Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[darkknight9]

Who wins the Frozen Four?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Overpaid college administrators.

[OtisAH]

BU over BC, 3-1

[Kazinski]

18 Democratic Senators have sent a letter to Joe Biden urging him to set up a process that would result in allowing illegal aliens to vote:

"Washington, D.C. — Colorado U.S. Senator Michael Bennet joined 18 of his Senate colleagues in a letter calling on President Biden to provide protection and pathways to residency or citizenship for undocumented immigrants and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients holders in the United States."

https://www.bennet.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2024/3/bennet-senate-colleagues-urge-president-biden-to-streamline-legal-pathways-for-undocumented-immigrants-and-dreamers

While Congress certainly could do it, absent legislation, I really don't think it can be done by executive action.

Or are they just going to go with the theory nobody has standing to stop them from doing what ever they want?

"Democracy dies with lack of standing."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Notice how there are foreign embassies representing the guys who were patching potholes on the Key bridge....

[Brett Bellmore]

At this point the media have mostly dropped even that euphemism "undocumented", and just say "immigrant" regardless of legal status.

[Commenter_XY]

Now the latest term is: Newcomer.

[not guilty]

“18 Democratic Senators have sent a letter to Joe Biden urging him to set up a process that would result in allowing illegal aliens to vote”

That, Kazinski, is a rank falsehood. (With emphasis on the word "rank".) Have you read the letter to President Biden? https://www.bennet.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/f/0/f0886cde-8e03-4f5e-9508-20a5eca2a71c/3A05A7FB1489D7C76B08E4025391D858.durbin-senate-democrats-urge-president-biden-to-take-executive-action-to-provide-relief-for-undocumented-immigrants.pdf

Nothing proposed in that letter would allow “illegal aliens” to vote. Just run a ctrl-f search of the document for the words “vote” and “voting”. There’s no there, there.

As Ron White is wont to say, you can’t fix stupid.

[not guilty]

If it weren't for red herrings, Kazinski would have no herrings at all.

[hobie]

I thought Kazinski said he was retiring from these boards a couple of weeks ago. Doesn't seem to be happening.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He may crawl back into his Ted Kaczynski-style, off-the-grid hermit shack for a while, but this white, male, right-wing blog is too great a draw for antisocial clingers who can't find many safe spaces for their stale, ugly thinking in modern America. He'll be back.

[Mr. Bumble]

I thought he followed up with a "just kidding" post.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

About voluntarily living like Ted Kaczynski in a backwater shack separated from modernity and civilization?

[Mr. Bumble]

No, about quitting commenting.

[Armchair]

Are you insinuating here that we should create a new class of citizen in the US for DACA recipients who specifically can't vote?

Or are you deliberately ignoring the fact that by granting these individuals US citizenship via executive action, it would give them the right to vote as well.

[not guilty]

I am not insinuating anything. I am saying that the letter from 18 senators to President Biden that Kazinski says nothing of what the liar Kazinski described.

Also, that letter does not propose granting these individuals U.S. citizenship. Lawful status is not coextensive with citizenship. Can you say “green card,” Armchair? And if someone who now is undocumented were to eventually become a citizen and voted, that would not be “allowing illegal aliens to vote” as Kazinski posited. That would be a U.S. citizen exercising his/her right to vote.

[Don Nico]

ng,

Kazinski did not lie. But he did not tell the whole truth.

He wrote "urging him to set up a process that would result in allowing illegal aliens to vote." I red the Bennett letter and admit the phrase "allow to vote" appears nowhere. But the letter urges a distinct path to citizenship, which when completed would result in allowing presently illegal aliens to vote.

Yes, by itself "allowing illegal aliens to vote" is certainly misleading, but it is not an outright lie.

[not guilty]

"But the letter urges a distinct path to citizenship, which when completed would result in allowing presently illegal aliens to vote."

Uh, no, it actually doesn't. It urges President Biden "to take all available actions to streamline pathways to lawful status for undocumented immigrants[.]" It does not advocate granting U.S. citizenship.

And as I told Armchair, if someone who now is undocumented were to eventually become a citizen and voted, that would not be “allowing illegal aliens to vote” as Kazinski posited. That would be a U.S. citizen exercising his/her right to vote.

[Kazinski]

There is nothing misleading about it at all, I quoted Sen. Bennett’s own press release:
“pathways to residency or citizenship for undocumented immigrants”

And one might assume that nothing in that proposed executive order would repeal the 15th Amendment:

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State…”

Its not my habit to go around calling people liars on flimsy grounds, I don’t think its flimsy at all to say anyone that is calling for citizenship for illegal aliens is 100% calling for giving them the right to vote, and anyone that denies that is a liar.

[Armchair]

Indeed.

I'm particularly interested though in the "Citizenship by executive fiat" scenario. What happens if Biden just says "I'm president, all DACA recipients are now US Citizens. I'm ordering USCIS to give them the proper paperwork"

Who has standing to stop it? What happens if they vote?

[Sarcastr0]

Your phrasing absolutely implies it’s illegal aliens generally, and that the main purpose of the process is allowing them all to vote.

[Kazinski]

The first line of the letter says: "We urge your Administration to take all available actions to streamline pathways to lawful status for undocumented immigrants, providing certainty to the American businesses, communities, and families who rely on them."

Who does that leave out? It absolutely is all illegal aliens generally.

There is no other way to read it.

[Nige]

You think a streamlined process to legality means automatic citizenship for all illegals?

[David Nieporent]

There is no other way to read it.

I can think of another way to read it: in conjunction with the rest of the sentences in the letter.

[not guilty]

Kazinski, the March 26 letter -- have you finally read it? -- says nothing whatsoever about so-called "illegal aliens" voting. No matter how often you repeat that canard, it doesn't spook the words off the page, nor the pixels off the monitor.

Don't forget Molly Ivins' First Rule of Holes: STOP DIGGING!

[not guilty]

Kazinski, you described the March 26 letter as saying what it does not say. That is indeed lying.

When you posted your initial comment, were you relying on the March 28 press release which you linked to, without having read the March 26 letter? Yes or no?

Original sources matter.

[Mr. Bumble]

Give it a fucking rest already!

[Sarcastr0]

So lazy, you get pissed off on behalf of other posters who don't do their homework.

[Michael P]

Other commenters who accurately quote the author of the letter, you mean, when one of your red-diaper buddies tries to lie about it by insisting the letter doesn't use the right magic words.

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz

1) Says ‘illegal aliens’ which is a much larger set than is actually at issue
2) Says ‘vote’ when that is not the issue in the letter
3) Does not mention any kind of process, when the letter clearly does.

As ng noted, it looks a lot like he read a Republican press release, and acted as a stenographer without checking to see if it wasn’t twisting the truth.
Just like he’s done for just about every lie Comer puts out.

The ones using the magic words are you and Kaz, insisting that technically you didn’t say anything that was untrue, when you just implied it by leaving facts out.

[Don Nico]

The press release reads:
Colorado U.S. Senator Michael Bennet joined 18 of his Senate colleagues in a letter calling on President Biden to provide protection and pathways to residency or citizenship for undocumented immigrants and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients holders in the United States.

S_0, you should do your homework before calling people liars.

[Sarcastr0]

That doesn't contradict anything I said about Kaz's misleading post.

[Joe_dallas]

Are you trying to be part of the deception

What is the true purpose of the Bennet's and the other Senators proposal? new citizens to vote for the progressives?

Its the letter that is deceptive, Kaz is only pointing out the deception

[Nige]

'Its the letter that is deceptive,'

Prove it.

[Kazinski]

Sarcastro, Michael Bennett (D) Colorado, who signed the Letter says in his press release "provide protection and pathways to residency or citizenship for undocumented immigrants".

I said "set up a process that would result in allowing illegal aliens to vote".

There is no meaningful difference between what he said and I said.

(1)What is the difference between "illegal alien" (the legal term) and undocumented immigrants?

(2) What citizens cannot vote?

(3) I say "process", the letter says "all available actions to streamline pathways", where is the tension?

(4) Are you purposely lying, or just not reading carefully?

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz, you are ignoring the actual letter and elevating a Senatorial press release.

That's a pretty silly thing to do if you know anything about American politics.
Unless the press release gets you closer to the narrative you're trying to push, and you don't care about the truth.

[Nige]

'I said “set up a process that would result in allowing illegal aliens to vote”.'

Yes, you lied.

[jb]

If they were citizens, then they wouldn't be illegal aliens. Why don't you just say "Senators ask the Biden administration to give some illegal aliens a path to citizenship"? That would be the honest if slightly biased way of summarizing the letter; instead you go with an incredibly misleading characterization of it, which doesn't seem like the kind of thing you do if you're trying to engage in good-faith discussion.

[Kazinski]

Where does the letter say "some"?

Read the first sentence of the letter, that says 'undocumented immigrants' without any other qualification.

[jb]

You know, the rest of the words in the letter matter too! It might be helpful to read the whole thing before trying to summarize it.

[bernard11]

Yes, Don. He's lying.

The letter refers to "lawful status," not citizenship.

Kazinski's comment is wildly deceptive, intentionally so.

[Kazinski]

Senator Bennett from Colorado said "citizenship", he signed the letter, is he lying?

I am quoting him. Read the URL, that's Bennett's Senate URL, not some feverswamp page.

It what possible world is it lying to quote a signer of the letter's own press release where HE explains what the letter meant by "lawful status".

[not guilty]

Uh, there are 17 signators of the letter other than Senator Bennet. The latter's press release is not germane to their state of mind.

[Frank Drackman]

The Germans don’t have anything to do with it !

[Stella Link the dog]

The press release states, "In the letter, the senators outline recommendations for executive actions [...] specifically: "

that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security create a process to protect and unify American families;

that executive action be taken to permit spouses of Americans to work while their green card cases are pending;

that action be taken to streamline the process for DACA recipients to change to a nonimmigrant status;

and that the Biden administration modernize cancellation of removal rules to keep family caregivers together.

I have read the letter and those are the recommendations.

You, Ted, are lying.

[Don Nico]

The letter, yes, but not the senator's press release.

[Armchair]

Whoops...you seem to have changed Kaz's words by leaving out some of the context.

His words were "urging him to set up a process that would result in allowing illegal aliens to vote." Not just "allowing illegal alients to vote".

And if that process "accelerated" citizenship for illegal immigrants...it's exactly what Kaz mentioned.

No one doubts that if Biden snapped his fingers and said "All DACA recipients, you're now US Citizens!" it would effectively give the right to vote to all those illegal aliens.

Bonus question though...if Biden did that, would they be illegal aliens, given the executive order goes around the law? And who would have standing to sue.

[Brett Bellmore]

Such an EO wouldn't so much go "around" the law, as it would simply flatly violate it.

[Armchair]

And? Who has standing to stop it?

[Sarcastr0]

Anyone the Supreme Court wants.

[Armchair]

Sorry, no.

[Sarcastr0]

Standing doctrine is a mess at the moment. Especially for executive actions.

You may have noticed from reading some of the posts Conspirators have been making around here.

[Don Nico]

If you don't have standing at a lower level, how do you get to SCOTUS.

[Sarcastr0]

You can appeal a dismissal for lack of standing.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
Tell us how many times such appeals have gotten to SCOTUS. Please name a few cases

[Sarcastr0]

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

It's not an exact count, and will include some that find lack of standing, but there's enough to see that it's a viable option.

Randomly scrolling down, I saw two that look to have taken the 'dismissed for lack of standing and appealed' rout:

Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State

[not guilty]

"No one doubts that if Biden snapped his fingers and said 'All DACA recipients, you’re now US Citizens!' it would effectively give the right to vote to all those illegal aliens."

The word "if" is doing some heavy lifting there. As Cassandra said to Wayne Campbell, if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV9U23YXgiY

Please quote the language in the March 26 letter from the 18 senators encouraging President Biden to snap his fingers and say "All DACA recipients, you’re now US Citizens!"

[Armchair]

I believe the language was "Streamline the Process to Change to a Nonimmigrant Status."

Let's see... If I was a rules lawyer, here's how I would do it. I would institute the "DACA to Citizenship status through military service" Executive Action.

Taking advantage of the naturalization via INA 329 and military service, the program would automatically "enroll" DACA individuals in the US Military for 1 minute, then honorably discharge them. Then since it is a current period of hostilities, they would be automatically eligible for US Citizenship, which would then automatically proceed.

[not guilty]

Once again, please quote the language in the March 26 letter from the 18 senators encouraging President Biden to snap his fingers and say “All DACA recipients, you’re now US Citizens!”

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Armchair.

[Armchair]

" We urge you to take steps to streamline the process by which DACA holders may obtain another status"

[not guilty]

Let's see now. "We urge you to take steps to streamline the process by which DACA holders may obtain another status” means the senators' letter encouraged President Biden to snap his fingers and say “All DACA recipients, you’re now US Citizens!”??

Is that as true as everything else you have said, Armchair?

As the Sesame Street jingle goes, one of these things is not like the other.

[Kazinski]

I linked Senator Bennett's Press Release with the letter embedded.

Don't try to move the goalposts, Senator Bennett's Press Release is the source I referenced, and the quote is:
"Washington, D.C. — Colorado U.S. Senator Michael Bennet joined 18 of his Senate colleagues in a letter calling on President Biden to provide protection and pathways to residency or citizenship for undocumented immigrants and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients holders in the United States.”

That's the source, not just a document embedded in the press release.

[Armchair]

"“We urge you to take steps to streamline the process by which DACA holders may obtain another status” means the senators’ letter encouraged President Biden to snap his fingers and say “All DACA recipients, you’re now US Citizens!”??"

Yes. The Senators want Biden to make DACA recipients US Citizens as fast as humanly possible.

[Don Nico]

“All DACA recipients, you’re now US Citizens!”
Of course it does not say that.
You're not telling the whole truth either.

[not guilty]

What the March 26 letter from the senators to President Biden says or does not say is objectively verifiable. Truth or falsity in that regard is easy to determine.

The inferences drawn from the letter in order to cast it in an unfavorable light are conjectural and speculative. I choose to engage with what the senators actually said.

[Kazinski]

Good then engage in what Senator Michael Bennett (D) Colorado said.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not quite direct, but presently illegal presence in the US imposes a high, and potentially permanent, bar on ever being allowed to legally immigrate to the US, the first step in becoming a naturalized citizen and being allowed to vote.

Unlawful Presence and Inadmissibility

The letter urges Biden to lift this obstacle by executive branch fiat, but the truth is, it's mandated by statute, it would be unconstitutional for him to do so.

Not that they care, of course.

[David Nieporent]

Or are you deliberately ignoring the fact that by granting these individuals US citizenship via executive action, it would give them the right to vote as well.

Are you illiterate or dishonest? The letter says nothing at all about granting them citizenship. (Which, no, cannot be done through executive action.)

[Armchair]

"Colorado U.S. Senator Michael Bennet joined 18 of his Senate colleagues in a letter calling on President Biden to provide protection and pathways to residency or citizenship for undocumented immigrants and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients holders in the United States."

[David Nieporent]

Read. The. Letter. It's right here. The only use of the word "pathway" is in the context of lawful status, not citizenship. Indeed, the word "citizenship" is mentioned in the entire letter only in the term "United States Citizenship and Immigration Services."

[Armchair]

My apologies. That's how Bennet's own press release describe the letter. Not the actual letter itself. Here's the press release for you to read again.

https://www.bennet.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2024/3/bennet-senate-colleagues-urge-president-biden-to-streamline-legal-pathways-for-undocumented-immigrants-and-dreamers

Now, are you arguing under the disingenuous concept that Bennet wrote the letter to mean one thing, but his own press office is arguing something entirely different? Really?

[not guilty]

The text of the March 26 letter speaks for itself, irrespective of any commentary in Senator Bennet's press release.

As Abraham Lincoln may have observed, if you call a dog's tail a leg, the dog nevertheless has only four legs.

[Armchair]

"Which, no, cannot be done through executive action"

Well....can't it? You just need to creatively interpret the law. Here's one way to grant DACA recipients citizenship via a 3-step process which abuses Section 329 of the INA. https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-i-chapter-3.

Step 1: Sit down at an office with a DACA recipient, and enlist them in the US Military. One need not be a US Citizen to be enlisted in the US Military. Pick a branch, it doesn't really matter.
Step 2: One minute later, hand them discharge paperwork from the US Military, for the "convenience of the US government". This will also grant them an honorable discharge. They also have now served in the US military during a time of hostilities.
Step 3: They are now eligible for immediate US Citizenship via section 329 of the INA.
Step 4: After processing their citizenship, the clerk registers the individual to vote. 😉

But you're the supposed lawyer. Perhaps you can find the flaw in this executive action.

[Sonja T]

Not Guilty - Kaz is correct -
The proposal is to convert the illegal aliens status as quickly as possible to citizen, by passing the normal process so that they can vote much sooner than normal - within 1-3 years instead of the normal 7-10 years.

[not guilty]

The March 26 letter refers to "streamlin[ing] pathways to lawful status for undocumented immigrants." A transition from unlawful to lawful status does not necessarily mean citizenship. As I asked Armchair upthread, can you say "green card"?

What verbiage in the letter "propos[es] to convert the illegal aliens status as quickly as possible to citizen"?

And as I have said twice upthread, even if someone who now is undocumented were to eventually become a citizen and voted, that would not be “allowing illegal aliens to vote” as Kazinski posited. That would be a U.S. citizen exercising his/her right to vote.

[Sonja T]

NG - The intent of the proposal is to accelerate the ability of individuals who are currently illegal aliens to be able to vote.

Nothing you have said changes the intent.

[not guilty]

Sonia T, what language of the March 26 letter are you relying on there? Have you read the letter?

[Sonja T]

NG its important to read what is written and look at what is not written in order to evaluate the full context. The letter intentionally omitted the prime purpose of the proposal.

Your responses indicate that you intend to be complacent in the deception.

.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The letter intentionally omitted the prime purpose of the proposal.

What a joke.

Didn't one of your crowd upthread whine about mind reading? But, clearly, it's okay when one of you lot do it.

You guys are so sure of bad faith, you excuse each other's bad faith summaries of letters from U.S. Senators to the President. Kaz lied. You're just carrying water for his lying by making assumptions of others secret motives. Pathetic.

[Joe_dallas]

NV wants to be part of the deception.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Do you guys realize how creepily stupid you sound when you keep saying things like "the deception"?

He's imagining the supposedly unspoken, secret "prime purpose of the proposal." You can whisper breathlessly about "the deception" all you want, but the fact remains that you have to assume this is primarily about voting and not primarily about treating DACA recipients as humans who deserve a path to stability and legitimacy so they can build lives, homes, and families. And that seems a bad bet unless you and your lot assume that the Senators are as vapidly single-minded and characterless as you are.

[Kazinski]

Senator Bennett said “citizenship”, I quoted him. He signed the letter.

That’s not lying under any definition.

It’s really telling that when I quote what a US Senator said about a letter he signed then you call it lies.

How can I "imagine the supposedly unspoken, secret" aim of giving them citizenship and voting rights when Senator Bennett explicitly said citizenship?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Senator Bennett said “citizenship”, I quoted him. He signed the letter.

Nobody would have accused you of lying for simply quoting Bennett.

But your summary was that letter urged the president to set up a process that would result in allowing illegal aliens to vote.

As others have noted above, you ignore that the letter addresses a small subset of undocumented immigrants and that it proposes specific steps to “streamline” already existent pathways to lawful status, but none directly leading to citizenship. Also, as pointed out, if a person becomes a citizen, then they, by definition, cannot be an “illegal alien” who is allowed to vote.

The letter urges these improvements to the immigration process (summary courtesy Stella which appears to be a nearly verbatim recounting of Bennett’s own press release which identifies each of the points in the letter):

that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security create a process to protect and unify American families;

that executive action be taken to permit spouses of Americans to work while their green card cases are pending;

that action be taken to streamline the process for DACA recipients to change to a nonimmigrant status;

and that the Biden administration modernize cancellation of removal rules to keep family caregivers together.

None of these are general changes to confer citizenship on “illegal aliens”. Each of them affect a small subset of undocumented immigrants (or would be immigrants) and none lead directly/immediately to citizenship. All are focused on stability, the ability to work, and otherwise treating hardworking, law-abiding people with dignity instead of as stateless people living in a gray area in which their lives could be upended at any moment.

Your summary misrepresents what the letter was about (not voting rights), who it affects even if the proposals are all adopted by the president (not all undocumented immigrants), and the purpose behind it (not to provide voting rights to “illegal aliens”). You lied.

And don’t come back with anything about how you weren’t arguing the primary purpose of the letter. You entered this subthread to backup Sonja T who made that stupid argument.

How can I “imagine the supposedly unspoken, secret” aim of giving them citizenship and voting rights when Senator Bennett explicitly said citizenship?

First, that is misrepresenting what Sonja T said. Sonja T specifically stated that giving voting rights was the "primary purpose", however, the stated purpose of the letter had nothing to do with voting rights. Ergo, this supposed "primary purpose" is not, in fact, the primary purpose unless it is unspoken and secret.

Second, that citizenship was mentioned and that citizenship entails voting rights does not mean the purpose of the letter was to grant anyone the right to vote. Notably, of all the benefits mentioned, all of which are inherent in legal status and/or citizenship, voting rights wasn’t one of them. Consequently, it wasn’t a “supposedly, secret aim of giving them citizenship” (another lie by you of what I said), but Sonja T’s imagined (supposed) “unspoken, secret ‘prime purpose of the proposal.'”

Third, you are now mischaracterizing my words and disagreement with Sonja T and Joe Dallas which further solidifies that you are a liar. Maybe stop misrepresenting what people say and just respond to their actual point instead of making up points that you think you can refute.

You dishonestly represented the contents and purpose of the letter. If you don’t like being accused of lying, then maybe don’t lie.

[Kazinski]

I 100% honestly characterized what Senator Bennett's Press Release said, he said citizenship. That unambiguously confers voting rights.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I 100% honestly characterized what Senator Bennett’s Press Release said

No you didn't.

he said citizenship. That unambiguously confers voting rights

Not for "illegal aliens."

You dishonestly characterized the letter and the press release.

[Nige]

'look at what is not written'

Sweet risen Jesus.

[Kazinski]

Bennett wrote "citizenship".

It's not unwritten.

[NOVA Lawyer]

That was a direct quote of Sonja T.

And you are working "citizenship" pretty hard given none of the proposals lead directly to citizenship. I realize that's your only defense, but it's an incredibly weak one. But I think you know that. Else, you'd be replying to Sonja T instead of Nige.

[Nige]

It still doesn't mean letting illegals vote.

[Kazinski]

Yes, I was pointing out Sonja was mistaken, it wasn't unwritten.

I'm not working citizenship any harder than Bennett is, he said it, I quoted it. In fact citizenship occurs only 1 time in the original post, and it's a direct quote from Bennett's Press Release. I don't think it's out of bounds to note citizenship confers voting rights.

[Nige]

It also mean it confers legal status. It's not 'illegals voting.'

[NOVA Lawyer]

I’m not working citizenship any harder than Bennett is, he said it, I quoted it.

I honestly don’t believe you’re either that delusion or dumb.

Bennett didn’t write “citizenship.”

The letter never used the word citizenship except to refer to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

The press release said the goal was to provide protection and pathways to residency or citizenship for undocumented immigrants and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients holders in the United States

However, it’s dishonest to take this out of context, which context included the very next sentence which was a quote from the letter: [S]treamlining pathways for undocumented immigrants with no criminal history and deep ties to the United States to obtain parole or a lawful immigration status would provide stability to their families, require them to pay taxes, and to check in with the U.S. government regularly.

The press release said very little about citizenship and, at best, it’s a step long down the line of putting a small subset of law-abiding but undocumented immigrants on a path to legal status that may, for some small percentage of that limited subset, ultimately result in citizenship.

You made one aspect of citizenship (voting) the focus, whereas the original had very little to do with citizenship (other than being a possible end result of a very long process for only some people who obtain lawful status) and absolutely nothing to do with voting (other than as a tangential result of a person obtaining citizenship). And you implied the proposed modifications would confer voting rights on “illegal aliens” which it doesn’t under any honest reading.

You dishonestly characterized the letter.

[not guilty]

Once again, Sonia T, what language of the March 26 letter are you relying on? Have you read the letter or not?

[Stella Link the dog]

The logic:

Everything the Dems propose is aimed at advancing the Great Replacement.

This is something Dems have proposed.

Therefore, this is aimed at advancing the Great Replacement.

[bernard11]

Sonja,

Where did you get your mind-reading degree? Stop making shit up. That's Armchair's job.

[Armchair]

Green Card doesn't get you votes. Citizenship does.

[not guilty]

"Green Card doesn’t get you votes. Citizenship does."

Like a blind hog finding an acorn, Armchair finally said something factual and accurate. Unfortunately for him, those facts don't support the effort to characterize the senators' March 26 letter as something nefarious.

[Artifex]

Not entirely true ....

Consider the situation where you have a state in which there is a large non-voting immigrant population. All you need to do is claim that we need to add additional representatives and we count more than citizens to get those representatives.

This is even better because then they don't have to worry that those immigrants might vote for the "wrong" thing being naive third worlders. Since these folks tend to live in low cost areas controlled by the usual corrupt blue machines, those folks can simply appropriate the votes in the form of additional representatives and you don't even have to worry about niceties like voting by giving additional political power to the enlightened. A nonvoting underclass can be pretty damned useful to the unprincipled.

[Kazinski]

Sonja, there is no 7-10 year process for "undocumented" migrants to vote.

The process is they must return to their own countries and then start the application process, if they are removed rather than voluntarily return, they have to wait 10 years to apply.

[Riva]

What’s amazing is the outrageous overreaction from you leftist totalitarians just because someone happens to express a view you disagree with. A mass pile up of cowardly whiny progressives. Pathetic.

[Sarcastr0]

What's amazing is you think conflating facts with opinion lets you lie.

[hobie]

Some brown people get a path to citizenship, therefore: "Democracy dies..." says the formerly retired Kazinski. Hyperbolic much?

[Sarcastr0]

You do not write like someone wishing conversation, but like someone pushing propaganda.

Or, more likely, you read some propaganda and didn’t check it.

[Kazinski]

I realize you don't like the way Bennett described his own letter, but please don't try to say I'm pushing propaganda by quoting his own description of what the letter is asking for.

He said it, I quoted an entire sentence, the first sentence, so the word choice was his own, and it wasn't out of context.

Have the other 17 signatories repudiated the Bennett press release?

If it's not fair to quote a senator's official press release describing his own letter then what is?

[bernard11]

It's not Bennet's letter.

And asking the other signatories to repudiate Bennet's press release is insane.

Got any more straws to grab?

[Sarcastr0]

You’re picking a secondary source not the primary one, which is already a janky choice.
And then you’re reading that source in such a way as to ignore the word streamline, and ignore the proviso all available means.

These are not the actions of someone who seeks the truth.

[Frank Drackman]

Great! maybe Sirhan Sirhan will vote for RFK Jr.

[Kazinski]

The thing that strikes me most about the letter is not that they are coming out and advocating full “lawful status”, or as Bennett says “citizenship”, we always knew the endgame.

What strikes me is the 18 Senators seem to have decided we are no longer a Republic, but a dictatorship where the President rules by Decree. The Constitution explicitly gives Congress authority to decide “all available pathways” to “lawful status” (“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”).

Yet rather than propose legislation, 18 Senators want a Presidential Decree to do what he has no constitutional authority to do.

They have given up on our Democracy, and they actually should sign a mass resignation letter to go along with the first one.

[Nige]

Wow. Over a letter. That requires a lot of adding words not actually in the letter to get it to where you want it to be. You never seemed to feel that strongly about the guy who tried to illegally overturn an eelction so he could remain in office.

[not guilty]

Kazinski, the phrasing of the opening line of the letter, requesting the President "to take all available actions to streamline pathways to lawful status" (emphasis added) necessarily excludes actions which are unavailable.

[Kazinski]

The action they are urging the President is not available under the law.

Just as they knew Student Loan amnesty wasn't legal but decreed it anyway, and tried to play standing games to keep it out of court, they don't care if it follows the law.

[not guilty]

"The action they are urging the President is not available under the law."

As I said, the March 26 letter from the senators urges the President “to take all available actions to streamline pathways to lawful status.” Available actions and unavailable actions are mutually exclusive. Ergo, the letter does not embrace encouragement of unavailable actions by the President.

[Don Nico]

All you folks are so invested in calling the other guy a liar and implying that you always tell the whole truth.
It's a small case study in American political paralysis,

[Nige]

And you think lying and telling the truth is about keeping score.

[Commenter_XY]

You are so right about that, Don Nico.

[Kazinski]

Well except there was no lie, Senator Bennett said citizenship, and that's exactly what I quoted and linked.

But you are right, it is hard to have a rational discussion, when people call you a liar for quoting a signatory of the letter describing what he was asking for in the letter.

[bernard11]

Do you think Kazinski is covering himself with glory here?

He's not. He wrote something dishonest and continues to offer up BS to defend it, with some help from Armchair.

Look at their arguments, Don.

One-minute enlistments. Asking Biden to take available action is making him a dictator.

Demanding other signatures "repudiate" Bennet's press release.

Claiming that the action the Senators want taken was deliberately not mentioned in the letter.

"Dear Mr. President,

Please do not send US troops to Ukraine to fight the Russians."

"Ah," says Sonja, "the letter writer is urging an invasion of China."

[bernard11]

No one is implying that we always tell the whole truth.

What we are saying is that Kazinski's reading of the letter is a dishonest, partisan, joke, and that the continued defenses of that reading, from him and others, are deranged.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This.

Including in that he pretends that all he did was quote Bennett.

He keeps ignoring that his opening was this:

18 Democratic Senators have sent a letter to Joe Biden urging him to set up a process that would result in allowing illegal aliens to vote.

Not a quote of Bennet or the press release and not an accurate summary of the letter. Kazinski's own words, “allowing illegal aliens to vote”, were a straight up lie. He can keep pretending otherwise, but that’s just a dishonest characterization.

The pivot to citizenship doesn't save the dishonest sentence with which he started this thread.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.mdpilots.com/a-pilots-course

I'm going to say it: DEI caused the Maryland bridge disaster.

One of the things black smoke can mean is a Diesel suddenly put at full throttle. Going to full throttle in reverse is a way to stop a boat, but on a ship this big, you will have angular acceleration from the propeller shaft -- just like with a rear-drive muscle car.

It will push the rear of the ship sideways one way in forward and the other way in reverse. Just sayin...

The Governor appoints the four people who decide who can become a pilot...

[Stella Link the dog]

" but on a ship this big, you will have angular acceleration from the propeller shaft — just like with a rear-drive muscle car."

Gyroscopic precession.

What is the magnitude and direction of this "angular acceleration" and why do you think it would be to the right (looking backwards) rather than to the left?

[John F. Carr]

It's "prop walk", which is not the same as precession.

Wikipedia explains. I can not vouch for the explanation. The effect is well known. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propeller_walk

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, come on, Ed. That's a tiny, tiny effect in a ship that big.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore is now Mark Twain on the Mississippi.

Tell me Bellmore, how does it affect steering when a ship draws nearly the full draft afforded by a narrow channel, the speed is not much above steerage way, the engine is suddenly thrown into reverse, the helm put over, and an anchor dropped. My guess is that question might better be answered by a harbor pilot with experience of the channel than by anyone else. I do understand that a land-lubber engineer might have thoughts to offer.

[Brett Bellmore]

Lathrop, I'm a mechanical engineer. I have a pretty good feel for statics and dynamics, I don't have to run calculations to understand that the rotating mass of the engine and propeller shaft are a tiny fraction of the mass of the ship and cargo, and an even tinier fraction of the ship's angular moment of inertia.

And they're not even oriented so that a change in their rotation would swing the ship around like that, anyway. Might cause the ship to heel a little, or pitch a bit if something forced it to change heading.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sorry, Bellmore. I should have referred to an omni-competent landlubber engineer.

[VinniUSMC]

Failed publisher chastising an engineer for chastising Ed, of all people? What sort of backwards world is this?

SL is good at throwing around big words, but has no ability to comprehend them.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

What sort of backwards world is this?

It’s the Volokh Conspiracy! Where

right-wingers are (and have been) winning the culture war

racial slurs are a good form of communication

our strong law schools should emulate shitty ones by hiring more conservatives for faculty positions

superstition not only improves bigoty but indeed transforms it into something other than bigotry

John Eastman is a great candidate for important public office

the modern American mainstream is a bunch of godless, murderous, overeducated commies

Clarence Thomas is virtuous, ethical, honest, and infallible

Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman, Lin Wood, Kenneth Chesebro, Julia Haller, Boris Epshteyn, Lawrence Joseph, Brandon Johnson, and Stefanie Lambert are persecuted American heroes who were just doing their (righteous and pure) jobs

Alex Kozinski is a respected jurist

South Texas College of Law Houston is a great school

Competent adults advance and accept superstition-based positions in reasoned debate

Donald Trump won the 2020 election — and will win the 2024 election, no matter what

and

anti-abortion absolutism, authoritarian immigration policies, white nationalism, defense of torture, Christian dominionism, special privilege for superstition, homophobic government action, mifepristone bans, and viewpoint-driven censorship are (if properly understood) libertarian positions.

Carry on, clingers.

[Brett Bellmore]

You don't have to be omni-competent to understand this, Lathrop.

The Dali is a neo-Panamax cargo ship, about 366m long, with a loaded weight of 120,000 tons. It would have an engine speed of maybe 85rpm. a prop diameter of 10m.

So, let's pretend that the whole dry weight of the ship was spinning engine mass, perhaps 50,000 tons. (As if. Maybe 10% of that.) Angular inertia of a disk is 0.5MR^2, so about 2,500,000 in ton meter oddball units. Making a point of highballing everything.

We can treat the loaded weight as a 120KT rod. Angular inertia = (1/12)ML^2. 120,000*366*366/12=1,339,560,000.

About 536 times higher. So, if you dumped all of that (Grossly exaggerated!) engine momentum into changing the heading of the ship, you'd get 0.16RPM, or five and a half minutes for the ship to make one revolution. Realistically, it would be more like an hour, and the momentum wouldn't efficiently transfer into an orthogonal mode anyway.

Happy?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I am NOT an engineer but here is what a MIT professor says:

"Most single screw vessels (one engine, one propeller) have right-handed propellers and clockwise rotating propeller shafts (as viewed from astern). Single propellers tend to naturally push the vessel to one side when going forward (and the opposite side when in reverse)—a right-handed prop will push the stern to starboard when in forward (and port when in reverse). Since Propellers are not ideally designed for reverse propulsion, this effect is somewhat exaggerated when operating a single-screw vessel in reverse. Twin
screw vessels have counter rotating propellers with identical specifications."

http://web.mit.edu/2.016/www/handouts/2005Reading10.pdf

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, and the Dali IS a single screw ship. But you routinely compensate for that with the rudder.

The ship lost power, and then was at the mercy of the currents, basically.

And, as others have related, no DIE component to the accident, it was a foreign ship.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Tide that night was only one foot (I'm familiar with 13 foot tides) but I did notice the current running through the wreckage of the bridge.

The wind was also blowing that night.

What makes me suspicious is the bow turning like it did, wouldn't current or wind push the entire ship sideways?

And the PILOTS were DEI...

[Stella Link the dog]

But it was the immigration status of the workers on the bridge (the collapsing one) that caused the accident, was it not?

[Don Nico]

You did not actually expect a retire small town newspaper man to understand that?

[Stella Link the dog]

Are you sure that you have your directions correct?

I haven't checked your numbers, and I am uninclined to do so, but my wag is that the inertia, momentum, and motion that you are addressing is about the longitudinal axis of the boat, not the vertical. That is, I think that you are considering the ability of the prop to capsize the boat rather than exert a force to either port or starboard at the stern (yaw).

If I am wrong, can you briefly explain?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, the angular inertia in the first case was calculated, VERY generously, along the axis of the prop shaft. The angular inertia in the second case was calculated for rotating the heading of the ship.

For capsizing, the length of the ship wouldn't have entered into the calculation. after all. It would have been the same formula as used for the engine, just substituting the width of the ship for the diameter of the prop, and the full mass of the ship.

[Stella Link the dog]

In your analysis, you are calculating the possible angular velocity around the vertical axis resulting from a torque. My contention is that the torque that you are considering is one about the longitudinal axis which has no component about the vertical. If I'm wrong, where does this torque about the vertical axis come from in your analysis?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, realistically? You would never get a full revolution. The ship is running in what amounts to an underwater groove, barely deep enough to keep it afloat (50 feet listed on one chart, however recent, updated, accurate, or uniform throughout the channel), and affording the ship about 100 feet of clearance on either side, if the ship stays in its lane. More side clearance to port, if it is free to veer in an emergency into the oncoming lane, but never enough clearance to turn the ship around in that channel.

You mentioned pitching. Luckily, it takes a fair amount of disturbance to get a ship that size to pitch noticeably. But because they do pitch, ships run aground all the time in water deeper than they draw. If the Dali were drawing two feet less than the depth of the channel it was in, it would be in danger of running aground with a pitch of notably less than 1 degree.

The Dali's summer draft is listed at 49 feet. When vessels move over bottoms that constricted, hydrodynamic forces induced by proximity to channel bottoms or channel sides can induce angular displacements, both vertically and horizontally.

Does knowing any of that make me a useful source to explain anything which happened to knock the bridge down? Of course not. An expert pilot who knew vastly more, and had it ingrained in memory practically yard-by-yard along that channel, with years of experience applying that knowledge to various ships of various capacities in various conditions of weather, was overwhelmed by whatever challenges arose.

I am not competent to critique in the slightest what happened; neither are you. It takes a special kind of foolishness, and a real weakness to prefer rationalism to experience, to jump in like you are doing.

I do have one bit of experience you may not have. Decades ago I got sailing experience on the Chesapeake. Because it is a tidal estuary, fed by multiple major rivers, with water movements also affected by wind, it is possible to experience either increasing depth, or decreasing depth, on either an incoming tide, or on an outgoing tide. The Chesapeake is thus a heavily trafficked waterway featuring freakishly variable bottom conditions, currents, and depth variations. For instance, a north wind can drive more water out of the bay than comes in from the south on an ostensibly incoming tide. Depth change tendencies can persist continuously, either up or down, across multiple tidal cycles.

It was under those conditions that I learned to pilot by day and by night vessels with relatively pipsqueak dimensions—up to 62 feet length, and 8 feet draft. I can summarize the entire relevant burden of that experience in one aphorism about the Chesapeake: There is a lot of water out there, but they spread it very thin. I am willing to grant a harbor pilot could add a lot to that. So should you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"An expert pilot who knew vastly more, and had it ingrained in memory practically yard-by-yard along that channel, with years of experience applying that knowledge to various ships of various capacities in various conditions of weather..."

Ummm, facts not [yet] in evidence....
What if the pilot was DEI instead of qualified?

"The Dali’s summer draft is listed at 49 feet."

Winter, North Atlantic is less and wouldn't it apply?

[Stella Link the dog]

"What if the pilot was DEI instead of qualified?"

Let's assume that the pilot was some sort of diversity hire, sort of like Clarence Thomas, would that necessarily mean that the pilot was not qualified? Is Clarence unqualified on that basis?

"Winter, North Atlantic is less and wouldn’t it apply?"
Winter water is denser than summer water. Winter vessel will displace the same mass of water as the summer vessel.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Plimsoll line?!?

Hint: Bigger waves in winter...

[Don Nico]

“Decades ago I got sailing experience ”
Wow whee! The psuedo-journalist speaks proving nothing at all.

Tell us what the highly experienced pilots manage to prevent? Blah blah all you want, but write some equations and we’ll pay a bit of attention.

[Commenter_XY]

The equation writing will have to come after his other grand project, writing the legal code for lathropistan (the place he is a benevolent dictator, mentally). 🙂

[Stephen Lathrop]

You should pay attention, Nico. Until you do, you will look a fool while demanding equations in place of experience on questions of Piloting, Seamanship, and Small Boat Handling—a book title by the way.

As for large ship handling, every harbor pilot in the nation is probably still trained in the mathematics of celestial navigation, but only because they have served previously as merchant marine officers, or naval officers. None of that matters in piloting. Experience across an immense range of eclectic subject matter, and familiarity with the types of vessels, and the waters in question, are what do matter.

Also, your repeated jibes about my newspaper background do you no credit as a journalist, or as a critic of journalism. No competent managing editor or publisher would hire anyone so reckless as you are to draw conclusions about subjects of which he remains ignorant.

[John F. Carr]

The big container ships normally have the propeller fixed to the engine output shaft. To reverse you stop the engine and start running it backwards. The switch takes minutes to complete. The engine computer tries to moderate throttle changes to keep the engine in its happy zone. There is an override for faster throttle changes.

The crew of the ship is not from DEI country.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The crew was not steering the ship — the pilots were.
New pilots are selected by a four person team appointed by the Governor. Tell me DEI isn’t involved in that…

https://www.dllr.state.md.us/license/bp/bpselect.shtml

Are you sure about no transmission? That means your prop is turning at engine RPM and usually you want to reduce that.

[Nige]

'Tell me DEI isn’t involved in that…'

This is such a whole-cloth invention it's pretty much a lie.

[bernard11]

Tell me DEI isn’t involved in that…

Why don't you tell us why you think it was, you racist fuck?

[John F. Carr]

It appears the power went out and the ship lost rudder control. Unless one of the pilots was playing Johnny from Airplane! it's not their fault.

The engine runs around 50-100 RPM. You could stand inside a cylinder and, in some engines, not be able to reach the top. Direct drive is cheaper and more efficient at the cost of not being good for maneuvering in harbor.

[David Nieporent]

New pilots are selected by a four person team appointed by the Governor. Tell me DEI isn’t involved in that…

DEI isn't involved in that, you racist piece of shit.

[Jmaie]

In order to be eligible to work as a pilot, one has to have decades of experience as a Captain with an unlimited tonnage license. I would feel completely comfortable even should the governor explicitly pick a qualified black woman for every open position...

[Krychek_2]

I was wondering how long it would take Dr. Ed to make the claim that DEI caused the Maryland bridge disaster.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm surprised the state was allowed to build that bridge there:
https://www.mdpilots.com/accountability

They initially proposed a tunnel, but the bridge was cheaper.
And as I noted before, it is NOT part of the Interstate system, hence they can charge a $4 toll on it.

[jb]

LOL, you went from blaming DEI to blaming the bridge from being there in the first place? Hint: the bridge was built long before DEI was a thing and was approved by the General Assembly.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Two words: Spiro Agnew

[David Nieporent]

Spiro Agnew had nothing to do with it. The bridge was started and built after he had left office in Maryland.

[bernard11]

Now, now, DMN.

We all recall Agnew as a spirited advocate for social justice. That's why Nixon chose him, after all. Surely he still had some influence in MD, and no doubt used it to make sure unqualified members of minority groups got appointed to important state jobs, including siting major bridges.

I mean, WTF?

[David Nieporent]

Well, the references to Agnew are typically Dr Ediocy, but in fact Agnew was chosen by Nixon for his ticket because he was considered a racial moderate.

[bernard11]

He was a racial moderate by comparison with his recent opponent in the MD governor's race.

[Longtobefree]

Sadly, the ship also has a rudder - - - - - - - -
Let's go with the Communist Chinese hacker in the ship's computerized controls.

[Krychek_2]

You sure Dr. Ed can't find a way to blame trans kids for it?

[Frank Drackman]

Be honest "Dr" Ed, closest you've been to a Physics class is watching "The Big Bang Theory"

[jimc5499]

That depends on the propeller configuration. On a single prop there is some "angular force" created by the prop. On a dual prop configuration the propellers rotate in opposite directions so that the "angular force" of one prop is cancelled out by the other.

[Commenter_XY]

I don't normally say much, but this time....sigh.

Make the factual case that DEI caused the Dali to take out the FSK bridge. Because your entire discussion thread is filled with 'what ifs' and 'maybes' and 'how about', assorted conjecture, and not much else. Can you just make the direct causal link for me because I am clearly so stupid that I cannot see what is plainly obvious to you.

[bernard11]

Good for you, XY.

I admit to not understanding the technical discussion here. And I also don't understand what it has to do with Ed's DEI bullshit.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What if this represents an actual decline in kids wanting to go to college?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ar-BB1kNhu5

31 percent fewer high-school seniors have submitted the FAFSA compared with this time last year—a potentially missing cohort of 600,000 students. That’s a larger decline than occurred in any year during the pandemic, and it’s disproportionately clustered among schools with high shares of low-income students, the exact people who are least likely to go to college without financial aid. Another 2 million adults, mostly current college and graduate students, have yet to apply for the upcoming academic year.

[Michael P]

What evidence supports that as a significant cause? There's a lot more evidence that the low number of applications is caused by the Biden administration seriously screwing up yet another of the things it sees as core functions of government.

[John F. Carr]

I don't see anything happening in the past 12 months to cause a huge decline in interest in college. I could imagine a huge decrease in fraudulent applications thanks to the new form, like the millions of children who disappeared when the IRS required dependents' social security nubmers in the 1980s. If I had to bet I'd put my money on government incompetence.

[ducksalad]

If the claim was 5% I’d have believed it, there is a decline going on.

However, I’ll bet you that this one is just something stupid, e.g. some bureaucrat failing to post the new monthly updated figures on time.

We once reported to the state a 50% drop in class registrations for an academic year. A senior administrator was confused about whether to report semesters or years.

[darkknight9]

Not all applications are being reported as submitted. And a few of them have to be redone.

And they are a lil behind...

https://kstp.com/world/hundreds-of-thousands-of-financial-aid-applications-need-to-be-fixed-after-latest-calculation-error/

[AmosArch]

Biden is a great President and a decent human being.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Delaware was the first state to ratify the Constitution. Yet they didn't get a President until now. Seems unfair.

[Armchair]

Ooh, are we playing President by affirmative action by state?

I mean, technically, Biden was born in Pennsylvania, and we already had a Pennsylvania-born president (James Buchanan). Remind me to not have any more Pennsylvania-born Presidents...

But, if we're going by state of residence, you're right, Biden is from Delaware. Delaware has had one of it's residents be President. It's Florida's turn now, they've never had a resident (or someone born there) be President. Pretty amazing for the third largest state by Population. It's unjust I tell you. A Florida resident "deserves" to be President next.

[Magister]

Donald Trump changed his primary residence to Mar-a-Lago in Florida in 2019. It's not like New York really wants the honor, given the number of more respectable presidents associated with New York.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I’m from New York. We know him, from way back.

[Magister]

"Honor" was my April Fools Day joke.

[Jumaira]

That explains a lot. New Yawkuhs and their bagels and pizza are the worst species of American.

[bernard11]

Ooh, are we playing President by affirmative action by state?

We've always done that.

[Longtobefree]

And a happy April first to you, too.

[Ed Grinberg]

LOL

[Commenter_XY]

April Fools! 🙂

[Nige]

The right’s long search for a Second Joke continues.

[NOVA Lawyer]

lol

[Michael P]

She has a name, you know: Kamala Harris.

[Nige]

That’s still the one joke. And you managed to flub it.

[Michael P]

To fight violent crime in our cities, we need stronger laws against guns and cameras.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/03/29/girls-charged-fatal-beating/
https://twitter.com/PhillyCrimeUpd/status/1773136075277361558

[jb]

Given that reducing testing was Trump's strategy to fix Coronavirus, sounds like that sort of crime reduction strategy that MAGA could get behind!

[Super Scary]

What does corona have to do with crime?

[jb]

On the one hand, a lot of things if you look at 2000-ish crime trends.

In this particular case, though, nothing other than an analogy demonstrating which political faction is actually interested in “pretend it’s not happening” as a solution to problems.

[Jerry B.]

Oh, come on. Being beaten to death is much more comfortable than being shot.

[Michael P]

And a belated Happy Day of Transgender Visibility to all the world's Easter worshippers.

[Moderation4ever]

Thanks Michael, I suspect most people enjoyed their Easter without even noticing.

On a related note, while sports are grappling with how to handle transgender athletes one sport seems to want them, Roller Derby.

https://madison.com/eedition/page-a2/page_17b7f873-28b0-5880-af69-c1af1e82f9ee.html

[Dan Schiavetta]

I have fond memories of the Raquel Welch movie, Kansas City Bomber. Her uniform was number 11 so as to emphasize her, uh, acting ability.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I first heard about it that evening, after enjoying a nice Easter picnic courtesy of the local Phil-Am association. Man, that lechon vanished fast! Good thing everybody brings a dish to share.

Honestly, we came home so full that we could have skipped making the turkey confit that was waiting in the slow cooker. Well, it will make for some nice sandwiches in the coming week.

[John F. Carr]

John 20:18. Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her, and that his penis was missing.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, this attempt at right-wing outrage ended up not really catching on beyond the fever swamps, eh?

It was a decent idea that the public would think this was a Biden initiative, but looks like that didn't work.

[Michael P]

Not a Biden initiative, according to Very Serious People: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2024/03/29/a-proclamation-on-transgender-day-of-visibility-2024/

[Sarcastr0]

You silly man. It's been a thing on March 31 since 2009.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, unofficially. Anybody can declare any day of the year, "Left-handed Equestrian celebration day", doesn't mean anything. Actually, from a legal standpoint, last Friday's proclamation didn't change that, either.

Kinda tasteless, but that goes with the territory, I suppose.

[Sarcastr0]

the Biden administration has marked the day every year since Biden was elected. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/31/trump-biden-easter-transgender-day/)

What was tasteless was the right thinking this would be a wedge issue and cynically trying to gin up an outrage.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the whole concept of celebrating a form of mental illness like it was heroic is pretty tasteless. What's next, are we going to make Fat Tuesday into "Anorexic Visibility day", and celebrate people starving themselves into organ failure?

[Sarcastr0]

There's an autism awareness month, Brett. Don't be silly.

This doesn't seem like you meant 'tasteless.'

It seems more like you decided you didn't like the Easter silliness the GOP pushed, and decided to pivot to pounding the table to cover up your backpedal.

[Brett Bellmore]

"There’s an autism awareness month,"

It doesn't celebrate autism. This DOES celebrate gender dysphoria.

Yeah, I think the connection between this and Easter is pretty tenuous, actually. I am frequently embarrassed by my political allies. I just think embarrassed is better than outraged.

[Magister]

Reading the proclamation for Autism Awareness Day in 2023, it pretty much does celebrate autism; extolling the contributions of autistic Americans, no calls to cure it and calls to support and remove barriers for the autistic.

Even those who think transgender people are mentally ill should recognize that they have the same rights as other Americans, and that they shouldn't be bullied and harassed. More decades of such abuse, plus exorcisms and pseudoscience, are not going to produce a "cure" any more than autism was cured.

[Nige]

There's nothing shameful about being either trans or autistic, so they're worth celebrating, and neither are mental health conditions. For FUCK'S sake.

[Magister]

Sorry, link was wrong.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/03/31/a-proclamation-on-world-autism-awareness-day-2023/

[Stella Link the dog]

"I think the whole concept of celebrating a form of mental illness like it was heroic is pretty tasteless. "

Are you dissing the Day of Transgender Visibility or Easter?

[santamonica811]

Possibly a thread-winner.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Definitely a thread winner.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett...What do expect with these people? It was not accidental.

[Brett Bellmore]

Easter moves around on a complicated schedule, it's only been on March 31st 21 times since 1600, this was the first time it coincided with Easter since it was announced 15 years ago. Admittedly, if you were deliberately aiming to have them coincide as frequently as possible, it WOULD be either March 31st or April 16th, but I don't think it was actually deliberately timed that way.

What's the most frequent Easter date in 500 years?

[theobromophile]

Easter in 2013 was 31 March.

[Brett Bellmore]

Now, how did I miss that?

Still, I don't think this was deliberate, they don't coincide often enough.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Kudos to Brett for allowing logic and common sense to prevail on this.

Those of you pushing the conspiracy take note, you've lost Brett. I repeat, your conspiracy theorizing is so unhinged, fact free, and nonsensical that you've lost Brett.

[David Nieporent]

The next one will not be until 2086.

[Nige]

'It was not accidental.'

You can see the worms eating the brains away.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why tasteless, you bigoted, worthless, gullible, right-wing rube?

[Bob from Ohio]

"looks like that didn’t work."

Well, that's settled guys. The oracle has spoken.

Based on what data?

[Frank Drackman]

I missed it, did Hey-Zeuss see his shadow?

[gVOR08]

In 2029 Easter will coincide with April Fools Day. I wonder how they’ll blame that on Biden.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Retired federal judge Luttig, and retired federal judge Gertner, (and others), have gone on record calling for pre-trial detention for Trump, based on his public agitation against the the daughter of the judge who will hear his case. I was surprised to hear that after a finding of dangerousness with regard to even one named person, a magistrate is legally mandated ("shall") to order detention.

As a non-lawyer, I find the legal text on the subject confusing, with dependencies and contingencies which make it seem less straightforward. If not guilty or anyone else would care to discuss the question, with reference to Trump's conduct as it has been reported, I would welcome the help.

[Michael P]

Put him on the Group W bench!

[Frank Drackman]

next to the Father-Rapers!

[Krychek_2]

Trump partisans who have been claiming that Trump is being singled out are right, but not in the way that they claim. Anyone not a former president who engaged in the pretrial antics in which Trump has engaged would have been in jail already.

Given that he is a former president I do not favor locking him up as the first resort. I also don't like the optics of having him campaigning for the presidency from jail. On the other hand, there are limits to how badly a defendant can behave without expecting that at some point his bond will be revoked.

[Dr. Ed 2]

So much for presumption of innocence I guess.

I know a defense lawyer who hoped that Ken Starr's investigations would continue because it would reveal to the public the tactics that prosecutors routinely use.

[Krayt]

On the other hand, I wouldn’t rule out the obvious argument he’s being hounded on a hundred separate initiatives because of political opposition where almost none of this would be underway but for that.

Seriously, would some guy kicking back in Florida shouting, “You’re fired!” be getting this kind of attention?

In any case, this kind of thing is why the First Amendment exists, to call out problems with government. It may not be special treatment for him. It may be proving why all the past history was wrongful treatment for everybody else.

And in the rare case of deliberate singling out of political opposition, of which the trial itself may be an example, claims that he should shut his mouth may be part of that problem rather than facetious statements of concern for rule of law.

And now, jail him for not shutting his mouth?

Odd that "optics" of doing that enters into it, rather than justice from political prosecution as the reason not to.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't see what Trump is accused of -- when B Hussain ran for president in '08, he quietly had a lackey pay a bunch of old Cambridge parking tickets. Same thing.

Optics on nondisclosure agreements are terrible, but that's not a crime.

[Krychek_2]

Except it's not a political prosecution. Trump richly deserves every count in the 91 indictments. Again, anyone not a former president who did what he's accused of would already be in jail.

[Bob from Ohio]

The gag order is in the NY case. 100% politcal persecution.

[Krychek_2]

So you think people who commit fraud shouldn't be prosecuted for it?

[Bob from Ohio]

There was no "fraud".

[Krychek_2]

Right, and Trump has no idea what a naked woman looks like either.

[Nige]

'Odd that “optics” of doing that enters into it, rather than justice from political prosecution as the reason not to.'

You'd think there'd be some concern about 'the optics' of him targeting a judge's daughter, never mind concern about the judge's daughter, but no.

[NOVA Lawyer]

A Trump supporter concerned about optics is like a crocodile concerned about table manners. Neither genuinely exists.

And of course they don't care about what danger they are putting innocent people in. In fact, they seem to relish doing so. When someone gets hit with a hammer, that's a laugh line for that disgusting crowd.

[Nige]

It's the people who claim to be 'centrists' of some stripe - bothsideists? - who berate Democrats for 'optics' while Repubicans smear themselves in shit.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krychek_2, I insist it is already to the point where neglect to rein Trump in will call into question whatever result a trial could deliver. Historians who learn these facts in fuller context will be mystified about how anyone could suppose a judge could try the case impartially, despite suffering threats so purposefully induced by the defendant. Even without ability to discern whether the missing impartiality worked for or against Trump, that is catastrophic loss of judicial legitimacy.

That loss has to stop. Apparently revoking Trump's bond and locking him up is the only way to stop it. That, at least, seems to be the consensus among institutionally-minded judicial experts across the partisan spectrum.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bringing the charges was a massive loss of judicial legitimacy.

[David Nieporent]

Judges don't bring charges.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They can toss them...

[Krychek_2]

Stephen, I don't think you're wrong. The practical problem is that anything the judge does -- including doing nothing -- will create more problems, so it's a question of which set of problems is worse, and which is more manageable.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krychek_2, one way to resolve practical problems like that is to ask, “If I make this choice, and it turns out wrong, does it at least afford me afterward the best explanation for making the choice?”

Consequentialist, future-contingent concerns cannot supply any such explanation. To look anything but culpably stupid, those bases for decision must turn out right. That is a dangerously specific bet to make on an unknowable future.

In this instance, only the answer, “Trump got pretrial detention because the law required it, and because the people threatened deserved protection, and because no other choice could avoid hanging on the case a public stigma of deciding under threat.

Except by response with even-handed judicial firmness, Trump’s conduct unavoidably fastens stigma to the case—whether under a supposition of judicial vengeance motivated against being threatened, or under a contrary supposition of judicial intimidation by threats.

Trump has thus laid a trap for the judicial system. It gets sprung if the case gets tried to a conclusion with threats hanging over it left unaddressed. If that happens, then, and forever after, the question what effect the threats had on the case will dominate its place in historical memory.

[Krychek_2]

By the way, supposedly Trump had a conversation with Satan in which he said to Satan, "But you told me I'd win the election," to which Satan responded, "But you told me you had a soul."

[Don Nico]

SL,
You have lapsed into complete anti-Trump hysteria.
Listen to K_2 on this score.

[Jumaira]

You people claim that selective prosecution is not a constitutional problem.

But if a state made it illegal for a HIV+ man to ejaculate into an anus, you would be screaming bloody murder if the statute was only used to prosecute homosexuals and not heterosexuals.

[Stella Link the dog]

That's crazy. Why wouldn't people want heterosexuals to be protected as well as homosexuals? Shouldn't people object if a law's enforcement served to protect gay men but not heterosexual women?

[not guilty]

"You people claim that selective prosecution is not a constitutional problem."

Who has made that claim? Selective prosecution, where it exists, of course violates equal protection/due process guaranties. Proving the existence of selective prosecution, however, is damn near impossible.

[tylertusta]

Luttig, Gertner, and others have lost their minds.

That is all.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That's the bigoted, superstitious, disaffected, un-American perspective!

[Jumaira]

Luttig is a leftist piece of shit who supports gun bans because a 13% killed his father. Instead of supporting eliminating that 13%, he supports eliminating guns for white people.

[John F. Carr]

Niagara, Canada has declared a state of emergency in advance of the arrival of darkness on April 8. Government officials heeded Isaac Asimov's warning. When the monster devours the sun and the creatures of darkness emerge, Niagara will be ready.

[Kazinski]

Nightfall was classic Asimov short fiction, but it takes far less to trigger our cities to descend into barbarism and chaos.

[Davedave]

Like Trump losing an election...

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The Constitution Party might be poised to get on the ballot in North Carolina, having seemingly gone through the ridiculous signature requirements.

But the government will still check the signatures, and as the party chairman notes, the state takes greater care in reviewing ballot-access signatures than in monitoring the election itself.

https://www.wunc.org/politics/2024-03-18/nc-constitution-party-ballot-access-north-carolina-election

[John F. Carr]

New York City created a "Responsible" AI chatbot to give legal advice about doing business in the city. If you've been following the news about AI-generated legal briefs you already know how that turned out. The news mentions the standard disclaimer: "One small note on the page says that it 'may occasionally produce incorrect, harmful or biased content.'"

Mistake of law can be a defense when bad legal advice comes from an official source.

https://www.thecity.nyc/2024/03/29/ai-chat-false-information-small-business/

[Nige]

Mindboggling that they're spending billions on these things, using more power than some countries to keep them going and trying to stick them absolutely everywhere when all but a few esoteric data processing uses turn out to be completely rubbish and downright ghastly. One of the dumbest tech bubbles.

[Brett Bellmore]

The power consumption isn't so much for running the models, as it is for training them. Since they are dumb as bricks, and lack anything like concepts or theories, training them involves feeding them terabytes of data which they do a kind of regression fitting to, so that they can produce results similar to the data they were given.

Basically an enormous effort at curve fitting in billions of dimensions.

Once the training is done, though, the models are fairly computationally efficient to run. Like, could actually be run on local hardware, not central servers. (They'll continue to be run on central servers anyway because modern tech bros aren't into actually selling working products anymore, they like to rent them instead, and retain the ability to render them useless the moment you stop paying.)

The result isn't intelligence as we know it, it's basically extremely advanced mimicry. Like if you spent a billion years of selective breeding to create an insect that would seem to reason like a human being, but only so long as it involved something that had been part of the selective breeding program. Go outside that and it's lost, and doesn't even know it, because it doesn't actually know anything, it's just engaged in mimicry.

The dirty little secret, though, is that this approach is capable of duplicating 99.9% of human 'reasoning', because people don't actually employ their intelligence that much. Intelligence is a kind of computationally expensive error handling routine for humans, not our normal mode of operation. As soon as we've actually learned something well enough to get by, we revert to a lower level kind of reflexive action ourselves, too. (That's why rote is so important in teaching things like math or language.)

The models lack that error handling routine that would alert them that they're going wrong. But for a large domain of problems they'll produce useful results.

Even if they get real artificial intelligence, it will probably work in the same way, mostly handling known problems by reflex.

[Nige]

'as it is for training them.'

They're algorithms. They'll never not need 'training.'

‘The dirty little secret, though, is that this approach is capable of duplicating 99.9% of human ‘reasoning’’

No. Or rather, speak for yourself. One thing this AI debacle has unexpectedly provided us with is a new-found respect for actual human reasoning after years of being undermined by Trump and MAGA.

The other thing is reasearchers in ‘real’ AI tearing their hair out over the vast gulf between it and this.

[Brett Bellmore]

"They’re algorithms. They’ll never not need ‘training.’"

That's your mistake here. The actual algorithm is typically pretty simple. It's the weighting the algorithm applies that consumes ridiculous amounts of computational power to arrive at.

That's why the water level at Hoover dam doesn't drop every time you ask Gemini to write a limerick. Practically no computation all all is required to answer individual prompts, all the work is in setting up the network weights that will produce the 'right' answers when used.

[Nige]

That.. doesn't contradict what I said.

[David Nieporent]

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

[Davedave]

No surprise Nige signs up to the most ludicrous neo-fash hot-take imaginable.

Natural-language 'ai' actually getting to a point where it can do useful things is going to be one of the greatest economic boons in history. That doesn't mean it can do everything idiot journalists and hype-merchants claim, of course. But it will vastly increase productivity among the low-paid, consequently increasing the value of their work and therefore their earnings.

The neo-fash is of course opposed because you can't sell fascism to people who see their lives improving year by year. So they lie about it.

[Nige]

'neo-fash'

Bizarre.

'Natural-language ‘ai’ actually getting to a point where it can do useful things is going to be one of the greatest economic boons in history.'

They're not going to wait until the never-never when it gets useful before firing as many people as possible and letting AI take over and make everything shittier.

'But it will vastly increase productivity among the low-paid,'

Specifically...? Because the way it's actually going to work is laying people off then hiring them back for less to do their old job *plus* fix the AI shit.

'The neo-fash is of course opposed because you can’t sell fascism to people who see their lives improving year by year.'

Oh, your corporate-dystopianism disguised as techno-utopianism is really fooling everybody.

[Armchair]

I was rather surprised by the recent liberal rankings of recent US Democratic Presidents, especially the relatively low rankings for Obama and JFK. Let’s give them a shot with the recent GOP Presidents. Non-Liberals, feel free to place your rankings here as well.

In order, rank the following Presidents in terms of how good a President they were.
1. Trump
2. W. Bush
3. H.W. Bush
4. Reagan
5. Ford
6. Nixon
7. Eisenhower.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I’d rather not opine on who’s the tallest midget.

Those who came into the office with proven success in other fields (in other words, Eisenhower) were particularly disappointing as President.

At least they should be given good marks for not blowing up the world, as they each could well have done. Isn’t modern technology wonderful?

[Bob from Ohio]

You should love Ike. He saved the New Deal legacy, Taft would have dismantled much of it.

Nixon was domestically a New Dealer too.

[gVOR08]

Taft would have had to get elected first. The party bigwigs who drafted Eisenhower did so because they believed Taft would hand them their sixth straight loss.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Of those, only H.W. Bush, Nixon and Eisenhower could talk intelligently about policy (and H.W. Bush didn't really care about it). Which says something about the modern GOP.

[Frank Drackman]

Which one confused the Presidents of May-he-co and Egypt?

[Don Nico]

By his works, you will know him. Biden does pretty poorly on foreign policy during his time as POTUS.

Not as bad a W, but poorly.

[Armchair]

Edit to previous post. Since the liberal posters seem to be unable to rank the recent GOP presidents without having internal palpitations, we can limit this to just the non-liberal posters.

[Krychek_2]

The problem is that "how good" is not defined. In terms of policy, Nixon was a pretty good president, but one then has to ignore Watergate. So, was he a good president for opening China, ending the Vietnam War, and getting the EPA passed, or was he a terrible president for Watergate?

The others all have similar difficulties. Overall I'd say Ford and Eisenhower were pretty good. Not much use for the others on the list.

[Armchair]

Pick your own criteria for how good.

[OtisAH]

^^^ TFW you’re not smart enough to set the criteria for the poll you yourself created. ^^^

[Magister]

"Only Nixon could go to China" because Nixon built his political career on red-baiting. Nixon sabotaged Vietnam peace talks to get elected in 1968. He was surprisingly positive on the environment, but that was at a time of huge public sentiment, and not something that later Republicans kept up, unlike Watergate and other unsavory aspects of Nixon's presidency.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Nixon sabotaged Vietnam peace talks to get elected in 1968. "

Myths never die.

[Magister]

Haldeman, 42, was Nixon’s campaign chief of staff, a devoted political adjutant since the 1950s. In late October 1968, the two men connected on what came to be known as “the Chennault Affair.” Nixon gave Haldeman his orders: Find ways to sabotage Johnson’s plans to stage productive peace talks, so that a frustrated American electorate would turn to the Republicans as their only hope to end the war.

The gambit worked, and the Chennault Affair, named for Anna Chennault, the Republican doyenne and fundraiser who became Nixon’s back channel to the South Vietnamese government, lingered as a diplomatic and political whodunit for decades afterward.

The author of Richard Nixon: The Life details the proof found in Haldeman's notes.

[Bob from Ohio]

Nice fantasy opinion piece. 6 words in someone else's notes. Mrs. C had plenty of reason to act on her own, which she certainly did.

[Magister]

Four pages of notes by Nixon's campaign chief of staff, even if few words were quoted. By contrast, you present no evidence at all for "which she certainly did". Republicans only learned plausible deniability after Watergate.

[Frank Drackman]

LBJ died convinced Nixon had lost the war (he was right) and if his VP Humpty Humphrey, that treacherous, gutless old ward-heeler who should be put in a goddamn bottle and sent out with the Japanese current (HT Dr. H.S. Thompson) had won, the war would still be going on.

Frank

[ducksalad]

Competence: Nixon, Eisenhower, HW Bush, remainder not worth ranking.

Honesty: Ford, Eisenhower, [huge gap], H.W.Bush, [enormous gap], W. Bush, Reagan, Nixon, [unfathomable gap], Trump.

Belief in Constitutional Limits on Government: All absolute zero failures.

Least Damage to Constitutional Limits on Government: Trump, just because Congress and the deep state thwarted him.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not just because of that. He actually seemed to have some concept of states having independent responsibilities, too.

Not nearly as profound a concept as I'd like, but he at least thought it was a thing.

[Noscitur a sociis]

In its own understated way, this might be the most delusional fantasy Brett Bellmore has ever articulated.

[Krayt]

I dunno. The one thing Trump did I liked was declining to become national dictator of Covid shutdowns, instead letting the feds recommend and the states adopt.

This was under the theory that issuing emergency powers to someone was historically bad, because it risks them never giving them up. I don't think that's why he did it but it amounts to the same.

[Nige]

He basically abandoned the states and their citizens and let Kushner fund millions to pals and grifters.

'because it risks them never giving them up.'

When has this ever actually happened? How many people died because of this abstract and massively overblown fear?

[Brett Bellmore]

He basically let the states do what their citizens wanted them to do, rather than what HE wanted them to do. That's the way it's supposed to work.

It's crazy, Democrats simultaneously accused him of being a dictator, and complained that he failed to dictate!

[Nige]

I don't remember anyone asking the citizens what they actually wanted. The dumb and stupid states-led approach was just as much an imposition as a federal-level response would have been.

That's because Democrats aren't stupid enough to think that a national response to a global pandemic is the same as dictatorship. Nobody had any faith in his actual competence, but hey, you dumb fuckers elected him.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The dumb and stupid states-led approach was just as much an imposition as a federal-level response would have been. "

Yeah, no question about that. It was mostly about who was entitled to make the stupid calls, not whether they were stupid.

[Nige]

I think the existence of federal agencies that would have co-ordinated nationally would not necessarily have been stupid, unless Trump really stuck his oar in. Then again he didn't manage to derail the vaccine, so who knows.

[Stella Link the dog]

" unless Trump really stuck his oar in."

And as we know, Trump only has one oar.

[Nige]

Kushner, he has no oars at all.

[jb]

Trump was mostly thwarted by being an incompetent idiot uninterested in hiring competent people who would help him accomplish his agenda. (But yes, the few competent people he hired often thwarted him. I guess we can call the the Deep State as opposed to people trying to avoid breaking the country.)

[Sarcastr0]

He was also sufficiently appearance-oriented he hired non-toadies.

He is not going to make that mistake this time. In fact, he's tied himself to Heritage who seems to have substantially more insane ambitions than Trump himself could ever come up with.

Heritage itself only links to their book which I am not going to buy, but this seems well sourced:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

Highlights "The plan proposes slashing U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) funding, dismantling the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, gutting environmental and climate change regulations to favor fossil fuel production, and eliminating the cabinet Departments of Education and Commerce"

[Krayt]

The second half of that is not new though. Not sure of the first.

[jb]

I think he just didn't understand that job at all or what he needed to do to be effective (or understand that the scope of the enterprise was much, much bigger than the businesses he was used to running so subordinates necessarily had a ton of power and autonomy).

You're right that he might do better with the help of the Heritage Foundation, but he's fundamentally adverse to the type of work and details that it would likely take to be effective so I'm not necessarily as worried about him getting a bunch of toadies who also understand the APA well enough to actually get a lot done.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think his primary failure was to not realize that, in politics, your underlings' chief loyalty probably isn't to whoever is paying their checks. That unless you hire somebody who already agrees with you about what you should be doing, they'll gladly sink a knife in your back.

Most people come to higher office already having accumulated a filing cabinet of people they can afford to turn their backs on. Trump lacked that for the relevant positions.

So the GOP establishment happily fed him people who HE though were working for him, but who were actually working for that establishment. Which didn't like him one bit.

[Nige]

‘I think his primary failure was to not realize that, in politics, your underlings’ chief loyalty probably isn’t to whoever is paying their checks’

He was woefully unqualified in all sorts of ways, but according to you the cut-throat world of corporate politics seems to have left him especially ill-prepared for the supposedly cut-throat world of politicial politics. Too used to being an absolute dictator of the Board for democracy, eh?

[Sarcastr0]

You continue to see every single action someone makes as transactional, and thus based on to whom or what you owe loyalty to.

This continues to be an utter misapprehension of how plenty of people work.

I don't think you do your job based on checking your calculous of loyalty markers. You're a professional.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastr0, in business, every action is SUPPOSED to be transactional. Remember, Adam Smith?

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”

That's the problem with government: It ISN'T transactional! You can hire somebody, pay them, and they may still gladly slit your throat, because they have higher loyalties. Where "higher loyalties" is another way of saying, "you can't trust them".

Business runs on trust, but it's trust that people will do what they're being paid to do, on account of wanting to continue being paid, not trust that they're loyal to some abstract cause.

It took too long for Trump to understand that paying people didn't buy their loyalty.

[Nige]

'Where “higher loyalties” is another way of saying, “you can’t trust them”.'

You mean principles. Morals. Ethics. I can see why you find them frustrating and why Trump was so thwarted.

'It took too long for Trump to understand that paying people didn’t buy their loyalty.'

Paying people never buys anyone's loyalty. It just means they're being paid to do a job. Loyalty is earned.

[Sarcastr0]

I like that you think in the private sector is where you can trust people not to slit your throat.
In business that kind of ruthlessness is *incentivized*

Trump thought he was paying people to be loyal to him, not to the their own principles or legacy or the law or this Republic.

And the real trip is that you deny ANY of those as possible motives. For you, the only possible motive other than profit is owing loyalty to a person or The Deep State.

If you pause for a moment and examine human nature as you lay it out, it's no wonder you think we live in a political thriller. A bad, pulpy one at that.

[Brett Bellmore]

In the private sector is where you can trust people on your payroll to not slit your throat metaphorically, and trust almost everyone to not do it literally.

Government, by contrast, is organized violence, throat slitting, in the sense of actual physical violence, is the order of the day: They literally have people on the payroll to commit violence.

[Sarcastr0]

Your mercenary world does not allow buying loyalty. Sure they're on your payroll, but there's always the danger of someone offering more money, or a lump sum and then you're SOL.

Government, by contrast, is organized violence
Only to you, who believe only in money and force as motivators. Human nature is thankfully a lot more nuanced than that.

And you're inconsistent now - above you talk about government workers having loyalty motivated by force nor money.

[Nige]

'In the private sector is where you can trust people on your payroll to not slit your throat metaphorically,'

Yeah, like managerial and boardroom backstabbing and bloodletting never happens.

Ah, yes, the Trump staffers who kept turning up with their throats literally slit. Not whanged out on prescription drugs.

‘They literally have people on the payroll to commit violence.’

Who you fawn over, in fairness.

[Commenter_XY]

Interesting take on the transactional nature of business (in America, btw) and trust. Don't expect a government bureau-drone like Sarcastr0 to understand this. Expecting Sarcastr0 to understand private business is like trying to teach a dog calculus. You'll show the equation, you'll patiently explain it in gentle tones, and the dog will look at you quizzically, cocking his head to and fro, not understanding a thing, blissfully ignorant, incapable of perception. Then they'll bark madly, not knowing why. You are asking a bureau-drone to do something beyond their capability, Brett.

The flaw in your argument is that business is sometimes not transactional; this is much more the case outside the US.

[David Nieporent]

I think his primary failure was to not realize that, in politics, your underlings’ chief loyalty probably isn’t to whoever is paying their checks.

Um, you have this backwards. Trump thought that his underlings' loyalty was supposed to be to him, even though it was actually taxpayers paying their checks. They took an oath to the constitution, not to Trump; he didn't understand that.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Trump was mostly thwarted by being an incompetent idiot uninterested in hiring competent people who would help him accomplish his agenda.

How many competent people were or are willing to work for Trump? He was limited largely to misfits willing to scorch their reputations forever because it was the only way they could ever get within sight distance of an American administration. How many good lawyers would be willing to associate with Trump? How many sound administrators? How many accomplished, experienced advisors?

[Jumaira]

Yet you have no issue praising Biden who shits his diapers.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Decent, accomplished, educated, civic-minded people are willing, often eager, to work for the Biden administration. Other Republican presidents have been able to hire worthy, mainstream people to populate Republican administrations.

Trump's was the first administration I observed that was restricted largely to contrarians, misfits, religious kooks, discredited hayseeds, bigoted malcontents, rural grifters, criminals, unprofessional (positioned for disbarment, in many cases) lawyers, and unqualified hacks.

Trump is the outlier in this context.

[Jumaira]

Let me guess. You are a Wiccan homosexual who eats vegan fake burgers while letting your boyfriend bust inside you?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are you Prof. Volokh's sock puppet . . . or Prof. Blackman's? Could be either. Unlikely neither.

[Bob from Ohio]

1. Ronnie
2. Ike
3. Trump
4. George W.
5. GHW Bush
6. Nixon
7. Ford

All except Ford in top half of US presidents. Reagan and Ike are top 8 all time.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'd go
Ronnie
Trump
Ike
George W
Ford
Nixon
GHW Bush

[not guilty]

Ranking Prick Nixon in the top half of presidents is delusional. Prior to Donald Trump he was the worst ever.

[Mr. Bumble]

Says more about you than Nixon.

[not guilty]

I cast my first vote in 1974. Nixon is the principal reason I affiliated with the Democratic Party. I decided then that I wanted nothing to do with any party who would nominate a scoundrel like that five times. I have since seen nothing to indicate that my decision 50 years ago was wrong.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ever hear of Lyndon Johnson?!?

[Bob from Ohio]

Arguing with my democrat family about Nixon is what cemented my GOP instincts.

[Commenter_XY]

Bob from Ohio, I had a different ranking, but I think because I emphasize foreign policy. I was much kinder to Nixon and Ford. Disagree about W. He is dead last in that group.

1. Eisenhower
2. Reagan
3. Nixon
4. Trump
5. H.W. Bush
6. Ford
7. W. Bush

[Frank Drackman]

So you were a George Wallace fan, congratulations!

[not guilty]

Where do you get that? I have never been a George Wallace fan.

Governor Wallace, despite having run for office most frequently as a Democrat, is the godfather of today's Republican Party.

[Stella Link the dog]

In 1968 I went to a George Wallace rally in Oshkosh, WI. I never would have voted for him (in 68 I was too young anyway) but it was sort of fun to see him dodging tomatoes and other fruit. He was actually quite nimble.

[Stella Link the dog]

1972 was the first presidential election in which I could vote. Confronted with a choice between Nixon, a crook, and McGovern, a fool, I could bring myself to vote for neither.

[Davedave]

Nixon clearly wasn't even the worst ever. You can make a good case he wasn't even the worst of the latter half of the 20th century, what with Reagan being in the mix.

Nixon was undoubtedly a scoundrel, but he was a clever scoundrel whose self-interest coincided with trying to do a good job as POTUS, for the most part. He's certainly the least likeable of the candidates, but arguably not the worst.

[David Nieporent]

1. Reagan
2. Eisenhower
3. HW
4. Ford
5. W
6. Nixon
​
​
​
321,798,435. Trump.

[Armchair]

Well, that was fun. But, let's rock.

1. Reagan. Reagan was honestly amazing, and managed to do what few Presidents have been able to do. Have two terms, then keep going by passing it off to your own party for a 3rd term. Economic growth, winning the Cold War, Strong leadership, squashing inflation. Reagan has a strong shot at being #4 for President of all of them. At least #5.

2. Eisenhower. Strong cold war leadership, good economic growth. Consistently ranks well, good record on Civil rights. Couldn't pass on the Presidency to Nixon though.

3. W Bush. Really doesn't get enough credit for his leadership (and shift in position) after 9/11. Two terms, reasonable economic growth, knew enough not to make Afghanistan a MAJOR military endeavor for obvious reasons. Cheney helped a lot, no doubt.

4. Trump - H.W. Bush - Nixon: 3-way Tie.

--This gets complicated. May change. But let's hit Trump first

Trump: The first real outsider as President arguably since Andrew Jackson, he has a special personality which makes him difficult to work for (but also the same type of personality that would be needed for an outsider to run as President). Honestly, did fairly well in foreign affair, with new peace treaties in the Middle East, pulling out of or reducing most wars, and no real foreign crises. Economically, he had good growth*. With regards to COVID, Operation Warp Speed really doesn't get enough credit. COVID of course dominated the end of his Presidency. We'll see what happens in 2024, he may come up in these rankings.

Nixon: Another mixed bag, ethically dubious. Unlike Trump, Nixon was the consummate lifelong politician. Had foreign policy successes with China, but also...Vietnam.

H.W. Bush: Arguably a better President than Nixon or Trump, with great success at Gulf War I (Still one of the most amazing displays of American Military Strength ever, and wise decision making process to not go further), but crashed to a 1-term President due to the domestic recession.

7. Ford: There's little to redeem Ford, the unelected President. A high recession, no real foreign policy successes. Mostly remembered for pardoning Nixon (probably the right call). Also nominated John Paul Stevens to the SCOTUS. Wrong call there.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I agree with basically none of this, except your praise of Eisenhower.

(For example, Reagan's supposed success with inflation was really in following a path laid out by Carter who stuck with Volcker and his plan despite it being a huge electoral liability. Reagan was smart enough to know he should keep Volcker and his plan (courtesy of Carter) and was smart enough to know he could hang the resulting recession on Carter (which was fair in that the recession was due to Carter's choices, but unfair in that the plan is a large part of what ended the stagflation cycle and the resulting economic good times).

But what I'm really curious about is this:

Do we still think it was a good idea for Nixon to open up China with Mao Zedong still in command?

[Armchair]

One of the hallmarks of an overly partisan individual is to mark any successes of an opposition president as due to someone else. Presidents should largely be held responsible for their own successes and failures, in my opinion.

And yes, opening up China was a good idea.

[Martinned2]

True, but one might also plausibly argue that Presidents generally get credit and blame for lots of things they didn't really control. But yes, that's a principle that should be applied consistently.

[Brett Bellmore]

Opening up China was justified on the theory that as they got wealthier, they'd chill out and abandon being a totalitarian state.

As it happens, it didn't work out that way, and now they're a wealthier totalitarian state, better able to afford threatening their neighbors, AND our own economies are now entangled with them, giving them additional leverage over our policies.

So, I'd say that opening up China looked like a good idea, but actually worked out very badly in practice.

[David Nieporent]

Opening up China was justified on the theory that as they got wealthier, they’d chill out and abandon being a totalitarian state.

No, it was justified on the theory that they would join the anti-Soviet containment bloc. Nixon/Kissinger couldn't have cared less about whether they were totalitarian or not.

[Martinned2]

Basically. And stop supporting North Korea, and reduce the risk of an invasion of Taiwan.

Mao and the Soviets had been arguing since the 1950s, with massive numbers of troops on both sides of their common borders. Nixon and Kissinger liked anything that could force the Soviets to commit even more soldiers to their Chinese border, because that would take soldiers away from Europe.

[David Nieporent]

One of the hallmarks of an unsophisticated person is to mark any successes or failures that happen during an administration as being to the credit or debit of the president who happens to be in office at that time. Especially wrt the economy.

I'm not saying that presidents are irrelevant; presidents do implement policies — mostly via negotiation with Congress rather than unilaterally, though — and those policies do matter. But they mostly matter at the margins and, especially wrt the economy, take time to have an effect.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Exactly this, David. Well said.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Presidents should largely be held responsible for their own successes and failures, in my opinion.

And appointing Volcker and supporting his fight against high interest rates and inflation was the single most consequential policy choice that ultimately resulted in the booming 80’s economy. I gave Reagan credit for keeping Volcker (and Reagan made some other good choices for the 80’s economy). But you failed to engage at all with the success of Carter in choosing Volcker and the central importance of Volcker in the success in escaping stagflation. I’ll take that as an admission that you are the overly partisan individual you described.

[Martinned2]

Volcker's first term didn't end until 1983, when the key work was already over.

[NOVA Lawyer]

True, but Reagan still gets credit for sticking with him through another term and for not pressuring the Fed to take a different course.

(Similarly, deregulation started under Carter and was also a contributing factor to ending stagflation. Reagan continued, and accelerated, the deregulation started under Carter. Reagan should get credit for this (though arguably he took it too far), but Carter’s contribution should be acknowledged by all but the overly partisan like Armchair.)

[NOVA Lawyer]

3. W Bush. Really doesn’t get enough credit for his leadership (and shift in position) after 9/11. Two terms, reasonable economic growth, knew enough not to make Afghanistan a MAJOR military endeavor for obvious reasons. Cheney helped a lot, no doubt.

He got us into Iraq which was, unquestionably, one of the biggest military/foreign policy blunders since, at least, Vietnam.

That also necessarily distracted from getting bin Laden. And there were 65,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan by 2006, well after W’s administration declared major combat operations over. By 2008, the U.S. was starting to lose to the Taliban. George W. Bush started two wars and neither was a success.

He also squandered the strong economic/budget position we had when he took office by committing to ramping up deficit spending, thereby, heavily contributing to where we are now.

He was a terrible president and is rightly among the least popular presidents to ever leave office and is consistently ranked very low by experts.

He was better than Trump though. You’re right about that.

[Armchair]

Iraq is an interesting question. The second Iraq war initially went quite well, with a rapid conquest of the country and minimal casualties. The major casualties happened in the occupation afterwards.

As for consequences and results, well, it's currently an interesting question. The primary goal (regime change) was undoubtedly accomplished. A small number of chemical weapons were found and destroyed as well. And the current government of Iraq, while not optimal, is not horrible either. There's no more state sponsoring of terrorism. The massive levels of attacks against minorities which occurred under Saddam no longer occur.

From the US perspective, Iraq has come out much better than Somalia or Afghanistan, two other countries that had US interventions.

[Martinned2]

From the US perspective, Iraq has come out much better than Somalia or Afghanistan, two other countries that had US interventions.

Has it? Somalia and Afghanistan are no threat to the United States, notwithstanding the occasional Somali pirate. Iraq is permanently poised to become a permanent ally of Iran.

[Armchair]

"Afghanistan are no threat to the United States, notwithstanding the occasional Somali pirate."
...and the occasional airplanes being flown into skyscrapers...

"Iraq is permanently poised to become a permanent ally of Iran."
Iraq under Saddaam was an enemy of the US. They are not currently such an enemy

[Sarcastr0]

Iraq was a local power at best. They were no threat; they ever counted as an enemy.
That's why Cheney worked so hard to 'fix' the intelligence to make it look like they had WMDs.

Certainly not worthy of 20 years of blood and treasure and war profiteering.

[Martinned2]

…and the occasional airplanes being flown into skyscrapers…

And now that the Taliban have taken control of Afghanistan again, they are much less tolerant of groups like Al Qaeda than they were before. The lesson they learned is basically that they can be as evil as they like as long as it doesn't affect the US or its allies.

(Also, if I understand things correctly, the faction that currently runs the Taliban is generally less tolerant of anything that smacks of a slightly different interpretation of Islam than theirs.)

[NOVA Lawyer]

As for consequences and results…

Funny how you don’t mention the costs.

Financial costs of roughly $2-3 trillion dollars (because you have to count direct expenses and indirect costs like increased health care for and disability claims from Veterans, etc.), which I still think is a low estimate. (VA claims had risen by about $100 billion per year after 10 years….assuming just the years of war, that alone is $1 trillion and probably at least for another 15 after, that’s $2.5 trillion all by itself.) But even assuming the $2-3T figure, that’s over $6,500 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. Did we get anything worthy of that for a war of choice?

Casualties: 4,507 U.S. KIA, and another 32,000 wounded (many with permanently life altering injuries). Did we get value for that cost? Total combatants dead from all participants was between 60k and 100k. Plus, at least 100,000 documented civilian deaths and estimates of at least twice that many and maybe over 500,000 non-combatants who died who otherwise wouldn’t have. Is it really worth half a million dead people to achieve what we did?

U.S. standing and reputation internationally. We demonstrated we could win a conventional war against anyone other than a superpower pretty easily. We demonstrated that we can’t really win the peace and struggle terribly with insurgency. More importantly, we squandered international standing by initiating a war under false pretenses. I think this loss is at least as costly, likely much more so, than the financial cost.

Domestic cost. It created exacerbated political divisions, contributing to our current state of crisis. The effect on the Republican party, recognizing the folly of W., swung in a terrible direction towards isolation and populism rather than recommit to competence and international engagement (sans the warmongering). The American public has become far less willing to support places that need support. Intelligence agencies and the U.S. government generally are less trusted not only because they were wrong, but because they were manipulated by political operators to give answers the politicians wanted. You can argue that is a consequence of W.’s presidency rather than the war, but if they hadn’t chosen to go to war, they wouldn’t have pressured the intelligence agencies the way they did.

On the other side, we successfully transitioned from a horrible dictator who provided stability and a counterweight to Iran into a struggling government that may become a permanent Iranian ally soon and, hence, a worse enemy to us than Saddam ever was. While, arguably, the surviving Iraqis are better off now than under Saddam, I’m not sure they’d say it was worth the costs and, again, the future with their current government is very uncertain.

There’s no more state sponsoring of terrorism Yes, but there are more terrorist groups, including ISIS, operating in and out of Iraq than before. And if they ally with Iran, that benefit will be gone and the situation will be far worse than before.

The massive levels of attacks against minorities which occurred under Saddam no longer occur.

You are ignoring the massive attacks against minorities and educated civilians (teachers, doctors, etc.) and other civilians by insurgents and terrorists that was unleashed by the Iraq War. At best, this is a wash.

From the US perspective, Iraq has come out much better than Somalia or Afghanistan.

Hardly. Unless all you mean is how the current country is doing, not a comparison of before and after. But we had justification for going to Afghanistan and, under Obama, we finally achieved the aim of decapitating Al Qaeda and bin Laden was an actual threat to the U.S. (unlike Saddam). Also, Afghanistan may have turned out better but for the misadventure in Iraq. Somalia is not comparable in terms of involvement or costs and it was a mess before. Moreover, George W. Bush started this one too, so not really a defense of him to argue that Afghanistan and Somalia were even more poorly conceived and executed military adventures.

Iraq was a nearly unmitigated disaster. The Iraqi people might be marginally better off, but the U.S. is far, far worse off than before the war.

[Armchair]

This type of analysis is always misguided by partisan view. Was Iraq 2 the best thing ever? Of course not. But neither was it the worst thing ever.

It's prime comparator here is the war in Afghanistan, especially Obama's expansion of that war. Let's compare the two:

Iraq versus Afghanistan.

1. Cost in USD. Afghanistan cost more (Yes, the math is clear there)
2. Cost in US Military lives. Iraq cost more.
3. Moral imperative for going in: Afghanistan wins.
4. Moral imperative for continuing/expanding the war: Iraq wins.
5. Strategic importance: Iraq wins.
6. Exit strategy / current government: Iraq wins.

Now many of these are close in some regards. But condemning Iraq 2 as the worst thing ever while being blaise about Afghanistan (Especially Obama's expansion of it) is just nonsense. You either need to condemn both as horrible, or accept both as what they were. Remember...Obama had no good reason to expand the war in Afghanistan. Bin Laden wasn't even there.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Armchair,

Setting aside other objections, you are vastly underweighting what you label “the moral imperative for going in.”

There was a direct and substantial reason to go into Afghanistan that, I don’t believe, any reasonable person disputes. The only dispute is whether we should have done more or less, but there is no question it was a just war.

The Bush administration chose to initiate the Iraq war, not due to any direct attack or even direct threat. As it happens, the justification for the war was bullshit. Therefore, even accepting the reasons of those who advocated it (which reasons turned out to be based on untrue premises), there was no legitimate reason to go to war. At best, it was a good-intentioned mistake. It was not a just war.

You can count up whatever costs and benefits you want, but the differentiating factor is the fact that Iraq was a misguided war of choice and Afghanistan was a war very nearly imposed on us (we could have just made a few missile strikes, engaged in special forces missions to try to take out Al Qaeda leadership, etc., but that was not really politically feasible in the face of 9/11 and was unlikely to deter state-sponsored terrorism in the way a boots-on-the-ground war and overthrowing the government hopefully has).

It’s weird you’re claiming this is a partisan thing. W started both wars, again, one after being attacked, the other as a “preemptive” war. Afghanistan is, frankly, necessarily less of a mistake because I’m not sure what other realistic options there were other than to go in.

The costs in American reputation and overrunning international standards by starting a war of choice are incalculable and immense.

You want to argue which war went better. But that’s barely even relevant to my point. Iraq was a mistake because it never should have happened, had immense costs, and very little benefit. That there were mistakes in the planning, execution, and exit strategy only makes it worse. But it was a choice, a really, really bad foreign policy choice. Afghanistan wasn’t much of a choice and, so wasn’t even really a mistake (i.e., the choice to retaliate wasn’t a mistake), though there were definitely mistakes in how it was planned, executed, and ended.

For another example, which maybe will help you see through your partisanship. The Vietnam War (started by a Democratic president) was a much bigger foreign policy blunder than Afghanistan (started by a Republican president), even though, arguably, the aftermath of Vietnam is and in the foreseeable future will be better than that in Afghanistan. The reason is not because Vietnam had more casualties or (assuming it’s the case, though likely it's not) it cost more in inflation adjusted dollars. Vietnam is a worse mistake because we chose that war. We had no direct interest in that war. It was a foreign adventure of choice that failed and had negative ramifications for U.S. standing and credibility in the world for decades after and it caused ruptures in American society that weren't necessary and very damaging. Afghanistan was a retaliatory war. You can argue that it was so bungled it may not be the disincentive to attack us that it should have been, but that’s about the execution of the war, not the choice to engage in the first place. Vietnam was a worse foreign policy blunder than anything done in Afghanistan.

* You say: 1. Cost in USD. Afghanistan cost more (Yes, the math is clear there). The direct costs are clear, though not as different as you imply ($4,200 per US citizen versus $4,000 per US citizen as of FY 2021). The indirect monetary costs (to include increased healthcare and disability benefits for Veterans as well as continuing post-war support for the Iraqi government whereas we are now out of Afghanistan) make that calculation much less clear than you pretend. I suspect that, because far more US personnel cycled through Iraq, the healthcare and disability benefits differential likely outstrips the difference in direct costs. But I haven't (and won't) look for good war specific estimates of those, because ultimately it's not really relevant.

* You say: 5. Strategic importance: Iraq wins. I’m not really sure what you mean. Iraq is and always has been more important strategically, sure. Or, rather, I'm not sure why that somehow weighs in favor of the Iraq war as the "better" war. We destabilized a regime that actually provided some stability in the neighborhood. By weakening Iraq, we may have, in the long-term, destabilized the region and/or strengthened Iran, which has always been a much bigger threat (in terms of directly and via terrorism) than Iraq. Ergo, the fact that Iraq is in a more strategic location means that bungling that war (both in conception and execution) has much higher costs than bungling the Afghanistan War. You’re not even putting the numbers in the correct columns of the ledger.

*You either need to condemn both as horrible, or accept both as what they were. That’s the kind of empty, partisan, deflection I expect from you. I don’t have to condemn each equally or “accept both as what they were.” Iraq was a monumental foreign policy blunder. Afghanistan was a just but bungled war.

They are different, the failures of each are different, and the implications for future U.S. foreign policy of the particular failures are different. In the case of Iraq, they are hugely consequential precisely because of its strategic importance in the region. In the case of Afghanistan, probably they won’t support terrorists the same way and they’ll go back to being a relatively strategically unimportant backwards country. In the case of Iraq, the instability we created could have dire consequences for the future of the region. The Iraq War has already had dire consequences for our standing, credibility, and ability to project power in the world.

[Mr. Bumble]

Happy All Fools Day to VC commentators.

[Stella Link the dog]

My favorite holiday.

[Mr. Bumble]

Because you're a fool?

[Stella Link the dog]

Hardly. Are you mistaking me for a one of Trump's prospective catamites?

[Mr. Bumble]

No, I believe you are one of Biden's catamites.

[hobie]

Now that I live in a hood in Cleveland, I get the happy happenstance of being directly in the path of the total eclipse. I read/heard that all hotels and Airbnbs in 'the path' have been taken and at prices 10 times normal. Sure enough, a lady a couple of blocks over is offering a couple of rooms at $800/night each. Even though I have no furniture or beds in the house at the moment, I've decided to get in on this action:

https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/1123341223222546082?check_in=2024-04-07&check_out=2024-04-08&source_impression_id=p3_1711831782_gqksLdbKFFbZHh%2Bm&previous_page_section_name=1000&federated_search_id=fcebe97b-27fe-4abd-9fe9-be332b3c40fa&fbclid=IwAR1OoZJ39bHrIr4PBYWprJjzOvuRwMHCUfurU_aOmXXlem9pzHUGl6fiq_g_aem_ASJ6FL8p26LNuKYHG4ZZ5RFUPqYR26hKQ6J5mi_zjb8l60m4TTFsDk1aWfwAMz__zHnPzXRwFhNM4Za5vIbml9I0

[John F. Carr]

In some jurisdictions hotels are not allowed to increase prices without bounds. The "rack rate", often posted inside the door, is the maximum allowable price. The normal price is a substantial discount, not a 90% discount.

I don't know why hotels don't set list price at thousands of dollars per night for a room that rents for $150. I have observed that they do not.

[hobie]

In Cleveland the hotels have most definitely bumped their prices up to 10X. And they have already sold every single one. So now it's either my house or the highway, baby!

[Frank Drackman]

that's why I reserved my room 8 months ago, and not in a shit hole like Cleveland where it'll most likely be raining, but San Antonio (just out of the path of totality, so I also reserved a car) 4+ minutes of totality.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd wanted to go camping in Texas to see it, but we'd been right on the path of totality for the '22 eclipse, watched it from our backyard. So my wife said, "You've seen one already, let's do something else."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Must be great to be married to someone who never wants to do something more than once.

This might explain a few things . . .

[Frank Drackman]

Coach, I'm pretty sure for most of your recruits once was one too many.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How does this blog operated by law professors attract so many illiterate, conservative, disaffected bigots?

By design, of course.

Carry on, clingers.

[Frank Drackman]

Only eclipses in 2022 were those loser Partial Solar Eclipses or the unimpressive Lunar variety. Funny how many people who think they've seen a Total Solar Eclipse haven't.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wow. 2017. Well, I am 65, my brain is rotting.

[theobromophile]

The last total solar eclipse visible in the lower 48 was 21 August 2017. That one was not all that impressive: relatively short time in totality (maximum totality was under 3 minutes) and the band of totality was quite narrow. We also had an annnual eclipse on 14 October of last year.

Here's a fun map of 21st century total solar eclipses:
https://nationaleclipse.com/maps/usa_21st_century.html

The 2045 eclipse will follow a similar path to 2017, just wider and 250 miles to the south.

[Stella Link the dog]

"that’s why I reserved my room 8 months ago, and not in a shit hole like Cleveland where it’ll most likely be raining, but San Antonio"

Apr 8 rain probability for San Antonio -- 47%. Cleveland -- partly cloudy. Good choice there, Mengele.

[theobromophile]

In theory, it was the correct choice: the cloud over in Cleveland that time of year is usually much higher than in San Antonio. Playing the odds doesn't always yield the desired result, though.

[Stella Link the dog]

So Mengele may get rained out. Perhaps there is a god.

I'm in Conroe,TX and will be on Monday April 8. We will get but a partial eclipse and it looks like we may get rained out as well as San Antonio. But, If we get rained out, it will be for free.

[theobromophile]

A quick Expedia search shows that the hotels in Cleveland are charging about 3x to 5x normal rates for the night of 07 April. Originally, the extended forecasts showed Cleveland through Niagara Falls having far better weather than Cape Girardeau through Columbus, so a lot of people started shifting their plans to the north. On the flip side, Fort Worth is supposed to get a bunch of rain and the prices for flights and hotels dropped like a stone.

We booked in the path of totality and are paying about 2.5x normal rates. We also paid for reserved parking and tailgating space in a park, so there is that.

One of the things that amazed me is the sheer number of venues – towns, cities, stadiums – that aren’t allowing you to bring food. Now, I’m sure food truck vendors love the exclusivity, but I can think of far better things to do with my time than stand in line for an hour to get chicken fingers for my toddler.

[hobie]

FoodoftheGods, we are about to have a miracle in otherwise overcast Cleveland...clear skies on Monday!

[Magister]

I have observed prices going up by several times for graduation or sporting events in small cities dominated by one university, but listing a maximum rate ten times or more the normal rate to anticipate a rare opportunity like a total eclipse would look really, really bad the rest of the time. And if you can get 10x normal rates, you can afford to have an employee post new rates in all the rooms and back to usual after.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Something about that rate being for people who don't pay.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I live in a hood in Cleveland"

There goes the neighborhood.

[hobie]

Hardly. I might be the only one for miles paying taxes and not on the dole. The sloth and welfare abuse here is almost enough to turn me Republican

[Mr. Bumble]

Hope springs eternal.

[Krayt]

I have extra beds, sofas, chairs, dressers, and the like. You can come by and borrow them for the week for $795 a night.

[John F. Carr]

More examples of South Americans taking president-related misconduct more seriously than North Americans.

The President of Peru is under investigation for graft. Her house was searched. She has a bunch of Rolex watches that she can't afford.

To the east, ex-President Bolsonaro has been criminally charged for falsifying his COVID vaccination status. Last year he was banned from office until 2030.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Last year he was banned from office until 2030."

Over substantially more serious charges than falsifying his vaccination status, which seems to be just piling on.

[SimonP]

Yes, Bolsonaro was barred for behavior more serious than falsifying his COVID vaccination status, but it was a mere fraction of what Trump is known to have done and to have sought to do, in order to usurp the peaceful transfer of power.

Here in the states, you'd be defending Bolsonaro's attempts to thwart an election he lost even more vigorously than you've defended Trump's. You'd be explaining that Bolsonaro's shenanigans were all constitutionally protected speech, official acts, etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

The parallels do seem obvious, right down to social media platforms deciding to censor him.

I said the charges were more serious, I expressed no opinion as to their legitimacy. Really, I haven't followed events there enough to have an opinion.

[Martinned2]

The President of Peru is under investigation for graft.

Peru is quite something:
- The previous president, Pedro Castillo, is still under investigation for self-coup.
- The president who was elected in 2016, Pedro Kuczynski, resigned in 2018 for electoral manipulation. In 2019 he was placed under house arrest while he was investigated for corruption.
- His predecessor, Ollanta Humala, was arrested in 2017 on corruption charges.
- His predecessor, Alan Garcia, committed suicide in 2019 as he was being arrested for corruption.
- His predecessor, Alejandro Toledo, was also arrested for corruption in 2019. (In the US, he was extradited to Peru in 2023.)
- Before that we have Alberto Fujimori (1990-2000), who we don't even need to talk about.
- His predecessor was Alan Garcia again, and I don't feel like going any further back than that.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Imagine you're a civil servant who thinks just like and you're at some DC IRS, FBI, or other agency.

Like Sarcastr0, you believe Trump is biggest threat of tyranny and dictatorship America has faced and his supporters are vile White Supremacists who wish to kill those who don't think like they do.

You also know between union, employment, and general tribal protections there is no accountability of your actions.

A case or file or mail in ballot for a likely MAGAt comes across your purview.

Sacrastr0 will have you believe that the Noble Civil Servant would never do something untowards.untoward.

What do you think these Federal workers do?

[Noscitur a sociis]

What do you think they do?

[#FFFFFFPride]

Throw away ballots.

Raid their homes at 4am with an uncalled for show of force.

Twist the screws on their tax issues.

Delay and obstruct the defense of their case.

Find creative interpretations to imprison or bankrupt them.

If a judge, put the thumb on the scale against the terrorist.

And that's just what we've seen them do.

[darkknight9]

Nothing, they're federal workers! (rimshot!)

🙂

[#FFFFFFPride]

I've never seen a federal worker more motivated than when they're trying to trans a child or oppress a White Christian.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And that's why we need wholesale firings.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I guess that it's natural that a blog operated by grievance-consumed, whining culture war losers would attract an audience of disaffected misfits wracked by persecution complexes.

[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

FOUR (4)

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,
receding 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 beautiful and uplifting.

This one -- which you might have missed somehow, especially if you are not devoting your life to the right things -- is great, too.

Enjoy, everyone!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones moments:

First, for those still celebrating Easter, a Stones-bunny connection.

Next, down another rabbit hole with the Stones.

(Thought I couldn't do it? Two holidays, no problem.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Why wouldn't the cost of replacing the Scoot Key bridge be the responsibility of the ship's owner and Maersk (which leased the ship)?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

My vague, four-decades-stale recollections of a worthless law school course -- I can't remember why I would have taken such a pointless course about a low-grade area of law, although maybe it was a good fit with my work schedule -- suggest admiralty/maritime law as a prospective answer.

[Moderation4ever]

I think this has been covered over and over again. There will no doubt be an effort to collect damages from any responsible party. The reality is that will take years and work has to start immediately. It not uncommon for the government to pick up immediate costs when work has to start quickly and then look for damages to recoup the funds spend.

As for question will the ship owner or leasing company ever pay damages that is for a court to decide. Between now and the time a court case is settled you can expect the ship owners to be looking for way to minimize their liability. Maybe bankruptcy or some underfunded spin off company to take the heat.

[Ridgeway]

Plus there are multiple layers of insurance. There is the liability insurance on the ship, as well as (I would assume) casualty insurance on the bridge.

Another wrinkle that I have read is an old statute that caps the liability of the ship/owners at the value of the ship + cargo.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The 1917 Halifax (NS) explosion flattened over a square mile and I don't believe there was any liability -- but that was a French ammo ship in the midst of WWI. It was roughly 2.9 kiloton and why Nova Scotia sends a Christmas tree to Boston each year (the Boston MDs all went up to help).

The interesting question is the 1976 wreck of the Argo Merchant which was taking #6 oil to a now closed power plant in Salem, MA.
https://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20190118/STORY/912326240

After the wreck of the Exxon Valdez, there was the Oil Spill Act of 1990 but I am not sure it would apply.

The really interesting question involves the pilots as they were in command of the vessel at the time -- and who, exactly, is their employer? After 9-11, pilots have essentially become state employees so you could have state liability.

I think that is why Brandon wants Uncle Sucker to pay for the new bridge, but then the big question is how do you maintain tolls on a bridge built with Federal money (you can't). And a free bridge will destroy the toll tunnels.

Of course, in this case the cargo may be worth more than the ship.

[David Nieporent]

but then the big question is how do you maintain tolls on a bridge built with Federal money (you can’t).

Dr. Ed "learns" one thing about a legal topic — correctly or incorrectly — and then just repeats it over and over again whether true or not. FERPA, this, child abuse, whatever. This is, of course, not an accurate statement of the law.

23 USC § 129.

[Dr. Ed 2]

23 USC § 129(a)(3)(A)

[David Nieporent]

Are you just citing random letters and numbers? 129(a)(3)(A) limits what can be done with tolls collected from federally-funded bridges; it in no way prevents tolls from being collected on such bridges. (Indeed, if tolls couldn't be collected then the provision you cite would have no function.)

[John F. Carr]

The owner and manager petitioned today to limit liability to $43.6 million. They also have $3.1 billion in insurance coverage in case they are exposed to more liability.

https://apnews.com/article/baltimore-bridge-collapse-liability-litigation-16de885948e769566e7181ffa35b1753

Under American law since 1851 ships are treated like undercapitalized single-vessel companies without requiring the formality of so registering them. If it's "just an accident", at least. If the owner has enough culpability the owner's liability is not limited. This is an admiralty analogue of piercing the corporate veil.

[Stella Link the dog]

Just checked and DJT is down 18-19% for the day so far.

Curious -- is anybody here either long or short on DJT?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I heard that the Blue Hill volcano was erupting again.

[SRG2]

There will be an SEC investigation into that initial post-launch pump, IMO.

Looks like a good short to me, assuming you can borrow the stock, which should be doable for a new issue.

[Bob from Ohio]

"There will be an SEC investigation into that initial post-launch pump, IMO."

Of course. Trump is involved.

[Stella Link the dog]

You think that there are no legitimate concerns over this?

I don't know if there are or not and admit it.

As for Trump's involvement in the stock trading, what is that?

[Bob from Ohio]

Trump benefits so SEC will go after everyone else involved. Its the regime's way.

[apedad]

The SEC won't be investigating this though!

Trump Media shares plunge after company reports $58 million loss in 2023

Former President Trump’s social media company plunged in the stock market Monday after reporting a $58 million annual loss in Monday regulatory filings.

Shares of Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent company of Trump’s Truth Social platform, were down roughly 24 percent shortly after 1 p.m. EDT. The price of a share was down to roughly $47 (from $79 on its first day of trading).

But you guys keep supporting him, mmmK.

BTW, did you get your Bible yet?

[Stella Link the dog]

"Trump benefits so SEC will go after everyone else involved. Its the regime’s way."

Pot wise, you're cracked.

[bernard11]

How did Trump benefit?

He's still under a lockup AFAIK.

[SRG2]

There are techniques for eliminating exposure despite lockups using, e.g., OTC options.

[Stella Link the dog]

"There are techniques for eliminating exposure"

Trump's finances are currently under a great deal of scrutiny (and monitoring, to some degree) and his cash flow difficulties are considerable. Wouldn't his meddling in the market stick out like a sore thumb?

OK, perhaps not in Trump's case, given his well-publicized tiny little hands.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Trump fans being bankrupted by foolish investments is fine by me.

[Nige]

Yes. He has form.

[SRG2]

No, fuckwit. A large jump following an offering followed by a sharp decline is almost always investigated by the SEC.

One can of course adopt the Bob approach, that Trump is definitionally innocent of anything and must never ever be investigated.

[Stella Link the dog]

I am not one to pass up a good opportunity to criticize Trump for bad behavior, but it's not obvious to me how Trump has any personal responsiility for the price swings of DJT stock. If there is something about the trading to be investigated, and, as far as I know, there might be, doesn't seem to me that Trump would be involved. For one thing, it's not obvious how he would bennefit from a pump an dump conspiracy.

[SRG2]

It was Sideshow Bob who raised the Trump issue. He might have benefited - there are various ways to eliminate exposure to restricted stock before you're legally permitted to sell - but so too might some of the other prior investors.

If a groundskeeper at a Trump golf course were found to have poured fertiliser into the river, Sideshow Bob would have said it was an attack on Trump.

[Stella Link the dog]

Ok -- I don't think that we are in disagreement here.

[Stella Link the dog]

If I were going to get into this mess it would be on the short side or put options if they could be had at an advantageous price. But, betting on freak shows is not my game.

[SRG2]

I looked at puts early this afternoon...but I don't know enough about the active parties in trading to be confident. Also I get concerned when implied vol is so high - well over 200% for April.

[Stella Link the dog]

I was looking at it but my impression is that there is so much downside potential in the stock price, and this potential is pretty obvious to everyone, that good buys among put options are scarce.

[bernard11]

One-month $49 puts (roughly at the money) are 13.80/14.85.

So you need the stock to decline about 30% by May 3 to break even. That's quite a bet but, as SRG2 notes, it's a pretty damn volatile stock.

[SRG2]

Rough arithmetic: take the implied vol and divide by 16. and that tells you what daily fluctuation is implied by the option price.

Implied vol of 200%: 200% ÷ 16 = 12.5%

IOW the option price assumes that DJT will fluctuate by roughly 12.5% every day.

[bernard11]

That looks like daily volatility based on a 256-day year. Is that right?

[SRG2]

`Yup - there are roughly 250 business days in a year, but Fridays are a little more volatile so traders often assume 260 days, and it makes little difference whether you take the square root of 250, 256 or the square root of 260.

In any event where there's little trading history for a volatile stock, options traders - the market makers, that is - will put wide spreads around a high number. As you probably know, pro options traders don't bet on direction, they bet on vol.

[Stella Link the dog]

"So you need the stock to decline about 30% by May 3 to break even."

Not actually so much. If the price were to drop 15% over the next week, for example, you could liquidate your position and make a penny or two, perhaps a pretty one, as the trading price of the puts would increase considerably. One need not excercise the option to make money.

So, puts aren't a sucker's bet and, unlike when selling short, the downside is known and controllable. Still not a game for me.

[bernard11]

One need not exercise the option to make money.

True, but that's still a big drop. Say it goes to $42. Now the intrinsic value is $7. Meanwhile, time value is slipping away. And notice that this is a thin market, with wide spreads - 7-10% - so transaction costs are high.

[SRG2]

And if the stock has a couple of days of low vol, time value will erode even faster.

[santamonica811]

I did a $10,000 put. I expect it to largely fund my retirement. (Although, I would not be at all surprised to see the price remain relatively stable until the election...assuming no criminal convictions before Nov.)

I think Trump is an awful human being. I get that betting against him/his business is weak tea. But I'm so happy that I get to reify my feelings, which is almost always not possible in regards to me vs people in power. I'll take what I can get. The free money is just a bonus. (And, yes; if I'm wrong, and the stock remains stable, I will have the integrity to publicly admit I was wrong, and will graciously eat crow.)

[bernard11]

Maybe not.

It's hardly unusual for IPO's to jump up sharply immediately after the launch, and then to sink, often to below the launch price, not long thereafter.

[SRG2]

And hardly unusual for the SEC to investigate when it does happen.

[David Nieporent]

The old saying about short selling is that the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. While in the long run DJT is worth $0, in the short run Trumpkins may do all sorts of crazy things; it would be really risky to short it.

[Stella Link the dog]

It's way too much of a freak show to entice me and I'm in general agreement that short selling is dangerous fun. But, short interest in DJT is said to be about 10% or more which is, as I understand it, pretty high, though not record setting. So, there is a lot of "smart" money on the short side. Again, none of mine.

[SRG2]

The smart money can usually find stock to borrow thanks to prime brokerage. The average punter will find it more difficult.

[hobie]

Is there ANYONE who didn't short this stock?

Michael Jackson:
'You've been hit by
You've been struck by
A smooothe pump-and-dump'

[Martinned2]

How would you? I gather DJT is one of the most expensive stocks to short that are out there. (But there are other ways of speculating à la baisse.)

From Bloomberg:

The heightened valuation has made it costly and risky to bet against with short sellers facing annual financing costs of 500% to borrow, according to brokerages. That makes it the most expensive US company to bet against with over $100 million of short interest by a large margin, data from financial analytics firm S3 Partners show.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is long but worth watching
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRJjlDE_Nx8

Tulsi Gabbard would make a good VeeP for Trump.
She's a LTC in the Reserves, which means she can be diplomatic under pressure, but also stand her ground.

[Stella Link the dog]

"She’s a LTC"

So was Custer.

You've obviously not known many LTCs.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Stella, the Calvary now rides in Apaches, instead of shooting them.

Times have changed...

[Stella Link the dog]

“the Calvary now rides in Apaches”

Is that some sort of Easter joke?

Edit:

And just for history's sake, can you suggest how many Apaches were involved in the Little Big Horn dust up?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, she IS sane for a Democrat, and has demonstrated a remarkable capacity, for a politician, to admit when she's wrong. And it might very well peel off some Democratic votes.

And she seems to be running for the position.

[John F. Carr]

On the Republican side she strikes me as less crazy than Kari Lake and Marjorie Taylor Greene, both named as possible VP candidates.

[bernard11]

So she can get over a 1mm bar? And that's enough to make her qualified to be VP?

[Stella Link the dog]

"less crazy than Kari Lake and Marjorie Taylor Greene"

I don't think either Lake or Greene is nuts. Lake seems to me to be a dedicated grifter and Greene as dumb as a retarded Labrador retriever. Gabbard, on the other hand, seems to be genuinely loosely packed.

[David Nieporent]

She isn't. Sane, or a Democrat.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/11/politics/tulsi-gabbard-leaves-democratic-party/index.html

[Brett Bellmore]

I said she's sane "for a Democrat". That does kind of imply leaving the Democratic party; She correctly recognized that she has no future in the party as presently constituted.

[Stella Link the dog]

She's not even sane for a Republican.

[bernard11]

A podcast with Donald Jr. is evidence of sanity?

I'd say listening to such a podcast is evidence of the opposite.

[Stella Link the dog]

"I’d say listening to such a podcast is evidence of the opposite."

No nuttier than watching Cucker Tarlson go shopping. I'd rather watch videos of Labradors licking their balls. Not only would it be more entertaining but more educational.

[#FFFFFFPride]

The State Dept, IC and other narrative creators/cognitive managers for the Normie Democrat have bathed them in existential fear for nearly 8 years.

What does the science say about mental health when a person lives chronically stressed and afraid?

[Nige]

'when a person lives chronically stressed and afraid?'

Apropos of nothing, do you ever read your own comments?

[Stella Link the dog]

I'm not even sure what language they are written in.

[Nige]

The language of stress and fear.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Climate change
Trump
White Supremacy
Christian Nationalism
Capitalism
Russia Russia Russia

[Nige]

'Throw away ballots.

Raid their homes at 4am with an uncalled for show of force.

Twist the screws on their tax issues.

Delay and obstruct the defense of their case.

Find creative interpretations to imprison or bankrupt them.

If a judge, put the thumb on the scale against the terrorist.’

[#FFFFFFPride]

You think believing Democrats are throwing away mail-in ballots from Republicans or creating new fake ballots baths me in the same fear as you are by believing humanity is on the verge of extinction because of carbon emissions?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Based on objective responses both here and in the real world: Yes. Your lot is much more fearful and than everyone else.

[Nige]

You also think climate change is a global conspiracy to enslave humanity, or some such. You’re afraid of literally everything, and most if it isn’t even real, or is real but you both deny it’s real and are afraid of it because it’s a global conspiracy etc.

[Zarniwoop]

Fifth Circuit Right-to-Duel Ruling Draws Praise From Second Amendment Scholars
By Michael C. Dorf - April 01, 2024

Judge James Ho didn't throw away his shot. Overshadowed by (the rest of) March Madness, late on Friday of last week, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals issued a startling decision in Clarke v. Gonzales. Here's the money line from Judge Ho's opinion for the unanimous panel:

Because the State can point to no well-established tradition of forbidding dueling with pistols at the time of the Founding--indeed, because there was a well established tradition obligating men of honor to accept the challenge when the gauntlet was laid down--the Second Amendment as made applicable by the Fourteenth forbids the otherwise sovereign State of Texas from holding Mr. Clarke in prison for one second longer.

Accordingly, the panel reversed the district judge's ruling dismissing the habeas petition of Archibald Butterworth Clarke III, who sought and obtained relief from his state court conviction for attempted murder.

https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2024/04/fifth-circuit-right-to-duel-ruling.html

[Ed Grinberg]

compare:
https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2021/10/05/chicago-prosecutor-mutual-combat-n50587

[hobie]

Nice try. Happy April 1st!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Was *anyone* fooled by this?

[Michael P]

Aaron Burr and/or Alexander Hamilton?

[Absaroka]

Headline: Decatur gang members involved in shooting get probation in plea deal. These were repeat offenders recently out of prison for similar crimes.

I think it's time we get tough on gun crime, and reading Beevor's 'Arnhem' gave me an idea on how to do it: what the Germans did was round up prominent Dutchmen, and if there was any resistance activity they'd shoot a few. We don't want to go quite that far, but since this is Illinois, when recidivist crooks commit new gun crimes we should randomly pick a dozen FOIDs from that county and cancel them. That'll show the crooks!

[Frank Drackman]

the Georgia Decatur isn't quite as lenient

Two DeKalb County men were sentenced to prison Wednesday in gang-related shootings that left three people dead in North Georgia in 2018, officials said.

Shabazz Larry Guidry, 29, of Decatur, pleaded guilty to violating Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and was sentenced to 20 years, plus four years of supervised release. Robert Maurice Carlisle, 37, of Lithonia, pleaded guilty to the same charge and was sentenced to 15 years, followed by four years of supervised release.

Frank

[Jerry B.]

Racists.

[not guilty]

It looks like Donald Trump will be required to attend every part of his trial in Manhattan beginning two weeks from today. N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 340.50 provides:

1. Except as provided in subdivision two or three, a defendant must be personally present during the trial.

2. On motion of a defendant represented by counsel, the court may, in the absence of an objection by the people, issue an order dispensing with the requirement that the defendant be personally present at trial. Such an order may be made only upon the filing of a written and subscribed statement by the defendant declaring that he waives his right to be personally present at the trial and authorizing his attorney to conduct his defense.

3. A defendant who conducts himself in so disorderly and disruptive a manner that his trial cannot be carried on with him in the courtroom may be removed from the courtroom if, after he has been warned by the court that he will be removed if he continues such conduct, he continues to engage in such conduct.

[#FFFFFFPride]

No one cares what you unrepentant White supremacists think.

[darkknight9]

Unless... this? (Unless its already been tried?)

"...the court may, in the absence of an objection by the people, issue an order dispensing with the requirement that the defendant be personally present at trial."

As an aside, can video appearances count?

[Mr. Bumble]

...and why would "the people" raise an objection if the defense brought a motion described in #2 above?
I guess you don't think making the presumed Republican candidate for president appear in court every day on a bogus case (passed over by the previous DA and the SDNY) appears to be an attempt at interfering with an election.

[not guilty]

“[W]hy would ‘the people’ raise an objection if the defense brought a motion described in #2 above?”

Because Donald Trump’s continued presence in the courtroom will be u helpful to his defense. The man has problems with self control, and his temperament is mercurical. And because Trump while sitting in the courtroom is less able to poison the well by spouting off to the media.

Even if the prosecution raises no objection, whether the court will accept a proposed waiver of Trump’s presence is discretionary. I surmise that Judge Merchan will want to keep Trump on a short leash.

[not guilty]

"u helpful" should have been "unhelpful." I didn't catch the typo in time to edit the comment.

[David Nieporent]

I surmise that Judge Merchan will want to keep Trump on a short leash.

Given Trump's insane behavior over the last week, probably.

Also, the default is that the defendant is present; is there some reason his sycophants think he should be given special treatment?

[Commenter_XY]

Suppose Candidate Trump says* to the judge, "Sorry Your Honor, I am running for POTUS. My totally capable lawyer has got this. Call me if you need me. I'll testify in my own defense if I need to. In the meantime, I have an election to win. Adios." -- then what?

*note: I don't think that would ever happen. Not in a criminal case.

The law is the law. If NY law requires the defendant to be physically present for trial, then POTUS Trump must be there in person.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Then the judge asks law enforcement personnel to help Trump find his seat. And stay in it unless and until the judge decides otherwise. Secret Service agents, who answer to the government rather than to Trump, likely would encourage Trump to comply and certainly (if they wish to keep their jobs) refrain from interfering with the judge’s directives.

[OtisAH]

There is no “POTUS Turnip.”

[Mr. Bumble]

...at least not yet.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Based on the provisions you cite, maybe Trump can be forcibly kept in the courtroom, if he’s not granted a discretionary exemption. However, I would imagine that a judge generally can't exercise his/her discretionary powers to discriminate against people for what they say:

“And because Trump while sitting in the courtroom is less able to poison the well by spouting off to the media.”

I’m no Floyd Abrams, but this sounds like an unconstitutional motivation.

[OtisAH]

Somehow you fail to consider that Turnip’s behavior in court will almost certainly have him removed from court within the first couple of days regardless.

[not guilty]

A trial court has considerable discretion in dealing with an obstreperous defendant. The constitutionally permissible options include: (1) bind and gag him, thereby keeping him present; (2) cite him for contempt; (3) take him out of the courtroom until he promises to conduct himself properly. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 343-44 (1970).

In People v. Palermo, 32 N.Y.2d 222, 298 N.E.2d 61 (N.Y. 1973), the New York Court of Appeals upheld the conviction whom the trial court had ordered that the defendant be gagged, in the presence of the jury, during the prosecuting attorney's summation.

[OtisAH]

Well, “contempt” doesn’t bother the guy whose main personality trait is contempt. And maybe Merchan is the guy to find Tirnip in contempt, it’s more likely that he will just keep feeding him rope and hoping Turnip hangs himself with it some day. And as entertaining as the thought of seeing Turnip literally bound and gagged in the courtroom sounds, I hope you’re not putting too many eggs in that basket.

My guess based on past results is that Turnip will attend, act the fool, and Merchan will keep hurling threats about what will happen if he keeps it up, which he will. At most he’ll be kicked out of the court during the trial, which may or may not suit Turnip. We also know he likes to be there because he thinks he’s intimidating.

[#FFFFFFPride]

This is what people like Sacrastr0 are doing in our Federal Government.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/conservative-group-says-its-existence-is-threatened-by-irs-targeting-of-conservative-organization

Targeting and oppressing conservatives, all in the name of “protecting Democracy”.

If I saw a Federal worker on fire in a ditch, the most I could muster would be to piss on them. Otherwise, I'd point and chuckle, maybe giggle a little.

P.S. I am fully aware that I could expect some Democrats at the FBI to try and unmask me and pay me a visit. Like they have been doing lately.

[Brett Bellmore]

Isn't this almost exactly what prompted the Citizens United ruling?

[#FFFFFFPride]

CU was over a provision in McCain Feingold that restricted advertising (or something like that) near an election.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, advertising a documentary about Hillary Clinton. Where the government claimed the power to ban as electioneering anything that mentioned a candidate for public office.

So, here they are targeting journalists who dare to report on...Hillary Clinton! For engaging in electioneering.

Seems to me like CU redux. The fact pattern is damned near identical.

[tylertusta]

If this makes it front of SCOTUS, perhaps we won't get the government saying they can ban books. Twice.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It has been reported that Israel killed five terrorists culinary humanitarians associated with chef Jose Andres’ heroic anti-hunger operation by bombing their tank armored personnel carrier relief vehicle in Gaza. The combatants kitchen staff members Israel killed were reportedly from Poland, Austria, and Britain.

It also is being reported that Prime Minister Netanyahu is preparing — with help from right-wing authoritarians who arranging enabling legislation — to censor Al Jazeera in Israel, in particular forbidding newsgatherers to report from Israel.

It also is being reported that Israel killed a number of Iranian military leaders with a missile that landed in a war zone on an Iranian consulate in Syria.

Tick tock, tick tock. How long before better Americans stop permitting military aid transfers to Israel’s lethal, bigoted, ungrateful, right-wing belligerents?. I wish there were a market at which one could short Israel’s right-wing assholes in general and American subsidization of Israel in particular.

[Commenter_XY]

Israel needs to kill Hamas members faster. We can help.

Israel is doing quite nicely hunting down Hamas members (and their supporters) abroad; see recent explosion in Syria taking out an entire building between the Iranian and Canadian consulates (without harming either consulate). Nice shot. We can help.

Hamas is holding Americans hostage, Arthur. And killed Americans in a particularly sadistic and cruel manner. I am fine with killing every Hamas member we can get our hands on until we get our people back.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Let’s trade Israel for the Americans being held hostage.

[Estragon]

Surely people working for the celebrity chef’s NGO are not considered Hamas? Or is there some transitive property at work here?

[Estragon]

IDF: “ [we are] conducting a thorough review at the highest levels to understand the circumstances of this tragic incident.”

One American killed, reportedly

[Commenter_XY]

That is sad. There are people, who despite the best intentions and efforts to do the right thing, die in a war zone. That happened here, evidently. We'll know soon enough.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Show your evidence, admit you don’t know what evidently means, or confirm you are a liar.

[Nige]

Commenter_Ali

[NvEric]

Tick tock, tick tock, tick you're alive, tock ... well ... it was a good life .. a few regrets however, tick tock, tick tock ... .

In between tick and tock eons can pass, unnoticed, quietly, not a sound, leaves may rustle ... somewhere, but maybe not ... tick tock, tick tock, enduring time for those aware, sadness brings relief as nothingness troubles all, tick tock, tick tock ...

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/04/u-s-navy-submarine-first-in-world-fitted-with-silent-caterpillar-drive/

Montana will remain unseen.

[Absaroka]

Have they fixed the intermittent rumble problem?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Comes up once a year.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"USS Montana is expected to undergo sea trials on the Penobscot River in Maine. This will make it more difficult for the Russian Navy to observe the tests."

I almost fell out of my chair laughing at that line in the movie -- at the time there was the Brunswick Naval Air Station that had P3-Orions flying out across the Atlantic looking for Soviet subs (and dropping sonar bouys), the East Coast VLF transmitter that talked to US subs in Cutler, and the Maine Air Guard flying KC-135 tankers out of what was Dow AFB (then/now Bangor International Airport) at head tide on the Penobscot.

Nope. Nothing that the Soviets would be paying attention to within 100 miles. And this isn't mentioning the USCG in Rockland or the Bath Iron Works shipyard in Bath (on the Kennebec River but close) or a few other things...

[Michael P]

The evil San Francisco socialist regime does not require permits to camp on public sidewalks, but will require permits to keep the sidewalk free of tents.

https://sfstandard.com/2024/03/28/planters-permit-residents-outraged/

[Martinned2]

Scotland might get rid of the Scottish verdict:

The inquiry unanimously agreed that the centuries-old not-proven verdict should be scrapped, arguing it had no accepted legal definition and there was no reason to retain it, despite it being a “historical feature” of the Scottish criminal justice system.

It said the verdict can have a “devastating impact” on victims and leave a “lingering stigma” for the accused. In addition, the committee said not-proven “may encourage juries to sit on the fence during their deliberations”.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/29/holyrood-inquiry-backs-end-of-not-proven-verdicts/

[David Nieporent]

…Arlen Specter hardest hit.

[Martinned2]

Interesting difference between English and American law, in the context of various LIBOR fraud trials:

In accordance with US law, the court in Connolly and Black had treated the interpretation of the obligations under the Libor code as an issue of fact for the jury. This meant that the prosecution in each trial had to call sufficient evidence to satisfy the jury that Libor could not be reasonably interpreted as allowing commercial advantage.

By contrast, in English law it is well-established that the interpretation of commercial contracts or regulatory documents resembling legislation is an issue of law for a judge to determine. So the decision in Connolly and Black did not cast doubt on the correctness of the previous decisions of the Court of Appeal as a matter of English law.

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/who-has-the-last-word

[OtisAH]

Apparently Donald Turnip Jr. has been allocated zero shares of the soon to be worthless DJT stocks. This leads me to believe that perhaps Daddy Turnip really does love his son regardless of all appearances.

That’s belated April Fool’s. It actually makes it more clear than anything that Turnip despises Junior.

[Martinned2]

What makes you think that DJT will soon be worthless? Bitcoin is at an all-time high, and DJT has a much more coherent theory of why people might invest in it. (In addition to Bitcoin-style gambling, it's a desire to signal support for Donald Trump.)

[OtisAH]

Geez, sorry you got suckered into buying some. The best time to get out was Friday. The next best is as soon as you can call your broker.

As to why? No reason beyond the fact the business is worthless with no positive outlook in sight. Truth Social is little more than Turnip’s public diary and ragelist. And his brand isn’t getting stronger. If they went public *after* the earnings report — which, boy, how lucky was that?! — this wouldn’t even be a question. Which it still isn’t.

[Martinned2]

Beyond the occasional visit to the bookie, I don't gamble. So I don't go near Bitcoin or meme stocks myself. But you seem to be confusing the concept of worthless as in: "this asset has no underlying value" with worthless as in: "no one is willing to pay a non-zero price for this asset". Both Bitcoin and DJT will continue to attract willing buyers for some time to come even though neither has any real underlying value, whether you and I like it or not. As the saying goes, there's a sucker born every day.

The fact that Donald Trump's social media company has the revenues of a mildly successful Substack newsletter and a bottom line that's dark red doesn't change that. People don't buy shares in DJT because they want a piece of its future profits. They buy shares in DJT to show that they are loyal, and/or as a creative (campaign) donation to Donald Trump. It's basically the same reason why anyone would buy Donald Trump's bible or Donald Trump's golden trainers. No one who has a serious interest in bible study or footwear would buy that stuff. You buy it to show your loyalty to the cult, and to send Trump the money he so desperately needs to fight off the evil lawfare and win re-election.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I was wrong when I indicated Israel had killed five food relief volunteers by bombing their minivan in Gaza.

More recent accounts identify the number of innocents killed by Israel to be seven. Israel stopped their heroic work, and has apparently inclined Jose Andres to suspend his humanitarian work in Gaza, but at what cost?

With all Israel's enemies, who would have figured Prime Minister Netanyahu would be the person most responsible for Israel's fall?

Israel's final days as a superstition-driven, bigoted, parasitic, immoral and belligerent right-wing nation approach at a steady pace.

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

[ReaderY]

Have you ever fought in a war? Did you never make a mistake or miss your target?

[Martinned2]

Clearly:

Video shows California police fatally shooting teenager who was reported kidnapped

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/01/california-police-video-shooting-15-year-old-girl-savannah-graziano

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Israel has been engaged in nearly indiscriminate bombing and killing for months. It has been reportedly than more than half the homes in Gaza -- perhaps substantially more than half -- have been destroyed by Israel's "sharpshooters."

Carry on, clingers . . . while you still can.

[OtisAH]

This wasn’t fog of war. It was a clearly marked aid van. In a “de-conflicted” zone. And I note that, coincidentally, Israel does not want aid getting to the Palestinians. Now that particular effort is suspended.

Btw, should the aid dock blow up, you will likely want to insist Hamas did it, or Israel just goofed again (those nuts!). But that will also be an intentional act on behalf of the Israelis.

[ReaderY]

Yesterday’s Florida Supreme Court decision approving the ballot proposition liberalizing abortion was astonishing for the narrowness of its majority, a 4-3 decision on what should have been an open and shut matter. The arguments raised by the challengers were so frivolous just to recite them is to see how absurd they are.

They argued that restricting abortion post-viability and permitting abortions for the health of the mother represented two unrelated subjects, violating the state constitution’s single-subject requirement. They argued that well-established terms like “viability” and “healthcare provider” were unconstitutionally vague and could mean anything.

I’ve often argued that zealots (and lawyers) can find a way to see vagueness in essentially any legal text. The majority opinion said this about lawyers. They might have done well to quote from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ aphorism on the subject, that even day and night have no exact boundaries, only shades of gray, but this does not make these terms unconstitutionally vague.

As the dissent’s argument makes clear, in practice overly strong conceptions of single subject, vagueness, and similar procedural rules permit courts to veto essentially any legislative act they don’t like, by arguments that are in practice nothing more than subterfuge.

The concurrence said that while the judiciary has a duty to give ballot propositions a very limited and curtailed review, which this one passes, they consider this one unjust and hope the electors choose not to pass it. I think this was reasonable. I think in general judges are entitled, after faithfully applying the law and concluding they are constrained to uphold things they personally oppose, to occassionally note their personal disagreement, and to recommend that the legislature, or in this case the voters, consider changing the law (or in this case, consider not adapting this proposed change).

[Martinned2]

Tool for dictators and demagogues.

[Mr. Bumble]

Should Abby Lowell be sanctioned?
"Hunter Biden moved to dismiss the criminal tax charges pending against Hunter Biden in federal court (the Central District of California). Indeed, Biden attorney Abby Lowell filed eight motions to dismiss the charges. Judge Mark Scarsi — a Trump appointee — denied the motions an an order that is accessible online here. Judge Scarsi writes at page 33:

As the Court stated at the hearing, Defendant filed his motion without any evidence. The motion is remarkable in that it fails to include a single declaration, exhibit, or request for judicial notice. Instead, Defendant cites portions of various Internet news sources, social media posts, and legal blogs. These citations, however, are not evidence.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/04/in-the-hunter-biden-case.php

[Nige]

MY GOD WILL THE SPECIAL TREATMENT NEVER END?

[Mr. Bumble]

Not responsive. (As unusual)

[not guilty]

Mr. Bumble, have you read Judge Scarsi’s order on motions to dismiss? Or are you merely taking the blog post you link to at face value? Where is the arguably sanctionable conduct by defense counsel, and on what authority do you claim that the court should impose sanctions? Please be specific. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.907806/gov.uscourts.cacd.907806.67.0_1.pdf

The portion of the order which the blogger cites relates to a motion to dismiss for selective prosecution or vindictive prosecution, whereby the Defendant requested discovery and a hearing to seek further support for his claims. (P. 32.) The Court is of course correct that portions of various Internet news sources, social media posts, and legal blogs are not evidence. (P. 33.) The Court nevertheless opined:

In light of the gravity of the issues raised by Defendant’s motion, however, the Court has taken on the task of reviewing all the cited Internet materials so that the Court can decide the motion without unduly prejudicing Defendant due to his procedural error. The facts set out below come from Defendant’s sources. While the materials, even if authenticated, contain multiple levels of hearsay, the Court includes them to provide a complete picture of Defendant’s argument.

(P. 53, footnote omitted.)

The Court analyzed the merits of the motion to dismiss in considerable detail. (Pp. 32-55.) Where, then, is any arguably sanctionable conduct by Abbe (not Abby) Lowell? Please show your work, Mr. Bumble.

[Mr. Bumble]

You are such a dick. I simply asked a question and cited a part of a blog post with a link to the source.

[not guilty]

Mr. Bumble, the blog post you linked to does not discuss whether “Abby” [sic] Lowell should be sanctioned. That is your interjection into the topic. "Just asking questions" doesn't feed the bulldog.

Where is the arguably sanctionable conduct by defense counsel, and on what authority do you claim that the court can or should impose sanctions? Please be specific.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Mr. Bumble. You brought up sanctions. Now defend your suggestion.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like I said: You, sir are such a dick.

"Should Abby Lowell be sanctioned?" is a question, not a suggestion. Feel free to answer or not.

[not guilty]

Since you have identified no arguably sanctionable conduct and no legal authority for imposition of sanctions, what prompted your question?

Was the impulse to take a cheap shot at Hunter Biden’s defense counsel (whose name you continue to misspell) simply irresistible?

And you conspicuously avoid my question as to whether you have read Judge Scarsi’s order. There is no substitute for original source materials.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Mr. Bumble.

[Brett Bellmore]

Project Democracy, a group advocating prosecuting Trump, shows how propaganda works:

Prosecuting Political Leaders During an Election

“Precedent for Prosecuting Political Candidates
For instance, in 2008, during the administration of Republican George W. Bush, Republican Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska was indicted on seven federal felony counts related to gifts he received from an oil pipeline company.7 At the time, Stevens was seeking re-election to an eighth term in the Senate.8 Despite his candidacy, Stevens’ trial proceeded on a regular schedule. Stevens’ lawyer told the judge that the senator was not trying to “ask for any special favors because he’s a senator and served 40 years in the Senate.”9 A jury convicted Stevens on all seven counts just eight days before the election.10”

Hidden under that footnote 10? The Stevens prosecution was a case of intentional prosecutorial misconduct! The judge declared it the worst case of prosecutorial conduct he’d ever seen, and set aside all the charges. Of course, by then Stevens had safely lost the election…

But if you didn’t follow that foot note? You’d think that the case actually supported the authors’ position, rather than demonstrating the dangers of prosecuting candidates for office.

That's an awful lot to hide under a footnote...