to NGs rethreading here.

NG, what of the argument that John Eastman was a lawyer who provided legal advice, and nothing more than that. And BTW, his legal advice was rejected by VP Pence.

And who funded the NGO that filed the complaint?

The part to me that matters: As a lawyer, Eastman cannot lie to the Court. You recently cited the authority that stated there was a duty of candor, not just bare truth, to the Court (it was about The Smasher, heh). All bets are off if Eastman flat out lied to the Court.

also

I have some reading to do = referring to reading the decision from the judge.

[not guilty]

One [Eastman disciplinary] complaint was filed on behalf of the States United Democracy Center, which describes itself as a nonpartisan organization advancing free, fair, and secure elections. https://statesuniteddemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/08.11.22_States-United-LDAD_Complaint-to-DC-ODC-re-John-Eastman_Final.pdf

I don’t know who funds that organization, and I don’t know whether there were other complaints regarding Eastman.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's a very partisan assortment of Never Trumpers, both D & R.

[not guilty]

In response to Dr. Ed 2's kvetch about Eastman's exhortation to Mike Pence in the Oval Office , “I don’t see how the California Bar has jurisdiction as he wasn’t in California when he did it,” I replied:

Duh, because he is licensed in California. This is a bar disciplinary proceeding, not a criminal prosecution. (Although FWIW he could be criminally prosecuted in California pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a).)

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think the whole thing is unmitigated bullshyte.

And what this is saying is don’t live in California or New York.
How’s that going to prevent the coming Civil War?

[Sarcastr0]

Nah, this is how you maintain civil stability - by having your civic institutions stand firm, and having the consequences of attacking them, through violence or abuse, be transparent.

That's what's happened post J6 and it's absolutely worked as intended.

You have your own personal thing going on, and I hope you never act on it yourself. But you have zero connection to any actual mass of the American People you keep claiming to speak for.

The right-wing fringe believes everything resembling a movement to be a false flag. The remaining few that might jump are not the organizing types and can't stop talking about the coming revolution on open channels.

There will be no civil war. Not over race, or over Trump's legal trouble, or over the border.

Maybe some scattered terrorism, which is bad enough and I hope we're working to address that danger. But that's the extent.

America is divided, but the really angry morons are Clinton talk-radio rejects who are now 70+ and won't have much longer in their eternal process of keeping their powder dry and posting on the Internet.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"having your civic institutions stand firm, and having the consequences of attacking them, through violence or abuse, be transparent."

I have often asked myself what would have happened had that been done in the 1960s. I'm told that there was no shortage of Korean War vets who wanted to go onto the college campi and "deal with" the "dirty hippies" -- at least the way the Jan 6 folk have been, if not worse.

What if Nixon had "carpetbombed" Woodstock? We do know what would have happened because look at what happened at Kent State, and that was NOT intentional.

The way Jan 6th should have been dealt with is make those involved make a public apology and do public service work with some leftist group, say dealing with the homeless. Instead, you made martyrs out of them and that's not bright.

The left has not learned from history, and it shows...

[Sarcastr0]

So you just tried to argue we didn't learn from a counterfactual history you made up.

Did you get sidetracked once you started talking about Nixon carpetbombing the hippies?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Look, prick, take an objective look at American society circa 1968 -- what do you think the riots in Chicago at the DEMOCRATIC convention were all about?

Put yourself even into the shoes of Mayor Daley, could you have imagined what America (even the Dem Party) looked like in 1978?

Nixon won a 49-state-landslide in 1972 -- and was gone less than two years later. Change comes quickly when it does...

[Sarcastr0]

Those were not a civil war.
You seem to be ignoring the Vietnam War.

Nixon cheated.

[Bob from Ohio]

"your civic institutions stand firm"

Authoritarian government repression does have a short term effect on people. Sometimes it breeds long term resentment. Better never lose control of those "civic institutions", they can bite both ways.

[#FFFFFFPride]

That "shoe is going to be on the other foot" argument always falls on deaf ears. No one thinks for a minute that the unfireable, unaccountable, overpaid and undereducated liberal midwits who infest those institutions are going to fire their cannons at their own kind.

The rot is too entrenched, and the rules of the system to rigged in their favor to ever flip out of their control.

[Sarcastr0]

There won't be a civil war, but a right wing dictator is absolutely possible.

Look at all the fuckers on here aching to lick the boot that kicks a lib.

No, that's not the shoe being on the other foot, that's you lot dealing with with wanting those who disagree with you to be killed, but also being huge cowards.

The death threats and those claiming to be constantly threatened with oppression both come from the same pathetic bunch of MAGA tools around here.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Right wing dictator? Wanting to kill you over beliefs? Stop the projection and stop gobbling the IC agitprop. What the CIA is doing to you people should be a crime.

The executive branch bureaucrats would just ignore any right wing President and attempt a soft coup just like they did with Trump.

Meanwhile, in your Leftwing Democracy Freedom Utopia, the Democrat FBI pays you a visit if you express unapproved wrong think on Meta or at school board meetings. They also illegally spy on you without any accountability.

[Sarcastr0]

The CIA? Agitprop? The beurocracy will save me? The FBI has paid you a visit for your Facebook posts?

Why haven’t you gone full QAnon yet? You clearly have zero tether to facts and a burning desire to demonize the other side.

Trust the plan, White Pride.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You also make the mistake of presuming that a politically corrupt government won't become corrupt in general.

People will become greedy and steal. Boyfriends, girlfriends and other combinations will fall out of love and become vindictive. People will use the system to hide their alcoholism or drug problems. In a politically corrupt system where there is not an active opposition to keep it honest, this inevitably will happen.

China, in 2024, is a good example of this and the CCP is going to collapse for this very reason....

[#FFFFFFPride]

Look at Blue Anon over here with a massive log in his eye just after saying conservatives want to murder him and his DnD homo's.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"There won’t be a civil war, but a right wing dictator is absolutely possible."

Ever notice how I often ask how the French Revolution came out in the end?

*I* am more afraid of the Right than the Left because the Right can delegate while the Left can't even defecate without a committee meeting to discuss how it will be done. The Right is far more efficient and hence able to do a lot more damage -- not that the Left hasn't and isn't.

We need RULES -- rights which we all agree apply to those whom you despise, because these rights will protect *you* when *they* are in power, which they inevitably will be at some point.

The Left has spent the past two decades with scorched earth -- and I truly fear what my side might do when (not "if") we eventually gain power. Read The Turner Diaries and remember that someone actually wrote it -- that should scare you and make you insist on things like Due Process for the Jan 6th folk.

Not because you like the Jan 6th folk, or even because they deserve it, but because you want a legal system that will extend the same to you if the bad guys ever assume power....

[not guilty]

Dr. Ed 2, I have asked you before, what militant activities do you yourself plan to engage in if and when Joe Biden is re-elected? (Other than furiously peck away at your keyboard.)

[#FFFFFFPride]

When are you going to denounce your racist, ill-gotten gains and what anti-racist actions are you going to take to correct it?

[not guilty]

#FFFFFFPride, how does my passing the Tennessee bar exam in 1987 evince racism or ill-gotten gains? Show your work.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Take it up with the Washington State Supreme Court, you official racist.

[not guilty]

Do you fancy that you have a point? I have never taken the Washington bar. And what on earth does that have to do with the Tennessee bar, circa 1987?

[Noscitur a sociis]

What additional process were the “Jan. 6th folk” due?

[Dr. Ed 2]

"The rot is too entrenched, and the rules of the system to rigged in their favor to ever flip out of their control."

No, it's happened before, and not just in the late 1960s.

Let's start with the Federalists, they were entrenched and had rigged the rules of the system to their favor (and controlled the judiciary) and while it took 15 years, they were toast. There's other periods of time -- the Know Nothings, the birth of the GOP in the wreckage of the Whig party, the birth of FDR's Democratic party, etc.

Conversely, remember the 1980s when people thought that the Republicans would be ruling forever?

[Sarcastr0]

You went from Civil War 2 to electoral reversals.

What a comedown.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bob, Machavelli spoke to this.

It wasn't that he said "leave no living enemies" as much as he said "don't make enemies if at all possible" because the cost of having enemies is so great.

[not guilty]

In a podcast interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Ashleigh Merchant confirmed that he client Mike Roman turned down a very favorable plea offer — a plea to a reckless conduct misdemeanor with probation, no jail time, no fine, and the likelihood of having the record wiped clean after one year of good behavior. https://www.ajc.com/news/breakdown/listen-the-trump-indictment-podcast-merchant-speaks-out/EK7AV3HPLJGAPDUBXQVE2VFDTI/?utm_cohort=evening_campaign_1-evening_cohort_1-07eb8e09dcef9dadffa6f1835dc2fd37c7d0ceb5a78c81807fc0c75ddc81d18e&utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EveningRead&utm_content=9408744 (Discussion of the plea offer begins at 31:36.)

I surmise that such an offer was made pursuant to Georgia Code § 42-8-60, which provides for withholding any judgment of guilt and eventual exoneration and discharge of the defendant. Ms. Merchant said of Mr. Roman, “He says he didn’t do it.”

I wonder if she informed her client that he could offer to enter a “best interest” plea while still maintaining his innocence and declining to admit culpability pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970) (“An individual accused of crime may voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly consent to the imposition of a prison sentence even if he is unwilling or unable to admit his participation in the acts constituting the crime.”). Accord: Goodman v. Davis, 249 Ga. 11, 16-17, 287 S.E.2d 26 (Ga. 1982). My question here is not rhetorical — Ms. Merchant may well have discussed the possibility of an Alford plea with her client.

I am speculating here, but I suspect that Mr. Roman is trying to set a trap here — taking his chances on a jury trial while knowing that in the event of conviction he can play his ace in the hole by filing a collateral attack on the conviction claiming that he went to trial because he was incompetently advised to turn down the sweetheart plea agreement. See Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012). In these circumstances a defendant must show that but for the ineffective advice of counsel there is a reasonable probability that the plea offer would have been presented to the court (i.e., that the defendant would have accepted the plea and the prosecution would not have withdrawn it in light of intervening circumstances), that the court would have accepted its terms, and that the conviction or sentence, or both, under the offer’s terms would have been less severe than under the judgment and sentence that in fact were imposed. Id., at 164.

[not guilty]

Mr. Bumble inquired, "If the DA was offering such a great deal, why was he even indicted?" I replied:

Only the prosecutors can answer that, but assuming your question is genuine rather than rhetorical, I suspect that the proposed plea deal included a requirement of cooperation with prosecutors, including testimony against codefendants. Attorneys for the State may have regarded Mr. Roman’s potential information and testimony as outweighing his culpability.

In a follow up comment, I said IIRC Mike Roman was not among the persons that the Special Purpose Grand Jury recommended to be indicted. The plea offer to him may have been extended prior to the finding of the indictment.

[Mr. Bumble]

All of which leaves a lot unanswered.

[grb]

The other day Trump had a long extended brain freeze during a public speech – including the odd moment when he insisted that “you can’t have an election in the middle of a political season.”

This was followed by “We just had Super Tuesday, and we had a Tuesday after Tuesday already.” and Trump’s vow to “bring crime back to law and order.”

Then there was a post later that night saying, “… not running to terminate the ACA, AS CROOKED JOE BUDEN DISINFORMATES AND MISINFORMATES ALL THE TIME …”

Look, the man’s brain has clearly rotted out to the gooey consistency of tapioca pudding. (and everyone hates tapioca pudding).

[Bored Lawyer]

There's someone in the White House who LOVES tapioca pudding!

[Mr. Bumble]

Willful blindness can't be cured.

[grb]

On the other hand, when Trump & Biden both appear on a debate stage together we'll see who still has a functioning brain. Where will your blindness get you then, Bumble?

[Mr. Bumble]

It will never happen. There is no way Biden or his handlers will agree to a debate. NO WAY!

[grb]

Your dupish kind said the exact same thing before the ’20 presidental debates. Some of us (myself included) noted Biden had debated Sanders over three hours just a few months earlier. No, the easily conned replied, Biden had gotten “much worse” since then.

Of course even someone as easily fooled as you, Bumble, knows what happened next. Two-thirds of Americans thought Trump preformed poorly in the debate. Almost as many said Biden performed well. The numbers on policies tracked the same way.

[Mr. Bumble]

Time will tell. Biden is currently claiming debates depend on Trump's behavior. When did that become a criteria?

[Davedave]

When Trump tried to stage a coup? When he was found to have raped someone? When he tried to steal government documents to sell to the highest bidder?

Jesus H Maintenance Services, even Trump cultists aren't usually _this_ dumb.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And you are a fascist.

IF Trump is so bad, let the public see that...

And if I were Trump, if Biden won't debate, I'd debate an empty chair.

[Stella Link the dog]

'And if I were Trump, if Biden won’t debate, I’d debate an empty chair."

And guaranteed to lose.

[Estragon]

I call that move the Clint Eastwood

[Mr. Bumble]

"When Trump tried to stage a coup? When he was found to have raped someone? When he tried to steal government documents to sell to the highest bidder?"
Of course none of those things are true, but you be you.

[Nige]

Nw that’s gaslighting – except you’re probably right abut the ‘highest bidder,’ he just showed them to anyone he wanted to impress.

[Nige]

We were told that before. We were also told that he'd step down a few months after being sworn in. There's a long record of you lot being incredibly wrong, but the succession of fake prohecies seems to be more about you lot making soothing sounds to each other and yelling at anyone who disagrees with you than about truth or accuracy.

[Nelson]

"There is no way Biden or his handlers will agree to a debate. NO WAY!"

Are you kidding? They are salivating at the chance.

Last time Biden wiped the floor with Trump. They're both a step slower than 4 years ago, but the same thing would happen this time.

Trump is cunning, not smart, and whenever he faces a crowd that isn't predisposed to cheer for everything he says, he chokes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This would not be inconsistent with ADHD.

Just sayin....

[Bored Lawyer]

I saw online a report of a psychological survey. People were asked, which of the following jobs would you rather have:

1. You are paid $ 90k per year, all of your colleagues are paid $ 80k per year.
2. You are paid $ 100k per year, all of you colleagues are paid $ 110k per year.

Most people picked # 1. The supposed explanation is that the prestige and status of making more than your colleagues was more important than the extra money.

To me, picking # 2 is a no-brainer -- I want more cash for my work, and could care less what others make.

Thoughts?

[grb]

Most people ?!? I avoid overly excessive optimism about my fellow man, but would have expected a sizable minority at best. What was the actual percentage

[Bored Lawyer]

I saw it second hand, but a quick search indicates it was referring to this:
https://www.ideatovalue.com/curi/nickskillicorn/2022/02/study-shows-half-of-people-would-accept-a-50-lower-salary-to-prevent-colleagues-earning-more-than-them/

The percentage was 50%. And the salary difference was much more stark than my example.

[Frank Drackman]

"Could Care Less"??
I thought lawyers were supposed to be good with language, what with all those Engrish classes and writing.

Frank "Don't give a fuck"

[John F. Carr]

In the second alternative your brain says you lose $10K. The perceived harm of a $10k loss is a few times the perceived benefit of a $10k gain. Similar studies are a favorite way to torment students in schools with a psychology, evolution, behavioral sciences department. A variant splits $10 between two participants. One proposes a division ("$7 for me and $3 for you") and the other chooses whether to accept it. If you are playing the game only once the rational choice of the second player is to accept anything more than zero. In reality people do reject free money if the offer seems unfair.

[Bored Lawyer]

MY brain does not say that.
But it's an interesting explanation.

[bernard11]

Hard to believe your the salary business, but the split $10 experiment is a staple experiment, and people do in fact reject amounts they deem too small.

Note that this would make sense in a repeated game, since if the offer is rejected neither player get anything, so you are creating an incentive for more generous offers.

So it may be that, even if it's not a repeated game, the player instinctively still thinks it's worthwhile establishing a reputation as a tough negotiator who doesn't put with BS.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Pay represents rank and importance.

I'd rather have my coworkers subordinate to me than to be subordinate to them.

300 years ago, it was pointed out (correctly) that a workingman in England had a higher standard of living than an American Indian Chief -- and the response was "and which would you rather be"?

Would you rather be on the top rung of a stone age society, or on the bottom rung of an industrialized one, even if the latter gave you a higher standard of living?

[David Nieporent]

The latter, because I'm not a second rater.

[Nelson]

"Pay represents rank and importance."

That's a stupid way to prioritize. Pay represents money, which buys you things. Always keeping that in mind is what let me retire in my mid 40s. Money makes money. Rank and importance is worthless in the end (and often fleeting in the present).

The choice between not having to work any more because I didn't give a toss about what anyone else made (and I was smart with my money) and working into my 70s at a job that paid me less, but more than my coworkers, and had a lot of prestige? It's a no-brainer. I'll take 30 extra years of doing whatever I want to.

Unless you're an insecure fool who needs others to be "less than" you to keep your self-image intact. Then you will have foolish priorities.

[not guilty]

A U.S. District Court judge in California reportedly has expressed skepticism about Hunter Biden’s claims of selective or vindictive prosecution regarding the tax charges against him. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/03/27/hunter-biden-california-tax-case/

That is unsurprising. Has anyone not named Yick Wo ever obtained final relief from a criminal charge or conviction based on a claim of selective prosecution?

[#FFFFFFPride]

When are you going to acknowledge your career is built off a racist system and take anti-racist steps to remedy this injustice?

[Nige]

You think the justice system is racist?

[#FFFFFFPride]

Well for one, the justice system is obviously biased and oppressive. Secondly, it's operated mainly by Democrat types and civil servants, i.e. idiots, morons, partisans, and bigots.

So of course one of the things the justice system is, is racist.

That being said, in case you hadn't heard, which you clearly haven't, Washington State Supreme Court ruled that the Bar exam is racist due to its disparate impact on the Coloreds. They removed it as a requirement to practice law in WA.

Therefore there has been an official finding of fact that the Bar is racist, and thus the legal profession is built on systemic racism.

The Bar clearly impacted blacks racially, because think about it... the average lawyer is clearly at or below the IQ of a black, so the only thing that explains the lack of representation is racist intent by the Bar.

[Nige]

It's like watching someone insert their entire head into their own ass.

[#FFFFFFPride]

I notice how you only insulted and not refuted.

I don’t think that’s what people who believe they are intelligent do. What do you think?

[Nige]

I'm sure your dumb bigotry is its own reward, as are the contents of your own rectum.

[Nelson]

That isn't even close to what they said or did.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/washington-adopts-new-lawyer-licensing-paths-other-states-mull-bar-exam-bypasses-2024-03-18/

[not guilty]

On the other thread Dr. Ed 2 asked, "Why no mention of how the Comstock Act makes mailing of abortifacients illegal?" I replied:

I’ll bite. Criminal prosecution under the Comstock Act is vanishingly unlikely.

According to the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel, section 1461 of title 18 of the U.S. Code does not prohibit the mailing of certain drugs that can be used to perform abortions where the sender lacks the intent that the recipient of the drugs will use them unlawfully. Because there are manifold ways in which recipients in every state may lawfully use such drugs, including to produce an abortion, the mere mailing of such drugs to a particular jurisdiction is an insufficient basis for concluding that the sender intends them to be used unlawfully.

https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/file/1560596/dl?inline

No plaintiff, no lawsuit.

[Darwinnie]

How long until a court appoints a guardian for an unborn child to enjoin a pregnant woman from traveling for an abortion? I can see it coming in Alabama and probably Texas.

[Frank Drackman]

not as ridiculous as pretending cutting off a dudes dick makes him a chick.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Try Massachusetts, and 24 years ago:
https://www.thesunchronicle.com/judges-ruling-breaks-new-ground/article_dd3c49c4-dd1f-5743-b25b-461c3865b327.html

I'll say now what I said then -- why this precedent couldn't be used to prohibit an abortion is beyond me.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I read that and it is bullshit.

The problem is the Food & Drug Act and the related laws relating to a Prescription Drugs. They'd be right if this were an OTC drug, but it is not.

A Prescription Drug has to have a LICENSED PROVIDER prescribe it for a STATED REASON. Yes, drugs can be prescribed "off label" (or could be pre-Covid, not so sure now) but they still have to be prescribed to a specific patient and for a specific reason,

"I'm a MD" isn't good enough -- tell it to the folk who are in prison because of the opiate scripts they wrote.

And then it must be dispensed by a licensed pharmacist who ought to know what state he is mailing it to. And is responsible for knowing what states are illegal to mail it to --- much as gun web sites are responsible for knowing what they can't ship to Massachusetts.

And then, just because *some* abortion is allowed in all states, that does not mean that those lacking that state's MD license get to perform it. Yes, there is a right to travel -- but you have to physically do it.

There's more and if you want to talk bar sanctions, I think that the schmucks who wrote that legal opinion ought to receive some.

[not guilty]

The Comstock Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1461, is a criminal statute. FDA has nothing to do with who is prosecuted for any alleged violation thereof. Nada. Zilch.

The OLC memorandum — and I don’t for a moment believe you have actually read it, Ed — relates to who should be prosecuted under § 1461 for knowingly using the mails for the mailing, carriage in the mails, or delivery of mifepristone or misoprostol. The statute does not purport to regulate the practice of medicine — it proscribes conduct by the mailer, not the prescriber. The opinion states at pp. 1-2:

We conclude that section 1461 does not prohibit the mailing, or the delivery or receipt by mail, of mifepristone or misoprostol where the sender lacks the intent that the recipient of the drugs will use them unlawfully. This conclusion is based upon a longstanding judicial construction of the Comstock Act, which Congress ratified and USPS itself accepted. Federal law does not prohibit the use of mifepristone and misoprostol. Indeed, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has determined the use of mifepristone in a regimen with misoprostol to be safe and effective for the medical termination of early pregnancy. Moreover, there are manifold ways in which recipients in every state may use these drugs, including to produce an abortion, without violating state law. Therefore, the mere mailing of such drugs to a particular jurisdiction is an insufficient basis for concluding that the sender intends them to be used unlawfully. [Footnotes omitted.]

Dr. Ed 2, what particular content of the memorandum do you contend warrants bar sanctions for its author? Please refer to the applicable page(s) of the memorandum (or admit that you have not in fact read it).

[Dr. Ed 2]

"where the sender lacks the intent that the recipient of the drugs will use them unlawfully."

ANY use, other than for the prescribed purpose, IS illegal.
Haven't you ever read the fine print about how "any other use" is "a violation of Federal law"?

And as to your disbarment question, the portion you quoted would do, although I'd include a couple of the adjacent paragraphs as well.

If Massachusetts legalizes suicide, which it might, does that mean that the prescribed drugs can be mailed into other states with impunity?!?

[not guilty]

Dr. Ed 2, there is no violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1461 unless the sender has acted knowingly. It is not a strict liability offense. How would the government prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the sender, who likely does not know even who the recipient will be, could divine what use the recipient will make of mifepristone or misoprostol?

For all the sender knows, the recipient is a pregnant woman who will ingest the medication to produce her own abortion — which is not a crime in any state that I know of. (Abortion bans typically contain a specific exemption from prosecution of the woman.) The recipient may be a medical provider who can lawfully prescribe for a variety of off-label obstetric and gynecologic indications.

As the memorandum observes at page 2, federal law does not prohibit the use of mifepristone and misoprostol. Indeed, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has determined the use of mifepristone in a regimen with misoprostol to be safe and effective for the medical termination of early pregnancy (which remains lawful in most states). Moreover, there are manifold ways in which recipients in every state may use these drugs, including to produce an abortion, without violating state law.

Medication labels are not statutes.

What Rule(s) of Professional Conduct do you claim the author of the OLC memorandum has violated? There is a reason those rules are numbered. Please identify particularly what section(s) of the RPCs have been transgressed here.

Or just man up and admit that you haven’t read the memorandum.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Ed. What Rule(s) of Professional Conduct do you claim the author of the OLC memorandum has violated?

[Zarniwoop]

Even if one accepts that the Comstock Act prohibit the use of US Mail and common carriers to distribute mifepristone in all circumstances (spoiler alert: it doesn’t), the Comstock Act does not prohibit other means of nationwide distribution.

Danco could contract with a private carrier that is outside the scope of a “common carrier” per 46 USC § 40102. Danco could start up their own internal distribution network to ship direct from their manufacturing facility. More expensive, yes, but legally trivial.

At that point, even if Grampa Ed is correct (spoiler alert: he’s not), the prohibition on US Mail/Common carrier distribution ceases to be a relevant consideration for the FDA’s approval of the drug itself. This is a ginormous red herring for gullible rubes to get hot’n’bothered about.

[bernard11]

The Comstock Act also prohibits the shipment of contraceptives, as I understand it. So how do all those condoms find their way to the shelves at CVS?

Does the store have a small manufacturing operation in the back?

[David Nieporent]

The Comstock Act also prohibits the shipment of contraceptives, as I understand it. So how do all those condoms find their way to the shelves at CVS?

Griswold is still good law. Only Roe was overturned by Dobbs.

[not guilty]

Restrictions upon contraceptives in the Comstock Act were repealed in 1971.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, they weren't.

[not guilty]

Yes, they were. https://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/91/662.pdf

You are just flat out lying.

[bernard11]

Thanks, DN and ng.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It prohibits the shipment of anything that will cause an abortion and it was extended to other carriers.

As to CVS, I believe it has its own trucks for economy of scale, but Griswald legalizing condoms didn't legalize abortants, which are mentioned separately.

And with Dobbs saying abortion (unlike contraception) is a state issue, then it becomes a state issue.

[Stella Link the dog]

So, Trump is now selling Bibles. Makes perfect sense that someone who authors books he's never read would peddle another book he's never read.

[Frank Drackman]

who would really read the whole bible by choice? It’s mostly prisoners or those insufferable Christ-ers. Anything longer than “Jesus Wept”(What a Pussy! commentary by the Reverend Andrew D. Clay Jr.) and I lose attention.

Frank

[Stella Link the dog]

If you were up on the wit and wisdom sayings of OJ (Orange Jesus, that is) you'd know that he claims that the Bible is his favorite book. Actual evidence of his having read much of anything in the Bible is pretty scant. Indeed, Trump is quite famous for not reading much of anything though there are rumors that he's rather fond of Hitler's collected speeches and of Mein Kampf. In Trump's defense, my guess would be if he's read any of Mein Kampf it was from the abridged version.

[Frank Drackman]

I've read Mein Kampf and The Diary of a Young Girl, by Anne Frank (I rend my Garment every time someone (who hasn't read it of course) calls it "Anne Frank's Diary"
See, we used to have this thing called "School" in which we read these things called "Books"
OK, "Mein Kampf" was in California, 10th grade German, "Anne Frank's..", dammit, now I'm doing it in Alabama, 12th grade.
and in Conservative Alabama we read selections from "Men without Women" (Homos, obviously) including "Hills like White Elephants" which took me years to realize was about abortion...

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

I want to complement the former President for holding the bible upright this time. Last time we saw him with a bible in his hand he had it upside down.

[apedad]

That's because he's selling a product this time.

Previously the Bible was just a prop.

[Frank Drackman]

At least he pronounced Laken Riley's name correctly, and didn't apologize for calling her Rapist/Murderer an Illegal Alien, like Parkinsonian Joe did.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm still mad that he didn't open it and read the 23 Psalm.

Someone should have told him to do this....

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Trump’s fans are too dumb to know the difference. Every worthless, bigoted, un-American, obsolete, conservative one of them.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The Constitution Party may have cleared North Carolina’s ridiculous ballot-access hurdles, which involve getting thousands of petition signatures.

Constitution Party chair Al Pisano says: “They scrutinize those signatures that people sign, just for the petition, a lot more than they actually scrutinize who’s coming in to vote — which to me, it just blows my mind,”

https://www.wunc.org/politics/2024-03-18/nc-constitution-party-ballot-access-north-carolina-election

But you see, it’s important that people trying to take part in our electoral system be verified to make sure they’re legally qualified to do so!

Oops, wait, that was racist.

Seriously, can any of the ballot-access opponents here justify the discrepancy?

[Frank Drackman]

Any chance Parkinsonian Joe asks for a moment of silence for the murdered NYPD Officer during his Cam-pain trip to NYC today? I know the cop wasn't a hero like Floyd George, but C'mon Man!
Would give him a chance to screw up the name of someone murdered by a "Legal", and of course the Suspect has the typical history
"Rivera previously spent 10 years in prison on various charges, including assault, drug convictions and hate crime charges, according to authorities. The driver has more than 20 priors, including a gun charge from April 2023, according to Mayor Eric Adams."

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

as a MOTT I'm not all that up to date on Easter, but what's the deal with Mary not recognizing Hey-Zeus on Sunday Morning? Almost like he wasn't really her son or something.

[Brett Bellmore]

That was Mary Magdalene. (My church's patron saint.) Not Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Common name back then, Mary.

[grb]

Out in Arizonia, Kari Lake lost an election. Being a modern reality-TV-style Republican, she blamed her defeat on election fraud. As with Giuliani, she offered a real life villian to give the her gullible base more exciting entertainment: Fellow GOPer Stephen Richer (Maricopa County Recorder) had fraudulently altered ballots to ensure her defeat.

So he sued. Lake just conceded her defamation in a court filing and the trial now moves to the amount of damages. Hopefully she won't continue the same slander/libel against Richer while the process is underway. That strategy didn't work very well for Giuliani.

Per Lake, this is all "persecution". I bet there are commenters here who'll agree. As note above, the Right's political base is so damn gullible.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/27/politics/kari-lake-defamation-lawsuit-richer/index.html

[Moderation4ever]

Kari Lake is running for Senate, and she wants this lawsuit out of the way fast. Only way to do that is concede.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Kari Lake is deplorable scum. Her natural home will be the Heritage Foundation, the Federalist Society, or the Hoover Institution.

[Frank Drackman]

Why all the Secrecy about whoever was watching porn on his phone, I mean, “at the wheel” of the Dali???
Maybe I’m an Asshole, and the guy at the controls was some Whitey-White Smooth Smoothie, but if it was I think we’d already have his whole history.
My Sheckels are that it’s someone with Dreadlocks and alot of ‘ in his name.
Again, why the mystery? we knew all about Sully before the NTSB tried to railroad him. Good thing Clint Eastwood was still alive to make a movie about it

Frank

[grb]

Frank Drackman : "Maybe I’m an Asshole..."

1. No, Frank, you just play-act being an asshole.
2. Which is childish and pathetic.
3. But apparently adult-supervision is lacking, so what can ya do?

[OtisAH]

You wish you were just an asshole, piece of shit.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Remember that it was the two Baltimore Pilots who were at the wheel -- not the ship's crew.

Wanna bet there isn't affirmative retribution in Pilot selection?

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : “Wanna bet there isn’t affirmative retribution in Pilot selection?”

1. Sounds like the safest of bets to me.

2. Though a definition of “affirmative retribution” would be nice. I tried googling the phase in case it was common in the whiny snowflake white victimhood butthurt racist community but, no, it seems to be an invention of our Ed.

3. Besides, by all accounts so far the problem was caused by a loss of power onboard the ship. But all’s not lost in Ed’s crusade to find a dark face to blame! Maybe the ship’s engineer was one of THOSE people. Though there are also stories suggesting bad fuel might have caused the outage. So Ed could then look for a filling station attendant with a swarthy complexion. Obviously, somewhere within a fifty-mile radius of the accident site there must have been a black person, so Ed will eventually find the “cause” of the incident.

4. Poor Ed. He says he isn’t racist. He insists on it, but just can’t help himself.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Besides, by all accounts so far the problem was caused by a loss of power onboard the ship. But all’s not lost in Ed’s crusade to find a dark face to blame! Maybe the ship’s engineer was one of THOSE people. Though there are also stories suggesting bad fuel might have caused the outage. So Ed could then look for a filling station attendant with a swarthy complexion."

Do you have any idea the volume of fuel that is involved?

A ship that size carries MILLIONS of gallons of fuel, your average gas station has (buried) tanks in the 10,000/12,000 gallon range, and the average 18-wheel tank truck on the highway has maybe 6,000 gallons in it.

So, as you clearly can't do basic math, if she loaded 3 Million Gallons (3,000,000), which would actually be small for a ship that size, that would be 500 trailer-truck loads.

No, we are talking pipelines and hoses and things that a competent government ought to be regulating. And as to " a filling station attendant with a swarthy complexion", you are too obtuse to even be asinine....

For that matter, how much jet fuel (kerosene, but I digress) do you think a Boeing 747 will need to fly from here to California? Hint, it's more than a few gallons -- and more than said filling station attendant has in his/her/its underground tanks. (Airports have actually gone to fuel "hydrants" where the trucks are pumping out of underground pipes instead of loading fuel actually in the truck itself.)

While I am not sure how accurate this is, here is a web site for you:
https://maritimepage.com/fuel-consumption-how-much-fuel-cargo-ship-use/

Notice that they measure it in tons -- in this case metric tons -- because Diesel oil expands and contracts significantly depending on temperature, with a gallon being defined as being at 70 degrees if my memory is correct.

As to the rest, I wrote a long passage (somewhere here) where I identified the other fuck-ups that I blame on Baltimore and Maryland. Starting with not having dolphins there, and I don't mean the cute animals...

[bernard11]

Baltimore Pilots?

What league are they in?

[Don Nico]

The American Losers

[Commenter_XY]

I just might take that bet (in Shekels), Dr. Frank. The Harbor Pilot will be identified soon enough. By Monday, we will know.

If I bet you a shekel, we're only talking 25 cents or so. 🙂

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's actually TWO of them, one older and one younger and that alone makes me suspicious as you really only need ONE Pilot.

We may or may not have the names on Monday, it will be more interesting if we don't.

We're talking about a city and a state that has been corrupt longer than I have been alive -- and as I've pointed out before, Spiro Agnew was a Republican. My issue is corruption -- which DEI inherently is.

[apedad]

Support for legal abortion hits new high among US voters: Fox News poll

Support for making abortion legal in all or most circumstances has gone up in every demographic, including those considered most critical of abortion rights. That includes a 16 percent increase among people 65 or older, a 12 percent rise among conservatives, an 11 percent increase among registered Republicans and a 10 percent increase among white evangelical Christians.

About five times as many people said abortion should always be legal (35 percent) as those who said it should never be legal (7 percent), the poll found.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4559921-support-for-legal-abortion-hits-new-high-among-us-voters-fox-news-poll/

Yet Republicans want to keep pushing the issue.

My advice to them: PRESS ON!!!

[Moderation4ever]

I cannot help but think that when people take the time to really think these social/cultural issues through they will come down on the side of freedom. Dobbs brought the complex issue of women's health to the forefront and people seriously looked at the issue and realized that reproductive health care decisions should be between a woman and her doctor. I think the same thing happen with same sex marriage. Bring the issue to the forefront and people chose freedom.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Freedom to murder.

[not guilty]

A lawful abortion and a murder are mutually exclusive, like red and green or like a circle and a rectangle. One cannot be the other.

[M L]

I believe he's using that word in general moral and natural law sense.

[M L]

Freedom to treat other people as property.

[Frank Drackman]

Well I certainly would have supported your mothers right to abort you, why don't you make it right?

[ducksalad]

You already know all this, but….If there is anything (actual successfully elected) politicians are good at, it’s counting votes.

On stuff like this, only litmus-test voters count, and only the ones that you had a realistic chance of getting otherwise.

There probably are more single issue pro-choice than single issue pro-life voters right now, but essentially zero of them would vote for a Republican regardless of position on abortion.

I’m generally not in favor of a crackdown on abortion but I’d vote for Massie, Amash, or Liz Wolfe if I had the chance, their wrongness on this issue is just not that important to me.

[Moderation4ever]

The thing is there was a time when Republican politicians were a lot more accepting of abortion. They were never as accepting as Democrats but certainly a lot closer to the Democrats position. In the years before Dobbs, Republicans simply adopted a nonsensical and draconian approach to abortion. Now Republican are struggling to find a position because that draconian approach has proven a failure. Democrats have a sensible position and that is to leave medical decisions to a patient and her doctor. Republican on the other hand say that life is sacred but not until 6, 12, or 16 weeks.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, conservative blog
with a thin, receding academic veneer
-- dedicated to creating and preserving
safe spaces for America's vestigial bigots
as modern America passes them by --
has operated for no more than

ZERO (0)

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

SIXTEEN (16)

occasions (so far) during the
first three months of 2024
(that’s at least 16 exchanges
that have included a racial slur,
not just 16 racial slurs; many
Volokh Conspiracy discussions
feature multiple racial slurs.)

This blog is outrunning its
remarkable pace of 2023,
when the Volokh Conspiracy
published racial slurs in at least

FORTY-FOUR (44)

different discussions.

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

This assessment does not address
the broader, everyday stream of
antisemitic, gay-bashing, misogynistic,
immigrant-hating, Palestinian-hating,
transphobic, Islamophobic, racist,
and other bigoted content published
at this faux libertarian blog, which
is presented from the disaffected,
desperate right-wing fringe of
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 at a higher plane.

— the unadorned artistry of Jeff “Skunk” Baxter –is something delightful. If you didn’t stick around for the solo work, you erred.

This one is good, too. The rhythm section -- Mighty Max and a guy whose mother was a talent, his father was a talent, and whose children are all talents -- in particular. And that looks like a young Silvio Dante on the end.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones pointers:

First, a Charlie of a different feather.

Next, Bill with some rhythm royalty.

[Moderation4ever]

Hi Rev,

Thank you for pointing me to Dead Flowers. After that I spent some time finding RS tunes with Mick Taylor playing guitar. He certainly is a great guitar man and definitely added to the bands tunes.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He not only added to the tunes -- he wrote a few of them, but never received songwriting credit.

That may have been part of the reason he left the band.

That Dead Flowers is as good as it gets, although -- in a far different way -- the version from Stripped (I think) that ends with Mick saying "I felt like a hillbilly there . . . just for a minute, though" also is magnificent. (Here it is.)

There is at least one version of All Down The Line from that period that showcases Mick Taylor splendidly. (Again, found it -- or, at least, one of them. I remember some versions with different solos. Taylor brings to mind Mark Knopfler -- producing elegant, furious guitar lines, perhaps leads and rhythm simultaneously, while standing nonchalantly, as if waiting for a bus. A welcome change from the hacks who writhe, grimace, and strut, shaking their guitars if they were possessed by supernatural forces or wringing intensified emotions from the fretboard when when all they are doing is playing an E minor or maybe a baby G.)

[#FFFFFFPride]

Did the CIA commit a war crime when it hired those Ukranian terrorists to target those civilians?

[M L]

Why would Biden come out and immediately proclaim that US taxpayers would foot the "entire cost" of rebuilding the Baltimore bridge?

First of all, shouldn't there be a responsible shipping company and some insurance policies to look at here?

[David Nieporent]

Do you really think he meant that they wouldn't try to collect from the responsible parties? Or do you think he meant that the bridge needs to be rebuilt now, not five years from now after the suits are resolved, and therefore the government will put out the necessary funds?

[Moderation4ever]

Your and Nige are both correct, the bridge needs to be rebuild. Getting money from responsible parties can wait. It should be collected, but it should not hinder repairs.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I haven't seen anyone discuss the unusual maritime laws limiting shipowners' liability. It has been 40 years since my maritime law class (what a worthless class, although the professor was entertaining), so laws may have changed, but I recall some counterintuitive, old-timey rules that seemed severely and unfairly stacked (like cargo containers) in favor of the shipowners' interests.

[Frank Drackman]

In a musty old hall in Detroit they prayed
In the Maritime Sailors' Cathedral
The church bell chimed 'til it rang twenty-nine times
For each man on the Edmund Fitzgerald

[Darwinnie]

Sailors have very strong protections for injuries suffered or even just discovered (and preexisting) while on board a maritime vessel. The company has to pay for all their medical expenses until they reach maximum recovery (that’s defined in some way I forget). So not everything is stacked for the ship owners. But this is different snd may well let them off easy.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I vaguely remember odd rules for liability involving sailors, too. None of it seemed to make much sense or be particularly just. It seemed like old-timey rubbish that had never progressed beyond a less enlightened stage.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Under the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851, a vessel owner can limit liability in many maritime cases to the value of the vessel and its cargo. See 46 U.S.C. § 30523.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They got around that with oil tankers/spills and might here.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well MD is already seeking $60 million to clean up.

[M L]

My comment wasn’t about what he meant or what might be done, but about what he said. And yes, the words he uttered have only one objective meaning.

What he should have said publicly is that the responsible parties should be held fully accountable. There is great value to the taxpayer in him saying that, but he didn't care about that. And then he can also say that he favors the federal government fully supporting the reconstruction. That would have been the responsible and sensible thing to say.

[Nige]

Supporters of word-stew-merchant Trump parsing others inside and out to find something to get mad at will never not be funny.

[Nige]

I expect that getting the company to cough up will be a drawn-out process, meanwhile Baltimore is economically crippled.

But congrats on not saying DEI was responsible and ought to foot the bill, I guess.

[Dr. Ed 2]

DEI was responsible....

[Magister]

That's awfully harsh on Demographically Entitled Idiots.

[Nige]

Sue DEI, then.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Why would Biden come out and immediately proclaim that US taxpayers would foot the “entire cost” of rebuilding the Baltimore bridge?

Because he is the (rightfully and indisputably elected, sane) president of the United States of America.

[Mr. Bumble]

Because he is a pandering POS.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Because he is a decent, competent man doing his job, which is to operate the government to accomplish good (rebuilding) and address bad (the deadly, costly disaster).

Anti-government cranks wouldn't understand, but so what? No one is counting on disaffected, antisocial, obsolete misfits for much of anything any more. We're just waiting for them to die off and be replaced by better people It would be nice if they would get out of the way occasionally.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Whichever poster dubbed you a "sad, lonely old man, defeated by life" really nailed it!

[BrotherMovesOn]

That's you Bumble; all day typing out one-sentence insults toward practitioners must tucker someone like you clean out!
Have your prune juice and graham cracker and go to bed already.

[John F. Carr]

Normally the federal government does not pay the entire cost of highway projects. The federal government pays a fraction up to 90%.

There is speculation that insurance companies will have a few billion dollars of liability. On the other hand, the liability of the ship’s owner is ordinarily limited to the value of the ship. A new ship in that class costs in the low hundreds of millions. The bridge has been estimated to cost $600 million to replace. According to an International Maritime Organization page a claim limit based on tonnage may apply instead. The result ends up similar, on the order of a thousand dollars per ton for large ships.

[M L]

You know what they say. A few low hundreds of millions here, and few low hundreds of millions there, starts to add up to real money after a while!

[Sarcastr0]

This is the kind of obvious nonsense a certain kind of partisan myopia will make you believe.

[M L]

Oh, right. So he didn't say that? I must have been misinformed. Don't hold out on us, go ahead and set the record straight.

[Sarcastr0]

You made a number of very silly assumptions in service of getting mad at a made up scenario.

[Dr. Ed 2]

ML -- it is NOT an Interstate Highway -- it is technically MARYLAND route 695 so that they can have a $4 toll on it.

IF the Federal government replaces it, regs state that Maryland may not charge a toll on it. And what becomes of all the associated hacks with good jobs at better wages?

And "worse", if the new bridge is free, what happens to the tolled tunnels???

Yep....

[John F. Carr]

There is not currently a legal barrier to having a toll bridge on the Interstate highway system. Tolls on federal-aid bridges and tunnels are permitted by 23 USC 129. I don't know the legal landscape when the bridge was built in the 1970s.

The Interstate designation implies design standards that the bridge might not meet. A ground level highway or short bridge should have 10 foot shoulders on the right and 4 foot shoulders on the left of a two lane section, or 10 foot shoulders on the left of a three lane section. Long bridges can have narrower shoulders.

[M L]

From Thomas Massie:

My district has 250 miles of the Ohio River with 3 dams, city water intakes & a dozen bridges.
The Jones Act requires shipping on inland waterways to be conducted with vessels built, registered & crewed in the United States.
I support the Jones Act even if it’s “protectionist.”

[David Nieporent]

Just another example of how Massie's pretense at being libertarian isn't, unlike Justin Amash's.

[M L]

Not even close.

[Dr. Ed 2]

He's actually wrong -- a foreign ship may make ONE port call on the river, like this ship did. I'm not sure how far upriver it is economically viable (or possible) for ocean-going ships to go, but look at the St. Lawrence Seaway and Great Lakes as an example.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

When better Americans imprison Trump (at Guantanamo, perhaps severe house arrest, maybe a minimum security facility),

(1) are his fans going to send him cards and letters?

(2) is the president going to get some satisfaction from administering justice, or will he feel sorry for Trump?

(3) how long will it take Trump's children to wreck whatever remains of The Trump Organization?

(4) will some of you dumbasses plan to run him again after he is released from incarceration?

(5) who will replace him as leader of the MAGA/QAnon rubes?

[Frank Drackman]

you don't want him at your present abode?
https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
and you need some new material, only thing missing is how he better hope President Rodman-Clinton would commute his sentence.
Speaking of Commutations, looks like Senator Fetterman really is doing better, as he hasn't come within a Light-Year of considering your "Package"

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I lean toward Guantanamo. Easy to secure. Appropriately penal. Poetic justice.

It would be fitting for a convicted Trump to die behind bars in Cuba, grey-haired, non-spray-tanned, isolated, spartan, and flabby.

A convicted John Eastman or Jeffrey Clark, though, should go to a Georgia prison.

[Paladin_44]

Who knows? Perhaps if he kept his nose clean he could get a brief release to compete for yet another club championship...
https://www.dvidshub.net/video/76545/guantanamo-bays-yatera-seca-golf-course

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What's worse?

A pathetic liar and loser who -- in his late '70s, maybe 100 pounds overweight -- claims to win golf club championships?

or

The pathetic, worthless rubes who believe and adore such a deplorable, vainglorious, transparent con artist?

[#FFFFFFPride]

Support Palestine on Facebook?

Expect a visit by the FBI.

https://twitter.com/narrative_hole/status/1773349674495168918?s=19

[Dr. Ed 2]

IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!!!

[#FFFFFFPride]

Idaho just passed a law that made it a misdemeanor 1st offense illegally entering the state, felony 2nd offense.

What legal theory will the Democrat DOJ use to try and block this law so they can keep the invasion going?

[not guilty]

Article I, § 8 ¶ 3 of the Constitution?

Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)? Interstate travel is a fundamental constitutional right.

[Brett Bellmore]

Which people who are present in the country, of course, lack.

[Gasman]

Police tend to use the passive voice when describing shooting someone.
Here is an shooting where the phrase "officer involved shooting" should be played up prominently.
St. Louis cop's gun was stored under his pillow, and his 2 year old nephew gets it and discharges service weapon into his abdomen. Lived after a week in the hospital, and a couple surgeries.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-courts/2-year-old-boy-accidentally-shoots-self-with-st-louis-sheriff-s-deputys-gun-in/article_d5104752-e6f4-11ee-b0a7-f398737f3e5d.html

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, update on an old case Reason made a lot of noise about.

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth:
CRYSTAL MASON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS

This is the lady who, after a felony conviction for instructing people on how to file fraudulent documents, and then claim innocent error if they got caught, was caught filing a fraudulent document in order to vote, and claimed innocent error. Shockingly, the original judge, aware of what she’d been convicted of, didn’t buy the story. (Reason’s account of the case, of course, omitted WHY she’d lost.) Nor did the court of appeals.

Well, the Texas court of criminal appeals decided to buy her story, and the case was returned to the lower court with instructions to be more gullible. So the court went over in detail all the reasons they’d not bought her story, then proceeded, in its last paragraph, as ordered, to be gullible.

I’m sure Reason will cheer this result. Mason’s technique for getting away with filing fraudulent documents does work!

[David Nieporent]

This is the lady who, after a felony conviction for instructing people on how to file fraudulent documents, and then claim innocent error if they got caught,

This appears to be 100% made up. That is not in fact what her conviction was for. Where did you get that from?

[Brett Bellmore]

You have the weirdest habit of just randomly declaring that people have made stuff up, without bothering to check.

Her original felony was tax fraud. Specifically? She instructed people to file fraudulent tax papers that she prepared, and told them to claim that they'd made an innocent mistake if they got caught, that they hadn't read them before signing.

The exact defense she mounted in the illegal voting case!

As a side note: I'm impressed by how much worse search engines have become in the last few years: The last time this came up, I had no trouble tracking down the judges' actual words. Now? Buried under a mountain of non-responsive search results.

[Magister]

Specifically? She instructed people to file fraudulent tax papers that she prepared, and told them to claim that they’d made an innocent mistake if they got caught, that they hadn’t read them before signing.

That is still completely unsupported; who were the other people who were convicted, if they were informed that they were filing fraudulent tax documents? Where is the conspiracy conviction? She prepared tax returns for her clients as a tax preparer; I expect that she told them the tax returns were proper, rather than enlist them as accomplices.

But the fantasy of widespread voter fraud is debunked by this case; nobody would risk a lengthy prison sentence (longer for this than the tax fraud) to cast one provisional ballot that was correctly rejected anyway. Clearer information about whether one is eligible to vote is needed; people in Florida don't know whether they still owe money to the court and it seems the state doesn't know either (or, more likely, doesn't want to know). It's a feature, not a bug, for vote-suppressing Republicans.

[loki13]

So I read something upthread that I wanted to address, mostly because I was there at the time, and it was in an argument with me, and because over time I have somewhat mellowed in my estimation of it.

It's the Brett/Birtherism issue. To briefly recap- Brett was "birther curious" when it came to Obama (which is a nice way of putting it). During a lengthy discussion regarding the overwhelming evidence related to Obama's birth, he finally released a gem of a comment about, how unless he was actually in the delivery room, he could never really know where Obama was born, so that would justify his birther position. It was so bizarre and funny, that some people (yeah, that would certainly include me) would continue to bring it up periodically. He later shifted positions to something along the lines of, "Sure, Obama was born there, but obviously the Democrats were engaged in trying to make the GOP look bad by making all of us come up with crazy theories!"

Anyway, the reason I am posting this is because, while it was (and is) funny, we all make mistakes are say stupid things on the internet. That was SO MANY YEARS AGO! It's fine to own it and move on. Heck, I make misstatements - sometimes it's because I'm typing tired, or angry, or I forget to include something. If someone points it out to me when I'm on, I usually thank them and correct it (if it's a factual error). I've made errors about stupid things too, as does everyone (cue up 57 states!).

In the end, we can tease each other about honest mistakes and/or stupid statements made in the heard of an argument, but we all screw up occasionally.

Which is to say- Brett. I still think that what you said was hilarious. But who cares? Stop defending it (because it was a mistake, right?), and if people give you a hard time about it, remember that they live in glass houses as well.

At a certain point, this desire to always double down and never be wrong that has taken over our discourse is a terrible thing. IMO.

[loki13]

One more thing- I just noticed that the ways that I used to search for past comments (from the WAY BACK) no longer seems to work. Any one else have that issue, or find a workaround?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What makes you figure it was a mistake?

Do you figure his chronic bigotry, antisocial (autistic) nature, disaffectedness, delusion (embrace of conspiracy theories, for example), and disdain for modern America and progress are just transient, or merely missteps, too?

[loki13]

I may have my issues with Brett and his various stances, but I am reasonably certain that he doesn't, as a general principle, refuse to believe in the existence of everything that he wasn't personally present for. In other words, while he can certainly be castigated for his birther-curious position (and his later, "The Dems made us all crazy on purpose" position), I think that he was simply caught up in an argument and said something a little ... funny.

In other words, we should all try to be more forgiving of each other when possible. That was more than a decade ago, and while it was and is funny, it's not like it's a hairshirt he needs to wear.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How many more conspiracy theories must Mr. Bellmore concoct or espouse before you will conclude that, as a general principle, he is a credulous, delusional, credibility-deprived rube?

[Brett Bellmore]

Years ago I read an essay on the importance of retaining at least a tiny increment of doubt concerning all contingent facts. (As opposed to logical propositions, which actually can be completely certain.) It struck me as wise advise, and I try to live by it.

Where Obama was born is a contingent fact, you'll have to be satisfied that I consider his having been born anywhere but the US, based on the evidence, as being extremely unlikely. I'm going to have to refuse to pretend that it's actually 100% impossible.

But that, of course, does not bear on whether the Birthers should have gotten a hearing on the merits. There was a law, the highest law of the land, and there was evidence, albeit crappy evidence, that Obama was in violation of it. That's enough, IMO, to clear the bar for getting that hearing.

Where I predicted the birthers would lose decisively.

[Hugh]

In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned 49 years of precedent in the Dobbs decision, correcting a misapplication of constitutional language in the 14th amendment, and 49 years of continued judicial errors compounding the initial misjudgment. The court was right to do so.

Some day, it is my hope that a future court will have the wisdom to overturn the 2007 Heller decision, which similarly misread constitutional language in the 2nd amendment, reading into irrelevance a whole clause in the amendment. And now we have Bruen and the continuing cascade of crazier and more deadly decisions, lauded by the 2nd amendment absolutists on this blog. The question is how many thousands of Americans will die before a future supreme Court comes to its senses.

[Brett Bellmore]

I assure you, you'd have liked it even less if Heller had put the amendment's preface into proper context, and restored our right to military grade weapons.

You know, when Florida first kicked off the trend of concealed carry reform, back in 1987, there were dire predictions of "blood in the streets". Didn't happen.

As state by state adopted that reform, the bloody predictions were repeated. And repeatedly, didn't happen.

I see you guys still haven't gotten over this habit of predicting that any time gun rights are restored, mass death will be the result.

[Moderation4ever]

I do not know if the Court will revisit Heller. I would like to suggest that what is needed is to amend the Constitution to clarify the language of the second amendment which can be read different ways. I like to see a draft written by a group of legal scholars rather than just having people throw out new language. I think we need to be sure that people can own guns for sport and for self-protection, but also be sure that local, state, and federal government can set reasonable standards to reduce gun violence. That is a tall order, but I think it could be done. While I think it unlikely a Constitutional amendment would pass, I think it would give people something to think about, aleve some of the frustration, and a goal to work towards.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem with your proposal is that, with VERY few exceptions, the only people who don't like the 2nd amendment as written, are the people who want to violate the right it guarantees. And they don't want to violate it at the margins, they want it GONE.

So there's no 'market' for such an amendment as you describe.

If any substantial fraction of the anti-gun movement would be content with such an amendment, you wouldn't have seen the absolutely hysterical responses to decisions like Heller or McDonald, which only overturned extreme outlier gun laws.