Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

The Washington Post had an article about the Democratic campaign consultant debate over how much effort to spent this cycle registering new voters:

"The debate was sparked by a memo from Aaron Strauss, a data scientist who worked on progressive spending at OpenLabs, and polling that shows unregistered breaking toward the Republican side. “If we were to blindly register nonvoters and get them on the rolls, we would be distinctly aiding Trump’s quest for a personal dictatorship,” Mr. Strauss argued in the memo obtained by The Washington Post...The memo hits on a simmering fear within the Democratic Party that it is losing its grips on core voting blocs that, historically, have fueled Democratic victories, including President Biden’s win in 2020."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/01/democrats-voter-registration-minorities/

A Marquette University law school poll shows what the concern is:
--------------------------------------- Trump. - Biden
Reg. Voter certain to vote. 48 - 52
Reg. Not certain to vote. 56 -44
Not registered__________64 - 36

https://www.marquette.edu/news-center/2024/new-marquette-law-poll-finds-biden-trump-each-supported-by-50-registered-voters.php

[NvEric]

Matters not registration numbers, Democrats surge in creating people from nothing ... 81 MILLION VOTES for the Biden Junta will be 94 millions in 2024.

Democracy is already dead with this illegitimate Biden Regime insurrection of 2020.

[Kazinski]

You think that's what cost Trump Nevada?

It wasn't that close.

[Frank Drackman]

O-Biden won Nevada by 2.7%, or a little under 34,000 votes, so dammit, you’re right, not that close. “45” won Florida by 370,000 votes or 3.4%, but “lost” Georgia by 10,000, if that’s not evidence of fraud I don’t know what is. Funny how the “Mail In” vote is 90% DemoKKKrat

[not guilty]

How are those vote totals evidence of fraud?

[Malika the Maiz]

Georgia elections around that time were often close (Kemp-Abrams, Senate elections).

[Kazinski]

Who said there was evidence of fraud?

I was saying the margin in Nevada was high enough fraud couldn't have effected the outcome.

[not guilty]

I was responding to Frank Drackman, who said "if that’s not evidence of fraud I don’t know what is."

[Kazinski]

Frank who?

I guess I missed the grey box.

[Martinned2]

15 million more Democratic votes in 2020 compared to 2016. Trump has that effect on people...

[Armchair]

And 11 million more GOP votes...

[Martinned2]

Yes, it's was a "get out the vote" campaign that, nationwide, created a vote advantage for the Democrats of 4 million votes.

[Jumaira]

A lot more joggers. What a worthless race.

[SRG2]

Stop whining about crap that never happened.

[Commenter_XY]

Bob from Ohio is right: Polls are trash (at this stage).

[Mr. Bumble]

At what stage do you think they stop being trash?

[Commenter_XY]

After Labor Day, I start paying attention. Methodology, sample stratification, and weighting matter also in poll evaluation (and most of them are still trash).

[SRG2]

Even then....Biden had a sizable lead in the polls after Labor Day - typically polling 7% or more ahead of Trump pretty consistently until Election Day, yet on the day, Trump narrowed the gap to 4.5%.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2020/national/

FWIW I am unaware of any Trump supporters who seem to be aware that Trump's margin of loss was much smaller than predicted by the polls. They seem to prefer a narrative of Biden's support coming as a surprise and out of nowhere, which manifestly was not true,

[JasonT20]

FWIW I am unaware of any Trump supporters who seem to be aware that Trump’s margin of loss was much smaller than predicted by the polls.

Trump supporters seem to be unaware of a lot of things about Trump. I have seen people referencing polls showing large numbers of Trump supporters that didn't know about the E. Jean Carroll verdict or even what it was about. How much of all candidates' support is coming from people that really don't know about things that the candidate did or said that those voters wouldn't like?

[Kazinski]

I'd agree with you in most elections.

But how many people aren't already way too familiar with both candidates, and still want to know their positions on some pet peeve or the other?

Both candidates have 100% name recognition, and well known track records. That's somewhat unique as elections go.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, ok. ok...Since you asked. 🙂 The only numbers that matter from that poll are the decided registered voters; POTUS Trump is losing. POTUS Trump needs to make a more persuasive case for his re-election. That is the takeaway.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, he's probably going to lose the popular vote. Which doesn't actually imply that he loses the election, I'm sure you know.

He's looking fairly good in the swing states.

But, of course, there are months until the general election, and Biden controls the DOJ. Maybe they'll finally get around to actually charging him with insurrection, in time for him to be in court in October.

[Commenter_XY]

The entire election hinges on GA, AZ and MI. Unless something extraordinary happens.

[Kazinski]

Here is the RCP Battleground states:

Battlegrounds Trump Biden Spread
Wisconsin 47.8 47.2 Trump +0.6
Arizona 49.0 44.5 Trump +4.5
Georgia 49.4 45.6 Trump +3.8
Michigan 48.0 45.2 Trump +2.8
Pennsylvania 46.2 46.3 Biden +0.1
North Carolina 49.2 44.6 Trump +4.6
Nevada 47.5 44.3 Trump +3.2

But the point of the Post Article is it used to be that when the Dems were behind or close the strategy was go out and register lots of new voters and get them to the polls, now some strategists are saying "New voters are Trump Voters, even the young ones".

[Commenter_XY]

None of this matters until after Labor Day, Kazinski.

[Josh R]

One of the mistakes people make is relying on a single poll. The other is dismissing polls as trash rather than accepting them as useful within their limitations.

The polls are "fine," which is to say about half of the time they (in the aggregate across many polls) have an error of 3%-points or more (6%-point spread between two candidates, since an error applies in the opposite direction for both candidates), and the errors are just as likely to favor Democrats as Republicans. And the error is often in determining who is likely to vote.

But given that limitation, you can make valid probabilistic statements on who is likely to win (e.g., Trump at 30% in 2016 and 10% in 2020). Biden would be an underdog if the election were held today, but it is early.

[David Nieporent]

Um, there is no "POTUS Trump," and of course it's Biden running for re-election.

[Michael P]

Margin of error for the likely voter group: 4.9%

That's even before considering the historic systematic errors in this kind of poll that significantly undercount Trump"s support.

[Reallynotbob]

You might be correct about the systematic errors.... but that's not obvious to me. The pollsters have put a lot of effort into trying to model the electorate differently from 2016. Their track record improved in 2020.

[Josh R]

Trump was equally undervalued in the polls in 2016 and 2020. He lost in 2020 because he was further behind. In both cases, the magnitude of the error was not unusual. Over all races, the polls are just as likely to miss in favor of Democrats as they are for Republicans. Is Trump unique in that the polls always underestimate his share of the vote? Could be, but just because a coin has come up twice heads, doesn't mean it isn't a fair coin.

[Armchair]

Makes sense in many regards. The political party class affiliations are switching.

Used to be the GOP was the party that represented the more well off (professional/business) class, while the Democrats represented the working class.
That paradigm is switching, the Democrats are now representing the profession class more thoroughly, while the GOP is representing the working class.

It's typically the working class which has lower voter registration. Just blindly registering more voters would tend to favor the GOP these days.

[Sarcastr0]

No realignment, except maybe Hispanics. But your class analysis here is wrong.

You are just slicing the urban rural divide and ignoring poor city dwellers.

There is a generation realignment coming as boomers give way to millennials, but the effects of that remain to be seen.

[Martinned2]

You think? All over the world the populist right is taking over the lower-income vote, with centre-left parties increasingly relying on higher-income voters. Every video I've ever seen of people visiting Trump rallies suggest that the same is true in the US.

[Sarcastr0]

Trying, sure.
But the elections haven’t shown much movement.

The GOP negative populism is playing with the same crowd as 2016 so far.

Elections are funny things, and maybe everything will be different in 2024. Blue rich Texas, red poor New Mexico.

Doubt it though. I hesitate to predict who will win, but I am pretty sure that rural urban and education level will be the best corollaries still.

[Riva]

Nothing negative about improving the circumstances of average Americans. Now if you want negative, look at the divisive democratic race and gender politics. Or the democratic open borders plans. Or the democrat forced “green” agenda. Or the democrat abortion propaganda. Or the democrat lawfare. We could go on.

[Reallynotbob]

Oh do go on about the pro-average-American policies of the MAGA movement. It begins and ends with "shut the border."

The GOP platform is anti-healthcare, anti-infrastructure investment, anti-tax breaks for the 99%, anti-climate, anti-NATO, anti-women's freedom, anti-public integrity, and anti-science.

It is, however, pro-theocracy.

[Riva]

Sorry but low income americans saw great wage gains under Trump. And auto workers understand the disaster that Biden’s forced green agenda will inflict, although I concede that China likes the corrupt reptile’s plans. As for science, not really sure what you mean, like biology? (what is a woman again?), reproduction (egg meet sperm = life), climate? (when was Al Gore’s end of the world again? they keep changing that).

[Dr. Ed 2]

There IS a realignment -- but there aren't working poor city dwellers anymore.

[Sarcastr0]

there aren’t working poor city dwellers anymore

This is why I keep Ed off of mute.

What a banger!

[Nige]

He is the King Of Fail.

[Kazinski]

This is a few months old but Vox is definitely suggesting realignment:

https://www.vox.com/politics/24034416/young-voters-biden-trump-gen-z-polling-israel-gaza-economy-2024-election

[Armchair]

In the 1996 election, Clinton won the lowest-income voters—those making $15,000 a year or less — by 31 points. The highest-income voters went for Republican Bob Dole by 16 points, an income divide of 47 points.

Flash forward a quarter-century, and how much money you make no longer dictates how you vote. In the 2020 election, Joe Biden won the poorest voters—those making under $30,000 a year — by 8 points, while Biden split the highest-earning voters evenly with Trump — an income divide of just 8 points.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/11/04/new-republican-party-working-class-coalition-00122822

Looks like a realignment to me. But perhaps you have actual facts to refute these?

[Jumaira]

The Democrats get the elite Wall Street types and the semi-retarded blacks and Aztecs. Republicans get everyone in between.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Republicans get the religious kooks, gun nuts, racists, gay-bashers, rural rubes, half-educated misogynists, transphobes, can’t-keep-up culture war losers, disaffected clingers, chanting antisemites, drawling Islamophobes, faux libertarian law professors, anti-abortion absolutists, and antisocial misfits. A big, gullible, dysfunctional, bigoted tent.

[DaveM]

“If we were to blindly register nonvoters and get them on the rolls, we would be distinctly aiding Trump’s quest for a personal dictatorship,”

Democrats, you are walking right into a trap. By delegitimizing your political opponent even BEFORE there is a vote, you have left yourselves with nowhere else to go but to a January 6-style demonstration if you should lose. You will be goaded into violence, and on that basis, relentlessly condemned for the next 10 years.

I made this EXACT same point to my friends on the right pre-2020 when they were slyly hinting on “big things to come, stayed tuned!” It didnt take a genius to predict what they would be doing, and I told them so. I warned them they were playing right into the hands of their enemies.

Maybe we can prevent a repeat. A candidate fairly elected and installed is your PRESIDENT, not a dictator. If you aren’t going to abide by the results of the process, why even go through the motions? You need to reign in the language NOW, and leave yourselves somewhere legit to go, should you lose.

[Malika the Maiz]

Calling the opposing side's nominee (and elected President) a potential "dictator" is common in our history. Maybe touch grass?

[DaveM]

It's not the word that's the problem.

[Malika the Maiz]

What is it then?

[DaveM]

The problem is backing yourself into a corner where you cannot afford to lose without having to take things into your own hands. That's what happened to most of the Jan 6 demonstrators. They felt they had no recourse but to march on the Capitol.

Don't let it happen to you and yours.

[Sarcastr0]

1. I agree that thinking registration could hurt the Dems is a trap, but your spinning out to January 6 and violence is utterly out of nowhere except the right wing's distorted view of their opposition.

2. Did you really have liberal friends slyly hinting on “big things to come, stayed tuned?” That sounds like they were fucking with you.

3. A memo from Aaron Strauss is not Democratic Party policy.

4. A candidate fairly elected and installed can be a dictator. We have history to show this.
That must be based on their actions, not predictions or their rhetoric.
But don't pretend it cannot be the case.

5. You need to reign in the language NOW? If you're going to ding people for rhetoric, have you heard what Trump says?

[DaveM]

Yes, I really did have Trump friends (not "liberal" friends, I presume that's just a typo) slyly hinting about taking action. They weren't kidding. When January 6th happened, I was not the least bit surprised.

And yes, I frequently offer my advice about toning things down to all the hotheads I know and love, across the spectrum.

But I will say, to your point about the memo coming from Strauss, when outlandish rhetoric goes mainstream like that, that's when we have to do what we can to halt it. Otherwise, it just grows and grows.

I am not a Democrat, I have no particular desire to see any of its policies nor candidates installed. But if legally and properly elected, those representatives are my representatives.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, Trump was my President for 4 years. He did awful shit in that position, but so it goes.

But there is a line.
Trump talks about stuff that goes over that line all the time, these days. Locking up the press, locking up his opposition, ideological purges in the government.

But he also lies and is a coward and his over-the-line impulses failed last go-round. But I'm certainly not optimistic.

As for your broad brush ‘your rhetoric will require you to do violence’ that’s just silly.

[Jumaira]

There's nothing wrong with purging based on ideology and executing enemies, as long as the people in charge making the decisions are right.

Can you say with a straight face that the world would not have been a better place if the commies that infest most of the media and academy had been put in extermination camps?

[David Nieporent]

Maybe we can prevent a repeat. A candidate fairly elected and installed is your PRESIDENT, not a dictator.

Trump himself said that if he is reelected he'll be a dictator. (But only for one day, LOL.)

[DaveM]

And to the extent that you allow yourself to take that seriously, you are backing yourself into a corner. Trump is a known bully and a blowhard. He's full of BS.

The proper response to BS is mockery, not taking him seriously. You take him seriously, and you're just feeding the trolls.

[Sarcastr0]

You seem to think DMN's posts will require him to resort to violence if Trump is elected.

That is nonsense.

[Drewski]

I think the best advice comes with lots of words in all-caps and an indifference to homophones. Throw in a few spelling errors and I'm sold.

[DaveM]

All the best RANTZ come with all caps, everyone knows that!

[Nige]

Why the hell is it that Democrats noticing the things Trump does and the things Trump says always supposed to be some sort of terrible blunder?

[DaveM]

The blunder isn't noticing things, the blunder is backing yourself into a corner where you have no choice but to take matters into your own hands, instead of trusting in your neighbors and the process.

[Nige]

It's perverse to direct your warning to people who've never done what you're warning about rather than the people who have done it, and are actually likely to do it again.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"The Forward Party wants to be on Pa.’s 2024 general election ballot. It must overcome several hurdles...

'“The Green Party is always the target for the Democrats. The Republicans, they target the Libertarians,” said [election attorney Larry] Otter, who has represented candidates across the political spectrum, including third parties. “It all depends who’s attempting to get on the ballot and which party has an interest in seeing that they should not be on the ballot.”'

https://news.yahoo.com/forward-party-wants-pa-2024-230348222.html

[Kazinski]

You think that's bad, try this:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/07/biden-ohio-general-election-ballot

Biden could be left off general election ballot in Ohio, Republican official warns
Letter by secretary of state warns party that Democratic National Convention is scheduled past the deadline to certify candidates

Problem is that the candidates have to be certified by August 7th, which doesn't seem.outrageous, but the Democratic convention to certify Biden is August 19th.

But I don't think this is a partisan gotcha, since the Secretary of State is raising the issue with plenty of time to avoid it.

[Martinned2]

What's the point of having the Convention in the middle of August? Off the top of my head, that's at least a month after the last primary. And it can't be good politics to do a convention when so many voters are on vacation, barbecuing in the back yard, or otherwise not paying attention.

[Mr. Bumble]

Whats the point of having a convention? Just mail it in.

[Martinned2]

It's an opportunity to talk directly to voters, via prime time TV, and indirectly via lots of media attention. That's why I'd either do that earlier, before voters go offline for the summer, or later, when they're back and when it's closer to the election.

[Mr. Bumble]

It's not like in days past when the outcome might have been in question. Today it has all been decided and is only pro forma.

[Martinned2]

Yes. All the more reason to plan it at a time that suits the campaign best.

UK political parties do a party conference each year. They always do them in September, exactly for the reasons I described.

In the US I'm not sure if September would work, because it would cause even more problems like the Ohio one flagged by Kazinski. So why not do it in June, and chase all the state parties to schedule their primaries before that? February-May must be enough time for all primaries.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Conventions were fascinating events, running several days with panels and events on various issues, some of them surprising and strange. They gave party members the chance to meet people from around the country, learn and discuss issues, and if publicized would give the country a good idea of party identity aside from the Presidential nominee. But covering them would involve reporting on SUBSTANCE . . . once the horse-race aspect of it faded away, the national media lost interest.

[Martinned2]

I don't think you can ever get that back, because I don't think primary voters today would accept their state party voting for anyone other than the person who won their state primary, as long as that person still had a pulse. And that expectation isn't going to change in the future.

Effectively the only way to get those kinds of conventions back is to successfully launch a new party, with different rules for deciding the nomination. But, for reasons frequently rehearsed on this blog, that seems unlikely.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I suppose it is a relic. For an example of how things used to be, see Hunter S. Thompson's description of the various goings on at the 1972 Democratic Convention in "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail". I still have my crumbling "McGovern Encyclopedia" from that year that has 33 sections on various issues.

At least parties can still have platform committees and issue platforms to show what (instead of who) the party supports. Republicans stopped doing that when Trump took over.

[Martinned2]

Unless I'm mistaken, no candidate for office has to sign up to that platform, not even the Presidential nominee. So what on earth is it good for?

(Again to make the comparison with the UK: In the UK political candidates definitely do promise to follow their party's manifesto, and after the election the manifesto matters under the Salisbury Convention. The House of Lords does not vote against things that were in the government party's manifesto.)

[Longtobefree]

The Republicans have a party platform.
3 second search on the web.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not if Chicago 2024 is a rerun of Chicago 1968....

[Armchair]

Lets them switch Biden off the ballot as late as possible?

[Martinned2]

Even assuming someone wanted to do that, you'd want to do that as early as possible. Switching the nominee would annoy a lot of voters, so you'd need time to convince them to vote for you anyway.

[Armchair]

There's an argument to do it as late as possible as well.

1. It allows less time for that person to be in the public view, and subject to investigation by the press. It's less "bad news" time. If you're running on the strategy that "We're not Trump"...and you're trying to convince people who hate both current candidates...you just want a "default" candidate.

[Martinned2]

I'm assuming that the new candidate you sub in doesn't have an skeletons in their closet. So press scrutiny isn't the problem. On the contrary, you'd want the press to report about them as much as possible. If you use backroom politics to rig the nomination and put in someone with skeletons in their closet, that would be completely wildly incompetent.

[Krychek_2]

Ah, but human nature is such that *everybody* has skeletons in their closet, especially if they've spent their adulthood doing the things you need to do to become a viable candidate for President of the United States. We'll never know how many perfectly fine people chose not to run precisely for that reason -- your life is going to be put under a microscope and something humiliating will, without fail, be found.

And what is the extent to which something from 30 years ago sheds that much light? I suppose it depends on what it is. And if the press could be trusted to make a factual reporting of it and then move on, that would be one thing. I still lean in the direction that more information is better, but maybe there's an outer limit on it.

[Armchair]

"I’m assuming that the new candidate you sub in doesn’t have an skeletons in their closet. "

Everyone has some skeletons in their closet, of some sort.

[Martinned2]

I was basically imagining some sort of political equivalent of Chief Justice Roberts.

[Brett Bellmore]

Who has skeletons in his closet.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh good lord.
Are you on the Roberts blackmailed to uphold Obamacare wagon?

We don't live in a political thriller!

[Kazinski]

Democrats would not go for John Roberts, who while he is a moderate conservative is a conservative.

The man who wrote "The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race, is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

He was also in the majority on Dobbs, Bruen and wrote Shelby County.

[Martinned2]

What I meant was that, at the time of his nomination, John Roberts had spent his entire adult life preparing for that moment by conspicuously avoiding anything remotely controversial. No provable opinions about anything, goes to church, is married to a woman, has 2.1 kids, that's it.

The presidential candidate equivalent of that is, obviously, someone who does have opinions about things. But all of those opinions would be wildly non-controversial. Then again, who knows what a non-controversial opinion is anymore? Obama spent four years implementing a Republican healthcare plan and then four more years litigating to defend it. Suddenly Romneycare wasn't so non-controversial anymore.

[Armchair]

Everybody has skeletons. Especially politicians.

[David Nieporent]

Actually, in my experience almost all politicians are spineless.

[Brett Bellmore]

That seems like a silly assumption, though. Of course you're going to want more exposure for your candidate, if you assume that there's absolutely nothing about them that wouldn't bear exposure. But, how many people like that are there in major party, at the level that would be considered for President?

And that's ignoring that the people in charge might not have the same perception as the general public as to what qualifies as a "skeleton", or might WANT somebody they've got some dirt on, providing them with leverage.

No, if they replace him, it will likely be with the aim of going into the election with a 'generic' Democrat everybody can assume is spotless because most of the media won't be digging too hard, and there isn't time to overcome the censorship campaign against anybody who does do some digging.

[Martinned2]

"censorship campaign"??? Are you high?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I just don't have amnesia about what happened to coverage of the Hunter laptop.

[Sarcastr0]

That story got plenty of play, Brett.

Your scenario has
1) Dems deciding to take a big risk, choosing someone despite knowing about a scandal (if they don't know, then they can't mitigate anyhow)
2) They implement a huge coverup, that works until the election. Unlike the Hunter laptop and John Edwards and like nothing in the modern era.
3) When the scandal comes out, the coverup does not. Or if it does has limited political repercussions.

This doesn't even play in a bad novel.

[Martinned2]

The media hasn't stopped talking about Hunter Biden's laptop for five years now. It's basically this decade's Benghazi. That's the opposite of censorship.

[bernard11]

You mean the outcomes haven't been what you hoped for, and therefore assumed, baselessly, were certainly true.

Do you imagine Comer is working for Biden?

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, the censorship wasn't 100% effective. That doesn't mean that there wasn't any censorship.

[David Nieporent]

No, I just don’t have amnesia about what happened to coverage of the Hunter laptop.

That utter nothingburger of a story got extensive coverage, so much so that you're still talking about this complete non-issue four years later.

[Nige]

Severely impaired recall, though.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, you're already changing the goalposts.

Your original: "there isn’t time to overcome the censorship campaign against anybody who does do some digging."

Your new: "the censorship wasn’t 100% effective. That doesn’t mean that there wasn’t any censorship."

You posit effective censorship based on a scenario where, assuming there was any censorship, even you acknowledge it wasn't effective.

You're writing fiction.

[Estragon]

When “the” “laptop” came out originally, it wasn’t this baroque fantasy tale of financial dealings and giant diamonds and the like that we have today, courtesy of Smirnov, Comer and others. It was pictures of Hunter fucked up during a period of addiction.

The whine about “censorship” was and is misplaced. The laptop was out there plenty— it was just that the American people, in their wisdom and good grace— viewed the whole affair as humanizing, rather than disqualifying in any political sense for Hunter’s father. What percentage of the electorate has a close friend or family member who has struggled with addiction?

Of course this never occurs to people like Brett— who have not a shred of empathy. And why should that be surprising? These people literally wear shirts to their political rallies that say “fuck your feelings” and laugh at the idea of a 70+ year old man getting struck in tge head with a hammer by a stranger in the entryway of his own home.

It truly does not compute to these people, so they have to blame “censorship” rather the truth staring them right in the face: A majority of Americans are not cold, heartless, cynical, very-online edgelord Right-wing assholes.

[BadLib]

At Biden's age a late convention and an opportunity to switch him out later makes some sense.

A 50 year old candidate without any signs of mental decline would be unlikely to decline enough in a month or two for the party to benefit from delaying a chance to replace the candidate easily and not just default to the VP.

However, Biden isn't 50 years old and is showing signs of mental decline (although the question of if he's declined to the level of Trump's baseline is an open question). His odds of having a medical emergency or obvious mental problems are much greater in a given month than those of a middle aged candidate w/o any existing signs of mental decline.

Also, delaying the convention somewhat delays the official head-to-head open combat between Trump and Biden -- this could be good for Biden as it gives him fewer opportunities to make embarrassing gaffes.

[bernard11]

You mean, like this?

Over the seas and over our land. And then they want us to have clean. I said wait, we’re gonna be clean but it’s all flying. Just remember that. Does that make sense? In other words, it’s all coming through the currents through the air, they can name it

[Jerry B.]

And Democrats are having a fit about this, blaming the Ohio Legislature for trying to remove Biden from the ballot(dispite the fact that this legislation was passed in 2010), while forgetting their own actions in Colorado and Maine.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm sure some are - it's hard to argue that this refusal to accommodate a known date may have a partisan tinge on it.

But so what? This seems well within Ohio's authority, and I hope the Dems move their planned date.

[David Nieporent]

(dispite the fact that this legislation was passed in 2010),

The legislation was passed in 2013, to take effect in 2014. But it's rather confusing because they somehow managed to avoid its effects in 2020, even though both parties had their conventions in mid-late August.

And it's a rather puzzling decision to enact such a law, given that of the last 10 nominations (i.e., 5 from each party) before the law was passed, 8 of them would've missed the deadline if it had been in place.

[ducksalad]

Don’t know the exact law in Ohio, but if it’s like other states, technically the name that goes on the ballot is nominated by the state party, and the state party, in turn, has internal state rules that require it to align with the national convention result. If that’s how it is in Ohio the state party could suspend their own rules and nominate Biden (or whoever) ahead of time.

Due to late conventions and incompetence both the Dems and Reps missed the deadline in Texas one election, by a few days. The SoS didn’t have the balls to actually enforce it and nothing happened. Next door in Louisiana the Libertarians missed the deadline by a few hours, you can guess how that one turned out.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Biden could be left off general election ballot in Ohio"

I'll believe it when I see it.

These requirements seem never to apply to the two major parties, only to third parties and independents.

[santamonica811]

Donald Trump is not religious. Not in the slightest. We all know that. We knew that 4 (or was it 8?) years ago, when he was reading off some version of cue cards, and referred to Two Corinthians (rather than the correct Second Corinthians). For someone who has never read the Bible, never listened to anyone talk about the Bible, this is a perfectly understandable mistake. (Similar to how an elderly Lawrence Welk, on his TV show, referred to a piece of music as coming from "World War Eye Eye."...as that's what "World War II" looks like.

An old clip of Trump is making the rounds lately, where Trump is asked a softball question, in a friendly way. To paraphrase, "What are one or two Bible passages that mean a lot to you?" For anyone who has read the Bible, this is easy. For people who have not read the Bible (like me), but have lived in the actual world, it's easy. You talk about Job, and how it talks about suffering, or about the question of if God's treatment is fair. Or you talk about Moses, and true belief. Or you talk about the Sermon on the Mount. Or the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

In my life, I have talked to literally *thousands* of people about their religious beliefs. I've been all over the world, and when I meet people who speak English and who are at all friendly, I'll ask about life in their country, and about their politics . . . and about their religion. When I've asked people, NO ONE PERSON has said to me, "Oh, gosh, that awfully personal. I don't want to talk about it. Nope. Each and every single person has wanted to share their view of the Koran, or the Bible, or the Book of Mormon, etc etc. Because it's an important part of their lives, and since I've expressed an interest in hearing their thoughts, they've universally be happy to share.

But not Trump. In an interview, where he is given an easy opportunity to score significant points with the large swathe of American who consider themselves religious, he totally whiffs. And, whiffs by using a lie that only a congenital idiot would believe.

I have to say; it offends me when a person pretends to be religious to score political points. But it offends me much more (as an intelligent person) when he makes such a half-assed and lazy attempt. It's like he's really saying, "My supporters are so fucking retarded that they will blindly swallow anything. Including my pathetic attempt to explain away why I can't actually refer to any part of the Bible." So . . . why aren't more of his supporters really bothered by this? Why aren't any of his usual lickspittles saying, "Yeah, I'm bothered by his failure to know or understand anything about the Bible. But I'm gonna support him anyway, because he'll do a better job on taxes, and the boarder, and Israel, and Ukraine [etc etc]."

I get why the usual suspects whore their integrity. But surely, SURELY, there are some Trump-supporters who also have a real love of Christ and of the Bible, and surely they are upset by this faker. Where are their voices--because, if they are speaking out, I'm missing out on hearing them?

(I haven't even gotten to [IMO] the worst example, from that same clip. After striking out with the softball question, above; the two interviews tried to throw him the easiest of lifelines. Again, paraphrasing, "Well, which influences you most: The Old Testament, or the New Testament?" Trump's answer [you have to imagine the panicked look in his eyes, "Um, both equally."

'Alex, I'd like, "Things no actual religious person has ever said," for $2,000.'
[deep sigh]

[Mr. Bumble]

As opposed to the the cafeteria Catholics like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi?

[Moderation4ever]

Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are very close to the ideas of Catholicism I grew up on. These are people of faith who believe in God and prayer. It not hard to see if you take the time to look and listen to them.

[Martinned2]

I always find it ironic when I see American Catholics arguing that the pope is wrong (i.e. too liberal) about something. That seems to overlook the defining characteristic of Catholicism relative to other Christian sects. Very funny.

[CountmontyC]

Because Catholicism so supports abortion and homosexuality right?

[Sarcastr0]

The Pope seems willing to render unto Caesar on that point, though.

[Dan Schiavetta]

He’s gone about as far as he can go.

[CountmontyC]

Abortion is considered one of the gravest sins in the Catholic Church. Biden and Pelosi are huge supporters of abortion ( Biden even intends to make it a major focus of his campaign). In fact Biden is such a huge supporter of it that he is jailing people who peacefully protest in front of abortion clinics.
Homosexuality is also still considered a sin under Catholic Church doctrine and Biden supports that.
And of course we just had the major flub by Biden who pronounced March 31( Easter Sunday) Transgender Day of Visibility.
Such a good Catholic.

[Sarcastr0]

Well, the thing about having an institution with a single person at it's head is that we get to say that your take is flat wrong as a matter of current Catholic doctrine.

Again, I offer to you the 'render unto Caesar' quote. Dunno if it's right, but it seems to be some logic you are discounting:

Biden has a responsibility to the society that voted him in, and they're not all Catholic.
So he shouldn't procure an abortion personally, but acting as the leader of the US isn't the same as that.

I hope this helps you deconflict

[CountmontyC]

A practicing Catholic can not support abortion. A practicing Catholic must oppose abortion. A person who claims to be Catholic but acts in multiple ways against Catholic teachings is not a practicing Catholic.
You argue that since non-Catholics were part of the group that voted him in he has to act contrary to Catholic teachings might be valid but under those circumstances he can not claim to be Catholic and his appeals to the voters that he is a good Catholic is simply a lie.

[Sarcastr0]

A practicing Catholic cannot support abortion

Looking at what the Church's action about this stuff, you are wrong.

Your quest to excommunicate Joe Biden will thus go nowhere.

[Nige]

‘Abortion is considered one of the gravest sins in the Catholic Church’

Only by the weirdest and most extreme Catholics, the ones who still insist the Church was treated unfairly in the sexual abuse scandals.

[David Nieporent]

Only by the weirdest and most extreme Catholics,

No, by the Church itself.

[Nige]

Some of the weirdest and most extreme Catholics are in the Church, yes.

[CountmontyC]

Official Catholic doctrine declares abortion a mortal sin.

[Nige]

So is cursing the archbishop and kicking the parish cat, doesn't stop the congregants fom doing both, at the same time, even.

[Sarcastr0]

You're doing a 2-step between supporting abortion and abortion.

And as noted, the actual actions of the Church seem to make it clear that this is an issue for Biden in his next life, not necessarily this one.

[David Nieporent]

n fact Biden is such a huge supporter of it that he is jailing people who peacefully protest in front of abortion clinics.

Please stop lying. You're doing the same thing as J6 terrorist supporters, as well as the same thing as Hamas supporters: pretending that one is being arrested for expressing a viewpoint rather than for one's actions. Setting aside that presidents don't jail people, the handful of people being arrested are being arrested for blocking clinics — which is expressly illegal — not for "peacefully protesting." Throwing the word "protest" in a discussion of conduct does not immunize that conduct.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Abortions decrease during Democratic administrations. If you oppose abortion, vote Democratic.

[myself]

I remember hearing that people were concerned that JFK as a Catholic would have to obey the Pope.

It sounds like you want Biden to obey the Pope.

[CountmontyC]

I would accept that he stop claiming to be Catholic when he doesn't follow Catholic doctrine.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't get to excommunicate him, though, so he'll probably not do that.

[myself]

And what about all the other Catholics who don't follow Catholic doctrine, are you going to insist they stop calling themselves Catholic as well?

And will you also insist that Trump stop calling himself Christian when his behaviour is completely inconsistent with Christian teachings?

[Don Nico]

myself,
No One made you the judge of that.

[myself]

That's exactly my point, CountmontyC is making themselves the judge of that.

[M L]

"render unto Caesar"

Stop using that verse, you embarrass yourself each time you do so, even by your standards.

[Sarcastr0]

With a tone like that, remind me to never invite you to my discussion groups!

[Nige]

So cafeteria the rw press mocked him for going to church, and visiting his son's grave.

[Kazinski]

Hilarious that you think Trump voters care whether he is religious or not.

Trump is what as known as a cultural Christian:

"Cultural Christians are the nonreligious or non-practicing Christians who received Christian values and appreciate Christian culture. As such, these individuals usually identify themselves as culturally Christians, and are often seen by practicing believers as nominal Christians."

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

He may not be religious but he thinks the country is better for having a Christian culture.

Biden may well be more religious than Trump but he is not a cultural Christian.

[Commenter_XY]

That is how I'd characterize POTUS Trump = Cultural Christian (or Nominal Christian, either term is fair, neither term is derogatory)

[Nelson]

It's a well-known distinction for Jews for a long time.

Secular Jews who aren't religiously Jewish, but are definitely Jews, have been prominent throughout history. Albert Einstein, who was approached as a possible candidate for the first leader of Israel, is a perfect example. One of the most well-known secular humanists of his time, he was also a well-known Jew.

That said, I feel like the racial vs. religious Jew distinction isn't exactly the same since "Christian" has never been a racial distinction. It seems more like trying to encompass everyone who has ever gone to church as a Christian. Possibly as an attempt to mask the precipitous drop in religious identity among Americans (especially young Americans)?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Trump is not any kind of Christian, cultural or otherwise. A “cultural Christian” would know at least some things about Christianity.

[Dan Schiavetta]

“Hilarious that you think Trump voters care whether he is religious or not.”

Actually they do. They’re that stupid.

[Brett Bellmore]

We're not electing a national pastor. I pick who to support on the basis of how likely they are to leave me the hell alone, not whether or not they're personally admirable.

Not that I see much sign of Biden being more personally admirable than Trump, but he sure is determined to make my life worse.

[Krychek_2]

Gays who want to marry and women who want abortions might disagree with you on which candidate will leave them alone.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, sure, I'll be glad to concede that, if you'll concede that Trump wasn't exactly leading a pogrom against gays.

And abortion, thankfully, is back where it should be, a state issue.

[Krychek_2]

Trump was not leading a pogrom against gays and probably doesn't personally care about the issue, but some of his underlings sure were.

And you can't consistently say that you want to be left alone but pregnant women don't get to be left alone depending on which state they live in. If you are consistent in your claimed libertarianism, then the states don't get to trouble them either.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, I can consistently say that. I hardly expect to be left alone if I set out to murder somebody, after all.

[Krychek_2]

In that case, consistency would require you to support a nationwide ban. The inconsistent position is that some states should permit it and some shouldn't; from the libertarian perspective it's either murder, in which case it should be banned nationwide, or it's not murder, in which case it should be protected nationwide. (Leaving aside the argument that even if it is murder the woman's interest in her body still controls, which isn't necessary to resolve for this specific conversation.)

[Malika the Maiz]

Perhaps the libertarian position is that on extremely tough questions the tie goes to the (clearly recognized) individual, not the government. This, of course, would argue for Roe being reinstated one might think...

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, I think you've got good clarity here. The right is conflating US states and individuals to try and straddle libertarianism and pro-life positions.

It's clearly nonsense, but working better than I'd like.

[Brett Bellmore]

"In that case, consistency would require you to support a nationwide ban."

No, as a libertarian who wants the rule of law, meaning government actually obeying the constitution, it requires me to support 50 state-wide bans. The federal government has no constitutional power to ban abortion outside of DC and some military bases.

[Sarcastr0]

Your take on the Constitution isn't what the current law of the land is.

That you choose to provide your personal interpretation over the current law, and that this interpretation prevents a more libertarian policy seems an idiosyncratic, non-libertarian take.

[Nelson]

"The federal government has no constitutional power to ban abortion outside of DC and some military bases."

If I'm not mistaken, privacy and medical decisions being the individual's, not the government's, purview has a large body of precedence from SCOTUS.

The onus is on yiu to demonstrate why the established rights of an individual should be violated by the government.

And there is only one individual involved, unless you can first prove there is another person involved. And no, rhetoric doesn't count as proof.

[Nelson]

"And abortion, thankfully, is back where it should be, a state issue."

It shouldn't be a government issue at all. It should be an individual decision. More government in personal medical decisions is a bad thing.

[Nige]

'I pick who to support on the basis of how likely they are to leave me the hell alone,'

Republicans leave things alone in the sense that they are neglectful, directing tax-payers money to private interests rather than public ones, the exception being they have never left minorities alone, and they mostly attacked them on religious grounds. Electing Trump will allow them to keep doing that, except for the ones who seem to genuinely think he's a messiah.

[David Nieporent]

Trump is what as known as a cultural Christian:

Trump is what's known as a sociopathic liar. He's not a "cultural Christian." He does not "thinks the country is better for having a Christian culture." Setting aside the fact that he doesn't care about the country in the first place, he couldn't identify "Christian culture" if it smacked him in the face. He may be nominally Christian in the loosest sense that his ancestors were Christian and he may have gone to church as a kid and he has never expressly renounced said Christian background, but there's nothing about Christianity that informs his "ideas" or worldview or the like.

[Frank Drackman]

Just waiting for "45" to say that Religions all Bullshit anyway, would lock up the erection right there. Most people who go to Church are either forced or go for ulterior motives (it's why I go to Sin O' Gogue) You think all those Moose-lums Genital-u-flecting in Mecca want to be there? Almost got in a fist fight with a Surgeon a few years back who was ridiculing the Mormon religion (OK the Magic underwear thang is strange) who didn't like when I pointed out he worshiped a Jewish Zombie...

Frank "God doesn't like you, he never wanted you, in all probability he hates you"

[Mr. Bumble]

Do Muslim women shout Allahu Akbar when they climax (especially those who had a clitoridectomy) ?

Asking for a friend.

[Davedave]

"surely, SURELY, there are some Trump-supporters who also have a real love of Christ and of the Bible"

No, the two are mutually exclusive. But then again, the religion known as 'Christianity' and 'real love of Christ etc' are also mutually exclusive.

[Armchair]

Two points.

1. Not everyone wants to spout about their religion.
2. In a multi-religious society, people understand that "some" of their leaders aren't going to be of their religion, and they'd prefer someone who understands (even if they don't strictly follow) that religion...rather than someone who strongly, strictly follows a religion that isn't theirs.

[Dan Schiavetta]

"1. Not everyone wants to spout about their religion.
2. In a multi-religious society, people understand that “some” of their leaders aren’t going to be of their religion, and they’d prefer someone who understands (even if they don’t strictly follow) that religion…rather than someone who strongly, strictly follows a religion that isn’t theirs."

This describes Democrats, but it sure as hell doesn't describe Republicans.

[Armchair]

There are lots of different Republicans. But let's put this in concepts you understand...

1. If you're a Baptist minister in Alabama, do you want an irreligious Trump as President...or Ilhan Omar...

[Martinned2]

That depends. Is this hypothetical minister a racist or not?

[Armchair]

I think you meant "religious bigot"

[Martinned2]

I didn't, but that might be the next question. Many sincere observant Christians recognise their common ground with observant Muslims. But both outright racism and religious bigotry might get in the way of that, that is true.

https://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/news/archbishop-justin-hosts-iftar-meal-lambeth-palace

[Brett Bellmore]

Observant Christians recognize we've got more common ground with observant Muslims than we do with, say, Buddhists, at least in principle. We also recognize that, depending on the branch of Islam, we have huge conflicts.

[Martinned2]

My point was more relative to atheists.

[Krychek_2]

Well, there is no parallel universe in which Ilhan Omar is a viable candidate for President of the United States, so maybe we could pick a more realistic hypothetical.

Do you want an irreligious Trump, or a deeply religious Biden, as President? Well, if you are completely Machiavellian you’re going to say Trump because you’ll get policies you like. (I re-read The Prince over the weekend and it sure has applicability to the current day.) But, if you are a Baptist, you are supposed to believe that there is a God in this equation who, at least according to the Bible, forbids making pacts with the Devil. Biblically, you are supposed to do the right thing and then trust God for the results, which may or may not be what you expected. The Bible is loaded with examples of God’s children making pacts with God’s enemies and it never turned out well. (To say nothing of the example of Abraham having a child with Hagar to help God move things along, which turned out really well in retrospect.)

So, do you really believe in God and trust him for the results, or do you enter into Machiavellian pacts with the Devil? I think we know which path evangelicals have chosen.

And just to be clear, I'm not suggesting evangelicals should vote for Biden; his views on abortion and gay rights obviously disqualify him for most evangelicals. Just that if they truly practiced what they preach they sure wouldn't be voting for Trump.

[Armchair]

I believe the response here is 'Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God. '

If you wanted a view on supporting Trump for Baptists, despite his lack of deep religious conviction.

[Sarcastr0]

That quote is not an accurate assessment of white Evangelical motives at the moment. Politics is a spiritual war for them.

Black evangelicals also do some political stuff, but it’s not them who have recently changed.

[Krychek_2]

OK but here's a question. Suppose that Pete Buttigieg is the Democratic nominee for president in 2028 (which I do not think will happen but the possibility can't be ruled out). How many of the same evangelicals who've been giving Trump a free pass for his sexual antics would suddenly discover that traditional sexual morality is now important to them?

I actually posed that question in the comments section of a Christian nationalist blog and they weren't even bashful about their open hypocrisy on the issue. OF COURSE Buttigieg being gay disqualifies him but Trump, oh, he's our guy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

ButtPlug's INCOMPETENCE disqualifies him -- he's so incompetent that he's not even relevant in Baltimore.

But sodomy is a worse sin than adultery.

[Malika the Maiz]

"But sodomy is a worse sin than adultery."

Under what authority?

[ducksalad]

Well, if you're a Christian Nationalist, the authority in theory would be the bible.

Adultery - "surely" death penalty according to Leviticus
Sodomy - "surely" death penalty according to Leviticus

Now that looks like they're equally bad according to the bible, right? But then consider that according to Genesis the whole town of Sodom got wiped out. There's no mention of the town of Adulter, so we can assume it got spared.

I don't know what Gommorahy is, but it must be a pretty bad sin.

[Krychek_2]

ducksalad:

“This, then, was the sin of thy sister Sodom: Pride, fullness of bread and abundance of idleness was in her and in her children; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And she was haughty, and committed abomination before me. Therefore I took her away as I saw fit.” Ezekiel 16:49.

The central problem, even for Bible believers, is that using the story of Sodom as a club against all gay people is the logical fallacy of undistributed middle:

Hitler was a bad person
Hitler was German
Therefore all Germans are bad people.

The men of Sodom were bad people
The men of Sodom were homosexuals
Therefore all homosexuals are bad people.

I think it makes far more sense to limit the story to its facts, which is that attempting to gang rape strangers who have come to you seeking shelter is a bad thing, and would be even if the sexual orientations had been reversed.

[ducksalad]

Krychek, that’s Ezekiel putting his spin on things after the fact.
And anyway the angels were only sent to investigate in the first place because it was already known to be a bad town.

But anyway, we’re acting like those non-Muslims that try to explain to Muslims that the Quran requires them to do this or that. I particularly never understood the Christians that insist – to Muslims – the Quran requires violence. What the hell are they trying to accomplish with that argument?

The Christian Nationalists don’t need our help interpreting the Bible. I don’t particularly like your and Zeke’s suggestion that “fullness of bread and abundance of idleness” will get my town destroyed. We like to eat and relax.

[Krychek_2]

ducksalad, I am well aware that there are Christians who don't believe the Bible, and Muslims who don't believe the Koran, and many shades of difference within the two groups. And I would never tell a Christian, or a Muslim that they have to agree with everything in their holy book.

But when someone takes the position that the holy book is authoritative, I think they are then stuck with what the contents very clearly say. One Christian theologian said that unbelievers are more to be trusted with Biblical interpretation than believers, since unbelievers aren't stuck with the results. They can say, "Yes, Paul said that women must be silent in the church and wasn't he silly." Whereas, if that really is what the text says, and if you claim to believe the text is inerrant and authoritative, well, then, you have no real choice but to salute and obey.

[bernard11]

Why is sodomy worse than adultery? That makes no sense.

[Dan Schiavetta]

He's probably quoting Aquinas. According to whom, sodomy was worse than rape.

[bernard11]

OK. How did Aquinas come to that conclusion?

[Krychek_2]

There are a lot of children from homes that were destroyed by adultery who might disagree with you. But thanks for confirming my point about the double standard.

[David Nieporent]

OK but here’s a question. Suppose that Pete Buttigieg is the Democratic nominee for president in 2028 (which I do not think will happen but the possibility can’t be ruled out).

Fun fact: Buttigieg can run for president in 2064 and be the same age Biden is now.

[Harvey Mosley]

That is ... disturbing.

[Armchair]

"How many of the same evangelicals who’ve been giving Trump a free pass for his sexual antics would suddenly discover that traditional sexual morality is now important to them?"

Most of them, but that's because they're people.

Let's give you an example. Bill Clinton had, let's say, a poor reputation when it came to his...personal...respect for women. Did that stop women's rights groups from endorsing him for President, over Bob Dole, who was far superior in his personal respect for women? Of course not.

Because women's rights groups saw the big picture, and minimized Clinton's foibles. People are people....most Baptists will do the same thing,, minimize the foibles of those who have beneficial political attributes. And of course, maximize any viewed foibles in others, who oppose their politics.

I could add on little bits, about past or "one-time" behavior versus a viewed current social flaw. It's one thing to have an affair in the past when married. It's something else entirely to say "this is my mistress, she's coming to the white house with me any my wife"

But again...people are people. They'll minimize past foibles, when needed. Thinking this one group of people will be entirely different for some reason is not sensical.

[santamonica811]

You're making a fair point, and a pretty decent analogy.

[BrotherMovesOn]

No, I don’t think he does either.
“[w]omens rights groups” are no hows no ways analogous to the evangelical community.
These comparisons are inapt.
The Bible-reading devout are different in kind from fleeting political rent-seekers. Or I thought that’s what they always said.

[Drewski]

Really, you think that's what Jesus meant? You must pay your taxes even if the government is evil, therefore followers are obligated to install an evil ruler to whom they can pay taxes?

[not guilty]

I hope I live to see the day when fundamentalist "Christians" realize that God is not such a weenie that He needs help from Caesar.

[Kazinski]

I think it's pretty clear what Jesus meant, Christians should focus on worshiping god and the the afterlife not on trying to figure out whether their religion had a position on whether taxes were too high.

[bernard11]

And yet they seem to pay an awful lot of attention to the level of taxes.

[Kazinski]

Sure, but they write their congressman about it, not ask their minister to pray for a tax holiday. Or better yet turn all the IRS agents into a piller of salt (I'd start tithing for that).

[Jerry B.]

"Do you want an irreligious Trump, or a deeply religious Biden, as President?'

No.

[not guilty]

The most devoutly religious president since World War II is Jimmy Carter, who was widely regarded as ineffectual.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump is more a St. Francis of Assisi than the Devil.
Now Obama -- can you say "AntiChrist"?

[Krychek_2]

That's really funny, because if you read the Biblical description of anti-Christ, Trump comes closer than any other politician I can think of. Exalts himself above all? Check. Has no regard for the God of heaven? Check. Mistreats women? Check. If he does get re-elected, then maybe his 2020 election loss will be the head wound he suffers as mentioned in the Book of Daniel, and all the world will wonder after the beast.

And I'm only half joking.

[bernard11]

You're nuts, and getting worse by the day.

[Krychek_2]

I must confess that a comparison of Trump to St. Francis had not occurred to me.

[Nige]

1. Some people just prefer to ignore that their party is being driven by religious fundamentalism.

[David Nieporent]

1. Not everyone wants to spout about their religion.

At the risk of Jewsplaining, evangelism is inherent in being a Christian.

[Sarcastr0]

Evangelism by example can answer that mail for many churches.

[Nige]

Missionary work is core to Christianity, but usually to far-off poor and benighted heathen countries where the Word of God has never set Foot or else being charitable to the local poor folk. Catholics and Protestants mostly live side by side without trying to convert each other, so if you're being an evangelist all the time no matter where you are, it's a different strain of Christianity.

[Armchair]

At the risk of Christian-splaining...
No it's not.

[Malika the Maiz]

The old Protestant Fundamentalism had been filled with warnings against sin, heresy, Catholicism, adultery, divorce, materialism and any deviation from strict Christian morality. But preachers such as Jerry Falwell made the religion more user-friendly and less doctrinally demanding. What filled the place of religious doctrine was politics.

Over the past few years, this process has been extended even further with those who consider themselves devout Christians defining their faith almost entirely in political terms — by opposing abortion, same-sex marriage and transgender rights. This in turn has led to a great Democratic dechurching: According to Gallup, Democratic church membership was 46 percent in 2020, down from 71 percent two decades prior.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/05/trump-religion-secularism-authoritarian-populism/

[DaveM]

I have asked my Christian Trump-supporting friends the same question, and their answer is they do not think he is a believer, but they hope he will be some day. They understand perfectly well that he is saying nice things to them just to win their votes.

No, he is not a believer, but at least he is friendly and sympathetic to their cause. He is not actively antithetical and hateful, as are the Democrats, in their view.

[Sarcastr0]

My evangelical Trump-supporting friends are in the same boat as you relate - he's using them but he is also owning the libs so they're pleased enough just based on that, and going in open-eyed to the deal they are making (or so they think).

But there’s absolutely some churches that are getting pretty messianic about Trump. And Trump is absolutely leaning into that.

I’m hopeful that if Trump loses, this will trigger these types to throw up their hands about this fallen world and concentrate on the next one.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Yesterday I heard someone (a Christian, I believe) who said “they’re all corrupt” but who also said that she preferred Trump to Biden.

Not everyone who votes for Trump is fooled by him, some simply think he’s better than your guy.

[Nige]

If they think they're the same, they're being fooled, or they're trying to fool you.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

She didn't think they were the same; she thought your guy was worse.

[Nige]

So she is fooled by Trump.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Bait and switch.

santa monica's claim, to which I was responding, suggested that Trump voters had been fooled into thinking he is an upright Christian.

I provided evidence to the contrary.

Then you change the subject and move on to your "anyone who doesn't vote for my guy is stupid" schtick.

[Nige]

I thought we'd broadened from religion with your “they’re all corrupt.” If corruption was the basis for her preference it was as dumb as if it had been religion. If there was any other basis for it, you didn't mention it.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The insinuation was that Trump voters thought Trump was an upright Christian. She doesn't believe this. So that ends that particular discussion. Start a new thread if you want to go on about how anyone who doesn't vote (D) is an idiot.

[Nige]

No, that still leaves the question of why a Christian would vote for someone like Trump.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Because they think the other guy is worse?

Why don't you attempt to defend your guy?

[Sarcastr0]

Negative party affiliation seems a pretty weak reason to support someone.

But you want to explain what good things Biden has done?

Infrastructure deal and IRA
Justice KJB seems quite good to me
CHIPS Act is a mixed bag, but still pretty good
Marijuana stuff looking good
I like his NATO and Ukraine stuff

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Negative party affiliation seems a pretty weak reason to support someone.”

Not how I paraphrased it, but I’m not going to try and summarize her views any further. If she posted here she could explain her views herself, but she’d have to be really dumb to comment on this site.

[Sarcastr0]

I made a big edit to my comment, but kept the part you quoted at least 😛

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Right, but, you see, it's possible for someone, even a Christian, to disagree with you in good faith.

If you want start a new thread about how awesome Biden is, go right ahead.

[Sarcastr0]

You can in good faith be voting for Trump to own the libs.
Or to prevent Biden's plan to make America Marxist.
Or because you think we need a manly President and you think Biden is too girly.

Spite and delusion are both distinct from bad faith.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"OK, I'll admit that non-Democrats could just be dumb, and not acting in bad faith."

[Sarcastr0]

Plenty of non-Democrats who aren't voting Trump.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

For which you are willing to give them at least a temporary amnesty for the offense of not belonging to your party.

Provided that they don't just avoid Trump, they must affirmatively vote for Biden.

[Sarcastr0]

When did I say anything like that?

You seem pretty excited to strawman even after I corrected you once.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'm sorry if you mistook my mockery for a literal attempt to summarize your position.

[Nige]

'Why don’t you attempt to defend your guy?'

I'd need some specifics. I could throw stuff out there, like not under multiple indictments and didn't attempt to overturn an election, but they're hardly news.

[BadLib]

It's interesting that of the "thousands of people" that you've talked to about religion you've never run across an atheist (or even just an agnostic) who has no interest in sharing their views about any of the competing fantasy works such as "the Koran, or the Bible, or the Book of Mormon".

I presume this means that you travel the world and are extremely careful to embed yourself only in insular religious communities, events, and cultures. It would however be a mistake for you to believe that your contacts are representative of the general population of the world.

I'm an atheist and I couldn't care less about what any fantasy work of fiction says - be it "the Koran, or the Bible, or the Book of Mormon" or Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.

(BTW, does this comment count as breaking your perfect streak of never having talked to a person that didn't want to discuss the fantasy book that drives their delusions or do you require actual verbal speech to consider the interaction "talking"?)

[santamonica811]

No, it doesn't break my streak. 🙂

I've been able to meet tens of thousands of people in my 40 years of travel. The vast majority of them were--and remain--strangers. I don't go around, in foreign cities, and immediately ask people about their philosophy or their religion or their sex life.

But, if I've been invited into your home, or if I've chatted with you for a few hours, while drinking apple tea, AND, you've expressed a belief in some religion . . . then, sure, I'll ask you about it. But I certainly don't go around questioning people who have expressed no interest in religion about their faith--that would be incredibly intrusive and rude. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that that was how I conducted myself while abroad. (I also wouldn't ask people about playing backgammon, or about how they cook muttar paneer; unless they had already indicated that they play that game, or that they cook Indian food. I don't go around asking out-of-the-blue questions to people I've just recently met.) 🙂

As a fellow atheist and as a non-religous Jew, I'd give the expected response, if you were to ask me about my faith. "Well, I'm culturally Jewish, and I'm very proud of that culture. But I'm not religious and I've read almost none of the Torah or the Bible. But I totally respect your faith and it's wonderful that you are able to use your faith to guide you in your life." [etc etc]

[M L]

I had to check if I was reading an 8 year old comment thread. We all read this same comment or article thousands of times and it was discussed ad nauseam. That's ok though, apparently still piques interest.

But are you really asking whether there are any Trump-supporters who didn't like something Trump said? Or if there are any Christians who didn't like something Trump said or don't like him at all? Bizarre question, been living under a rock or ?

I can't speak for others but I view voting for a politician as similar to hiring an accountant or a dentist or a surgeon or a landscaper. Will they do what I am looking for, how do they compare to the available options. I'm not really looking into their religious beliefs and so on. So the reasons I dislike Trump are related to his policies and positions, he is basically a 1990s Democrat.

I don't like this tendency to evaluate presidents or other politicians based on some sort of mushy gushy feelings about their morality or if they are are "good person." First of all, nobody is good. But it's not that a politician's morality does not matter. It does. The problem is this idea that a single political office should even be all that important in any way, much less in the particular way of the person being a source of morality and having some need to venerate the person's righteousness.

[Martinned2]

That seems to be misguided to me. Unlike your accountant, dentist, surgeon, or landscaper, you can't replace the president whenever you like, and unlike your landscaper you aren't really in a position to know whether the president is making the right choices day-to-day. (Nor do you even have the information to.)

Voters should choose politicians based on values, not policy proposals. The policy proposals should be taken as examples that illustrate how a politician thinks about the world, how they broadly propose to handle things. But the world keeps changing after they're elected, and a proposal that was sensible three months before the election may be a terrible idea three months after. And ideally voters would understand that and focus on the underlying values instead.

The question with Trump is whether he can be relied upon to deliver the things that you care about. In his first term he delivered the conservative judges that got rid of Roe v. Wade, which has long been a key priority for Christian voters. So what would a conservative voter want from Trump in a second term, when he no longer has an incentive to placate his base, because he can't run for re-election anyway? Because that's the problem: Electing someone whose values align with yours means that he'll probably do what you would want him to do. Relying on re-election incentives instead breaks down in a president's second term.

[M L]

Fair points. I would say their “values” as it relates specifically to federal government issues and policies, i.e. their political sort of philosophy or instincts or thinking, would be more relevant than their “values” in a general sense.

What would a conservative voter want from Trump in a 2nd term? Well, in my opinion, a conservative voter should not have high hopes for a 2nd Trump term – nor for any national election or candidate for national office generally, as nothing of that sort is likely to yield any fix to the basic structural problems. I could be wrong, and maybe I'm too cynical/pessimistic. Trump would probably get illegal immigration under control again, as he did before, but that only lasts a few years until the next President can flout immigration laws again like Biden does. Trump is unlikely to achieve more durable fixes to that issue since for one thing he does not have legislative powers. Beyond that, Trump in a second term is likely to lean even more into his basic philosophy which is big government spending and generally big government, with a tad more respect for federalism and capitalism, and a less interventionist foreign outlook. In a lot of respects, like a 1990s Democrat. Some voters are caught up in the political theater and so on, and don’t think like this. And of course most basically, people are just looking at what a candidate won’t be or do as compared to the “other side.”

[Frank Drackman]

"RFK Must Die"
Please don't call the FBI, they have their hands full saving the World from P-Diddy (or is it Snoopy-Dog? Kelly R?) can't keep my Knee-Grow Pre-Verts straight (at least they're "Straight" except for that Kelly R dude)
it's the name of a Documentary (2007 Shane O'Sullivan) and comes from what Sirhan Sirhan wrote in his Diary (and if he'd murdered Robert Smith instead of Robert Kennedy California Governor Calvin Loathsome would have paroled him years ago)
It's the only hope for the D Candidate to win in November and you wonder why RFK Jr doesn't have Secret Service protection?

Frank "RFK Jr, The Kennedy who didn't leave a young woman to Asphyxiate (Not Drowned, there's a difference)"

[Estragon]

I encourage you and all other would-be trump voters to continue talking as much as possible about RFK Jr

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is a quote from an article from thirty years ago.

https://archive.md/mgil3

“The erosion of the rights of people on the other side of town will ultimately undermine the rights of each of us,” Andersen said in refusing to lift a ban he imposed last month.

This is very good quote.

[Michael P]

[misposted, not meant as a reply]

[Martinned2]

It's interesting to see that Ecuador's wildly illegal raid of the Mexican embassy may still not come within the jurisdiction of the ICJ: https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-glas-case-diplomatic-asylum-returns-to-the-icj/

[Martinned2]

Diplomatic asylum is also an interesting issue, by the way. As I understand it, only Latin American countries understand it as a separate category of asylum. Elsewhere in the world, someone who is inside an embassy is safe, but there's no other theory about that, and no way of getting them out of there. This came up in the Assange case, for example. (When Ecuador was the host embassy.)

[Michael P]

How so? From the article you linked:

Thus, it is possible to conclude that Mexico will be able to establish the ICJ’s jurisdiction in this case.

It goes on to argue that the asylum might have been wrongful, but that's different from being outside of ICJ jurisdiction.

[Martinned2]

Hence my "may". It's at least arguable either way.

[Michael P]

That's you misreading the meaning of what you linked, not you presenting an argument against jurisdiction.

[Martinned2]

The post offers two arguments against jurisdiction, as you saw:

[Ecuador's] reservation to the Pact of Bogotá in respect of “every provision that contradicts or is not in harmony with the principles proclaimed by or the stipulations contained in the Charter of the United Nations, the Charter of the Organization of American States, or the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador.” (...)

Ecuador could argue that the dispute in question falls within its domestic jurisdiction. This exception is foreseen in Article V of the Pact of Bogotá, which provides that the peaceful procedures regulated therein “may not be applied to matters which, by their nature, are within the domestic jurisdiction of the State”.

I don't think either of these arguments is convincing either. But that interests me less than that they are considered arguable.

[Michael P]

Ecuador could argue those points, and Donald Trump could argue that he won the 2020 election. That doesn't mean such an argument is going anywhere, or that we should treat it as a credibly winning argument.

[Martinned2]

That's fair. In my jargon "arguable" is somewhere between "winning" and "frivolous". Trump's arguments have sometimes been found frivolous, and sometimes been found arguable but not winning.

[Mr. Bumble]

Having "invaded" Mexico do you think Ecuador gives a shit about the ICJ?

[Martinned2]

Ecuador has not invaded Mexico. Not even with quotation marks. And, like other small countries, it has everything to gain from protecting the international rules-based order.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Wrong -- the Mexican embassy is sovereign Mexican territory.

[Martinned2]

It really isn't, and I really wish people would stop saying that.

Under art. 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the premises of the mission are "inviolable". But they are still part of the receiving state's territory, and the laws of the receiving state still apply there. (Subject to the exceptions listed elsewhere in the Convention, such as property taxes.)

https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

Of course, as a practical matter the receiving state might not be able to prosecute people for crimes committed within the premises of a mission, e.g. because they have immunity. And the sending state might claim criminal jurisdiction over its diplomats abroad exactly for this reason. But if you visit an embassy and punch another guest, there's no reason why the police shouldn't arrest you as soon as you leave the embassy premises (or sooner with the ambassador's permission), and prosecute you in the receiving state's courts under the receiving state's laws.

[Estragon]

Ed didn’t know any of that, nor did he bother to look if his assertion was correct, however, he is a big fan of the 2000 Samuel L Jackson flick “Rules of Engagement” and therefore felt informed enough to comment.

[John F. Carr]

The post you linked cites an ICJ decision in the Tehran embassy hostages case (https://www.icj-cij.org/case/64). The ICJ said Iran was in the wrong, to no effect. The ICJ may say Ecuador is in the wrong. So what? If other American countries start breaking off diplomatic relations with Ecuador, then we have consequences.

Offhand, I don't know how important Ecuador is to US interests. Lithium, ecotourism, and drugs come to mind.

[Martinned2]

Iran has been an international pariah since the hostage crisis. I wouldn't call that "no effect".

And the more important question is how important the US (and other states, e.g. states that might care what the ICJ thinks) are to Ecuador and to Ecuador's president. That's where the leverage comes from.

[Davedave]

"Iran has been an international pariah since the hostage crisis."

Doesn't stop you lapping up Iranian propaganda, and supporting Iranian proxies, does it?

[Martinned2]

When have I ever done that?

[Davedave]

ROFL. You can't be that much in denial, surely? Where do you think your antisemitic 'talking points' come from?

[Martinned2]

When have I ever used antisemitic talking points? Examples or STFU.

[Davedave]

What the fuck? Was someone else posting antisemitic rants and conspiracy theories under your name last Thursday? That was the majority of the thread. You and Nigel and a few others posting antisemitic Iranian propaganda.

Oh, and that nutter who pretends to be Jewish while openly calling for a final solution, who you supported.

It's bizarre you'd deny it after working so hard to stooge for Iran.

[Nige]

'Was someone else posting antisemitic rants and conspiracy theories under your name last Thursday?'

You were. You keep saying the most awful anti-semitic things, and then try to attach other peoples' names to them, and then claim the person said those things as proof of their anti-semitism. It's bizarre.

[NOVA Lawyer]

DaveDave's only "contribution" to this blog is randomly accusing people he disagrees with of antisemitism. I'm muting him.

[Davedave]

Sure it is. Or, I call out all the antisemites here - as well as the other racists.

Tbf, I do tend to concentrate more on Nigel and Martin, because they lie so flagrantly about what they believe, unlike the other far right nut jobs here like Dr Ed the Typing Horse and Brett.

[Nige]

'because they lie so flagrantly about what they believe'

Which is to say, we do not say any of the things you claim we say. Which is sneaky and unfair of us, apparently.

[Martinned2]

I also like that word "other", which seems to suggest that you and I are also "far right nut jobs". That has to be the first time that someone on the VC has called me far right. (Or right-wing anything, for that matter.)

[VinniUSMC]

Martin's a Nazi. Probably has a swastika tattooed on the top of his bald head.

[Sarcastr0]

What is your plan with over the top attacks like this?

It's so ridiculous all it does is make you look unhinged.

[John F. Carr]

I never heard that the ICJ decision had any influence. Most of the world has diplomatic relations with Iran. Iran's political alignment dictates which countries like it best.

[Martinned2]

Nothing in the ICJ judgment on the hostage crisis prevents anyone from having diplomatic relations with Iran. (Nor does any other ICJ judgment order anyone to end diplomatic relations with anyone, if I'm not mistaken.)

Compliance with ICJ judgments is always a problem, although it tends to be easier for cases that are more technocratic, like the many border delineation cases that the ICJ has heard, where typically (but not always) the parties follow the border as the ICJ has drawn it.

There are many countries that would like to strengthen the international rules-based order, but the problem is that there are large states in the world - I'm not naming names - who think they do better out of a Wild West 'I can do whatever I like' legal order. Such short termism is, sadly, not limited to dictatorships. Elected politicians have a tendency to only look as far as the next election, so they are no strangers to short termism.

[Commenter_XY]

The US is quietly re-basing in Manta. Drugs, and transnational drug gangs are a crisis. There are also strategic considerations for the US wrt Ecuador vis a vis the degree of Chinese influence. Their location is important (on equator, Pacific facing).

Noboa (and Ecuador) have a hard time ahead. I would not presume to suggest borrowing a page out of 'Bukele's Book on How to Handle Druggies', but the results in El Salvador dealing with drug gangs is something for Noboa to think about.

[Martinned2]

Yes, but why is that relevant for this diplomatic crisis?

[Michael P]

As an economic intervention, reading glasses for middle-aged people in developing countries can pay for themselves in almost no time: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0296115

Although according to an argument presented here yesterday, correlation is not causation and maybe changing things is actually bad. This will probably lead to more lynchings or something.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Why do you turn an interesting comment into idiocy with your second paragraph?

As to the main point, note that the study involved provision of reading glasses to middle-aged people with near vision intensive jobs, not middle-aged people generally. But the increase in income was 33% among roughly 400 controls and 400 intervention subjects. Very interesting study and another good demonstration of how small interventions can have a huge impact. Thanks for sharing.

Maybe save the preemptive descent into moronic fortune telling regarding pushback you'll get. Or, alternatively, don't be such a weakling that you whine about arguments you apparently lost in totally unrelated threads.

[Michael P]

I thought yesterday's comment was idiotic too, but you should take that up with that commenter rather than me.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't always agree with ReaderY. Probably less than half the time, actually. But this is a really anodyne comment that there are costs as well as benefits to all policy decisions.

The statement "correlation is not causation and maybe changing things is actually bad" is a pretty accurate general statement.

[NOVA Lawyer]

What a weird way to engage with yesterday’s comment. And, in fact, as Sarcatro points out, the ReaderY (with whom I usually disagree) made a reasonable point. He didn’t even take any definite position other than you have to do more than show some negative secondary effects to show that a policy which aims to do good wasn’t worth the costs.

Basically, as I read him, ReaderY was just saying a cost-benefit analysis has to include costs and benefits. He probably underweights (relative to my own assessment) how bad increased racial discrimination is. Even so, he merely said: The results don’t necessarily bear the conclusions Professor Somin wishes to draw. (Note, he didn't say Somin was wrong, just that he wasn't necessarily right based solely on the negative secondary effects of the policy at issue.) And then gave as his reason general principles which are pretty unassailable.

What exactly do you find idiotic about that?

[Kazinski]

A New Jersey Senate Candidate was ruthlessly mocked for blaming the NJ earthquake last week on Climate Change:

A candidate running for Senate in New Jersey was ruthlessly goaded on social media after claiming the “climate crisis” was to blame for the Friday earthquake that rocked the tri-state area.

Green Party member Christina Amira Khalil shared the controversial message just minutes after the quake, which was the strongest temblor to strike near the Big Apple in 140 years.

“I experienced my first earthquake in NJ. We never get earthquakes. The climate crisis is real. The weirdest experience ever,” Khalil wrote on X.
https://nypost.com/2024/04/06/us-news/christina-amira-khalil-blames-climate-change-for-earthquake/

But She is actually right, the earthquake probably was related to climate change just not how she thinks. The Laurentide Ice sheet was about 1.5 miles thick over NY city and the weight actually caused compression and subsidence where the ice sheet was, it also caused the land mass to rise further south in NJ where the Ice didn’t reach. More than 10,000 years later geological processes are still adjusting the relative weights of the mantle and the crust. Its called Isostasy: “isostatic equilibrium is the state of gravitational equilibrium between Earth’s crust (or lithosphere) and mantle such that the crust “floats” at an elevation that depends on its thickness and density.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostasy

New Jersey isn’t near any plate boundaries, so its not a typical subduction or strike slip fault like on the West Coast or Caribbean.

[Sarcastr0]

Green Party?

This is nutpicking.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There was the 6.0-6.3 Cape Ann quake in 1755....

[DaveM]

I've never met a geologist yet who doubts that the earth's climate changes. It's just that tiny issue of the time scale ...

[Martinned2]

There's always an xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1732/

[DaveM]

Monroe is a great cartoonist, but I wouldn’t cite him as a source on geology. Even that very comic has huge problems because he is literally tracing only one side of the ice age/hot house cycle. And because he doesn’t include the other side of that cycle, he winds up at an utterly preposterous projection.

At geologic time scales, the next half of the cycle is towards cooling, not ridiculously fast over-heating.

[Martinned2]

So are temperatures going up very quickly or not?

[Davedave]

Well, the IPCC says 'not yet, though they inevitably will', but I expect that like your chum Nige you reject the scientific consensus on climate change.

[Nige]

Ypu do like to tell people they are saying things they haven't said, including the IPCC.

https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/

The report shows that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are responsible for approximately 1.1°C of warming since 1850-1900, and finds that averaged over the next 20 years, global temperature is expected to reach or exceed 1.5°C of warming. This assessment is based on improved observational datasets to assess historical warming, as well progress in scientific understanding of the response of the climate system to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.

[Martinned2]

Davedave doesn't think that a degree per century is very impressive...

[myself]

He's not a primary source but he provides a good visualization.

Even your "huge problem" is what? That he started 20k years ago and not further back? Or he didn't go into some weird distant future prediction that's devoid of human influence?

[Don Nico]

Nice try at charity Kazinski. It was just a stupid comment. It is more likely the tremor was caused by Bob Menendez offending the Ju-Jub.

[Commenter_XY]

Last evening, the President of El Salvador (Bukele) announced he was giving 5,000 free passports and tax-free entry of commercial and intellectual property assets. And a fast track to citizenship to vote, so they have an immediate stake in the country. His stated aim is to import 5000 of the best and brightest people from around the world and bring them to El Salvador. Interesting concept. 🙂

Could a POTUS Biden or POTUS Trump do the same?
Thought Experiment: Make the affirmative argument that the POTUS can do this.
(example: could a POTUS do it on foreign policy grounds - maybe, or national security grounds - maybe)

[ducksalad]

The POTUS could make it happen in 12 months by appointing them as active duty military and then "ordering" them to run their companies as their service. After one year they are eligible for naturalization.

There's already an EB-5 (for large investor) and EB-2 (national interest waiver, for scientists), they are way faster than getting in the general line for a green card. However, they still have to do the 5 years on a green card to become a citizen.

[John F. Carr]

If you are a protester who takes an empty envelope from the Capitol, you are a criminal. If you are a respectable person who takes government property from Air Force One, can you please give it back no questions asked?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/29/air-force-one-theft

I remember an exchange from Die Hard:

"You're nothing but a common thief."
"I am an exceptional thief."

[Martinned2]

I would say they're both thieves, but one of them was a trespassing thief.

[Mr. Bumble]

So stealing is fine if you're an invited guest?

[Martinned2]

What part of "thief" do you not understand?

[apedad]

I recall a similar story years ago that visitors (including official visitors) to the White House would take silverware and other small items.

Seems like we're a nation of Bundy's.

(from 1997) https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1997/08/18/souvenir-temptation-at-the-white-house/42a488a7-f637-46e0-9e0b-0c22465078e9/

[Nige]

I remember the stories that the Clintons had stripped the White House bare on their way out.

[David Nieporent]

If you are a protester

If you broke into a building to try to overthrow the government, you are not a protester, whether you took something or not.

[Michael P]

Interesting claims, but I'll wait to see actual evidence: https://www.theburkean.ie/uncategorized/2024/04/06/antifa-battered-in-coolock-their-phones-seized-by-nationalists-apparently-revealing-seedy-links-between-media-ngos-and-far-left

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.theburkean.ie/uncategorized/2024/04/07/coolock-update-did-antifa-work-with-police-and-media-attempting-a-false-flag-op-but-getting-beaten-up-instead

[I]t seems major media outlets colluded...with extreme leftists, some of whom may have been looking to engineer a confrontation. But many locals suspect a far more worrying scenario: that politicians, journalists, Antifa, and — remarkably — the police wished to stage a conflict with nationalists

...as was successfully done in Charlottesville in 2017.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally

[Sarcastr0]

The revolution will be disavowed as a false flag op.

[Michael P]

I still don't see any specific details in that article. No quotes from the phones to show what coordination occurred, who the coordinators were, when they coordinated anything, etc.

The claims are credible, but not yet supported.

[Nelson]

You have a strangely expansive definition of the word "credible" that includes "random people claiming highly unlikely conspiracies using loaded terms and lacking any direct evidence".

[David Nieporent]

There are no actual facts in that story that support any of the claims of anyone working with (or colluding with) anybody. Also, it's in Ireland.

[Nige]

In short, the people posting this story also organised the protest and in their own story admitted to attacking and robbing people. I'm glad this was too much even for you to jump in wholeheartedly.

[Michael Ejercito]

https://rumble.com/v4nnohc-ukraine-will-join-nato-vows-anthony-blinken.html

No one in either the Carter or Reagan administrations were reckless enough to even insinuate that NATO was inviting Afghanistan to join.

[Michael P]

Why would they have suggested that? Was Afghanistan then secretly near some existing member of NATO, geographically or politically or culturally or otherwise?

[Moderation4ever]

As I have noted before any negotiated settlement of the Ukraine Russia War will require some assurance against future Russian incursions. The only real assurance is if Ukraine is part of NATO. So, I don't see a way to a negotiated settlement without NATO membership. The only alternative is a protracted war of aggression. Russia will win but not for a long time.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How about UN peacekeeping forces?

Is the UN good for ANYTHING???

[Moderation4ever]

Would those UN peacekeeping forces stop further Russian aggression? Would a UN force most likely be made up of NATO nations anyway?

[Martinned2]

Russia supplied the peacekeepers in Nagorno-Karabakh. (Not UN peacekeepers, but still.) That worked out well.

[apedad]

Russia, as a permanent UN Security Council member, can/would veto that.

[Martinned2]

There's no point in sending peacekeepers as long as there is no peace to keep. So I assume the (implicit) assumption was that the peacekeepers would come as part of some comprehensive peace deal, or at least cease fire.

[Martinned2]

As originally conceived the UN was a collective security organisation, i.e. a body that would actively shoot back if one of its members was invaded. But, unlike NATO, there was never any obligation on UN members to do that, absent a Security Council resolution. And the Security Council hasn't adopted a resolution like that since the Korean War.

[grb]

Moderation4ever : “The only real assurance is if Ukraine is part of NATO”

It’s my bet any assurance Ukraine gets from a negotiated settlement will not include NATO membership. Prior to Russia’s invasion, there was zero chance of Ukraine joining NATO. Since then the odds have risen but are still very, very small. For reason, you only have to look at Sweden’s difficulties getting the required unanimous vote.

Then picture Ukraine’s difficulties. It wouldn’t just be Putin’s bootlicker Orban or Erdoğan playing both sides. It wouldn’t just be the smaller or more peripheral organization members who don’t want to add such a volatile obligation. I personally believe there is no possible French government – Left or Right – that would support Ukrainian membership. France has always sought a close direct relationship with Russia and that would come first.

Far Left/Right apologists for Russia’s invasion typically claim it was all the U.S.’s fault (of course!) because of the NATO issue. Bullshit. Putin knew Ukraine stood no chance all along. It was the general turning of Ukraine away from Russia & towards Europe that was the real issue. NATO always was a red herring.

[David Nieporent]

I personally believe there is no possible French government – Left or Right – that would support Ukrainian membership. France has always sought a close direct relationship with Russia and that would come first.

I'm all for France-bashing, but France has taken a harder line in favor of Ukraine than almost any other country.

[grb]

The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Even though France has been a stalwart supporter of Ukraine, Macron has had more direct personal interaction with Putin than any other major western leader. Even though the French leader has been as hawkish as the Ukrainians would wish, he’s the one who talked in the past about Russia’s place in Europe after the conflict ends.

When that happens, it’s my bet France quickly resets relations with Russia. It obviously won’t be as crozy as before, but France will want to de-escalate as soon as possible.

[Martinned2]

Macron shifted quite a lot in the last two years, but only ever in one direction.

He won't be in office anymore by the time the Ukraine war ends, but if he was I'm sure he would back Ukrainian NATO membership 100% unless he thought he could create some kind of European NATO alternative and make NATO redundant, e.g. under a Trump presidency. Strategic autonomy has been the buzzword for years now, but effectively that's been French policy since the 1950s.

The more interesting question is what the famously Kremlin-cozy Le Pen would do if she was president. That's difficult to predict, but it may well be that she would back Ukrainian NATO membership too if it was on offer, exactly because her history with Putin forces her to take a tough approach to Russia.

[Commenter_XY]

You want UKR in NATO? Are you mad? You want a leading kleptocracy (leading in terms of level of corruption, that is) with a questionable history (gleefully helping the Nazis) as a member of NATO. That is not a well considered policy.

Admitting UKR into NATO guarantees war. No thank you.

There is no vital US national interest in UKR. None whatsoever. UKR is not worth the life of a single American soldier. Not one.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

That's some remarkable willful ignorance you've developed, entirely based on your religious views.

If Ukraine had been a member of NATO, Putin would not have attacked it at all. You've heard of the treaty, and undoubtedly know of Article 5, yet seem determined to say the stupidest shit you can come up with.

Bravo!

[Commenter_XY]

We need corruption from UKR like we need a case of covid. UKR rivals Russia in corruption. You're not disputing that.

Please name the vital US national interest that UKR represents. There is none. You're not disputing that either.

There are no circumstances - none - that NATO should even contemplate admitting UKR. UKR is not an American fight, and it is not a NATO fight.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I did in fact dispute your entire comment, because all of it is based purely off of your Jewish grudge.

We've been over this numerous times in the past. The experts disagree with your assessment of the situation from top to bottom.

All you do is repeat your biased opinion over and over again, and then act like nobody's ever corrected your ignorance or called you out on basing your entire worldview on your religion and infantile grudges from nearly a century ago.

[David Nieporent]

with a questionable history (gleefully helping the Nazis)

I mean, you know who else gleefully helped the Nazis? Germany. They're in NATO, last I checked.

[Martinned2]

You know who else helped the Nazi's? Finland, who just joined NATO. And Romania, which is in NATO. And Bulgaria, which is in NATO. And Hungary, which is in NATO. And the Baltics, which are in NATO.

At least the Ukranians, the Baltics, and the Finns had the excuse of Soviet occupation. Not sure what the German, Romanian, Bulgarian, or Hungarian excuse was.

[hobie]

I started to recall my Bible studies when thinking about things from recent years. I thought things seemed familiar. I cobbled this list from both Billy Graham's and Liberty University's websites.

Signs of the true Antichrist will be:

- He'll be wearing a crown
- He'll be riding a white horse
- He will convince the Jewish nation and the Arab nations to sign a peace treaty, paving the way for the long-awaited third temple
- He will establish for Jerusalem the building of the third temple
- He will be able to subdue believers during a period of world turmoil
- He will place himself as being equal or superior to God
- He will be a Gentile ruler leading the modern remnants of the Roman Empire
- He will betray his own acolytes who will be cast into the flames of perdition

[Michael P]

Strongly related: https://pjmedia.com/robert-spencer/2024/04/06/dems-realize-they-cant-win-on-bidens-record-stake-everything-on-trump-hate-n4927958

[Sarcastr0]

This was an argument the right was always going to make regardless of Biden's record.

pjmedia's analysis of Democratic tactics doesn't carry a lot of weight, really.

[DaveM]

No, that would arguably be the fourth temple. The first temple was completed under Solomon, the second under Cyrus II, and the third under Herod the Great. For some reason, people want to conflate the second and third temples, but the fact is the second temple was completely razed and another, larger, structure was built on the same spot.

The construction of the third temple took some 46 years to complete, and it was finished during the lifetime of Jesus. There is a famous story relating to this, in the Gospel of John, where Jesus is cleansing the temple of its marketplace.

"The Jews then responded to him, “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?” Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken."

[David Nieporent]

For some reason, people want to conflate the second and third temples, but the fact is the second temple was completely razed and another, larger, structure was built on the same spot.

Jews consider that a renovation/expansion, not a separate temple.

[Moderation4ever]

Man shoots his own vehicle.

https://madison.com/news/local/crime-courts/wisconsin-madison-police-shotgun-accidental-shooting/article_5af1388e-f36d-11ee-87f4-679174f75d5b.html

Again I note, that the Constitutional right to own a firearm doesn't mean it is a good idea for you to have one.

[Ska]

Detective Prezbyluski?

[Longtobefree]

Definitely NOT a 'Florida Man'

[Armchair]

A Biden judge recently berated two DoJ laywers who refused to show up for a valid Congressional subpoena.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/judge-berates-doj-republican-subpoenas-hunter-biden-probe-rcna146681

Do the lawyers need to answer all of Congress's questions? No. But...they need to show up. This type of ignoring Congressional Subpoenas has put two of Trump's ex-advisors in prison for months.

Is there any reason these DoJ lawyers shouldn't also be imprisoned? Or are we just at the "we enforce the laws against our political enemies, not our political allies" stage...

[Brett Bellmore]

We've been at that stage for years now.

[Sarcastr0]

You act like everyone who got Congress subpoena from this administration went to jail if they didn’t show up.

Do you think that is true?

[NOVA Lawyer]

"[Judge] Reyes also directed ire at a lawyer representing the House Judiciary Committee, saying the GOP-led panel had wasted taxpayer money by filing last month's lawsuit."

DOJ opposed the subpoenas because, as the judge agreed, the attorneys would likely show up only to properly assert privilege and so wouldn't give any substantive answers and, as the judge also agreed, the subpoenas were a colossal waste of time and money for an investigation the judge thought wouldn't stay open long enough for an appeal of her decision to be addressed by the DC Circuit:

"“I’m confident that you’re not keeping the impeachment inquiry open long enough for the DC Circuit to render a decision.”

So, to answer your question: Yes, there are multiple reasons they shouldn't also be imprisoned as they had colorable claims which involve separation of powers concerns and are currently, and properly working their way through the court system. Meanwhile, Navarro just failed to show up based on his own feelings.

Shorter for Armchair: One of these things is not like the other.

[jb]

Keeping in mind: Navarro keeps asserting Executive Privilege. Trump has never backed him up on that claim, which is (a big) part of the reason the DOJ decided to prosecute him.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Exactly. Navarro had no plausible claim because the executive (and former executive) did not back up the claim. Not so the government attorneys.

[Bob from Ohio]

“I’m confident that you’re not keeping the impeachment inquiry open long enough for the DC Circuit to render a decision.”

In what world is this her concern?

[David Nieporent]

In what world is the potential mootness of an action a concern of the judge to which that action is assigned? This world.

[Armchair]

In what world does a district court judge get to decide how long Congress will keep an inquiry open, and make her decision based on that?

[David Nieporent]

Sigh. She is not "deciding" any such thing. She is observing it, and she didn't "make a decision" at all.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Bob,

David said it best, but I'll just question, you really don't think judges should be concerned if litigants are just using them as a propaganda tool, using her courtroom to put on a show for their gullible constituents without genuine interest in obtaining any sort of final relief?

[Armchair]

Oh, good to know.

You don't need to show up for a Congressional Subpoena so long as you believe you "would likely show up only to properly assert privilege and so wouldn’t give any substantive answers"

Not like Congress gets to decide what they will ask.

[Longtobefree]

"Or are we just at the “we enforce the laws against our political enemies, not our political allies” stage…"

I suggest you ask Eric Holder - - - - - -

[not guilty]

I agree that the recipients of the subpoenas should have appeared and asserted privileges, where applicable, on a question by question basis.

That having been said, did issuance of the subpoenas advance a valid legislative purpose? Has the Congress adequately identified its aims and explains why the requested information will advance its consideration of possible legislation? Trump v. Mazars U.S., LLP, 140 S. Ct. 2019, 2036 (2020), citing Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 205-206 (1957).

[Armchair]

And having not even appeared for the subpoena....

Well, perhaps criminal charges are in order. It's been done before.

Executive branch oversight is important.

[not guilty]

The relevant criminal statute is 2 U.S.C. § 192, which makes it a misdemeanor for any person summoned as a witness by either House of Congress or any committee thereof to "willfully make[] default," or after having appeared, to willfully refuse to answer any question "pertinent to the question under inquiry."

"Part of the standard of criminality, therefore, is the pertinency of the questions propounded to the witness." Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 208 (1957). In a prosecution for contempt of Congress, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the subpoenaed witness's willfulness, pertinency and the question under inquiry. Since § 192 carries a potential sentence of incarceration exceeding six months, the alleged contemnor would be entitled to a jury trial.

Here the DOJ line attorneys under subpoena likely acted pursuant to instructions from their superiors. That would not necessarily negate willfulness, but it would mitigate against such a finding beyond a reasonable doubt.

What here is the "question under inquiry"? As Chief Justice Warren opined for the Court in Watkins, 354 U.S. at 201:

It is the responsibility of the Congress, in the first instance, to insure that compulsory process is used only in furtherance of a legislative purpose. That requires that the instructions to an investigating committee spell out that group's jurisdiction and purpose with sufficient particularity. Those instructions are embodied in the authorizing resolution.

What here is the committee's legislative purpose? "There is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure." Id., at 200. What does the resolution authorizing committee proceedings provide regarding the subject matter and scope of the investigation?

As I said upthread, the recipients of the subpoenas should have appeared and asserted privileges, where applicable, on a question by question basis. But criminal contempt here requires more than merely failing to appear.

[Armchair]

“for any person summoned as a witness by either House of Congress or any committee thereof to “willfully make[] default,””

Did, or did not the lawyers willingly make default upon their appearance? The questions asked are irrelevant…because the even the appearance did not occur. There was not even the opportunity for questions…

“But criminal contempt here requires more than merely failing to appear.”

Why? Under what grounds? Seems other people were charged with criminal contempt and convicted for merely failing to appear. Do the DoJ lawyers not know the applicable law? Seems unlikely, given their profession. Did their superiors order them to break the law? What would be the penalty for a superior official knowingly ordering a subordinate the break the law?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You're like an etch-a-sketch...

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/04/08/monday-open-thread-47/?comments=true#comment-10514229

That is why.

[not guilty]

"Criminal contempt is a crime in the ordinary sense; it is a violation of the law, a public wrong which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both." Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 201 (1968). As with any other criminal offense, the prosecution must prove every element of the offense in order to convict.

In this context, that includes the culpable mental state of the subpoena recipients, the "question under inquiry" being in furtherance of a legislative purpose, and the pertinence of the questions that the prospective witnesses would have been asked.

If a District of Columbia jury were to find that the purpose of the committee inquiry is to go fishing for dirt on Hunter Biden, that jury could easily have reasonable doubt as to criminal contempt.

[Armchair]

Ah, relying on the DC jury I see....

rather than "fishing for dirt on Hunter Biden" it would seem to me that executive branch oversight and corruption lie directly in Congress's domain. Asking key questions about the mindset of the investigation itself (and not Mr Biden.).

"For example, as members of the team that recommended what charges to bring against Hunter Biden, Daly and Morgan initially agreed that DOJ should file charges for tax crimes related to 2014 and 2015. But months later, they gave a key presentation and argued just the opposite—that Hunter Biden should not be charged for tax crimes related to those years."

This "implies" someone may have directed them to reverse their initial assessment to charge with crimes. Which is why that Congress is asking the question, and subpoenaing the witnesses.

By refusing to appear, Daly and Morgan are frustrating Congress’s ability to conduct oversight and investigate Executive Branch corruption—a critical part of Congress’s Article I powers

But perhaps you don't believe potential government corruption is under Congress's powers?

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/Daly_Morgan%20Complaint-filed.pdf

[apedad]

Justice Department Announces Publication of Third Volume of National Firearms Commerce and Trafficking Assessment

Some findings were:

- The three most frequently identified violations of federal law in the investigations analyzed during this study included: (1) dealing in firearms without a license, (2) providing false information to an FFL, which is associated with straw purchasing, and (3) possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

- Firearms trafficked through unlicensed dealers were used in shootings in 368 cases.

-Trafficked firearms were used in homicides in 265 cases, attempted homicide in 222 cases, and aggravated assaults in 446 cases.

- Over half of the firearms trafficked were handguns (nearly 56%), with rifles following in second (nearly 19%).

- The average number of firearms trafficked per case was 16.
In nearly 58% of the cases, five or fewer firearms were trafficked.

- The majority of traffickers who directly or indirectly facilitated the movement of firearms to illegal markets were white (53%), male (84%), and U.S. citizens (95%).

- The recipients or end users of the trafficked firearms tended to be previously convicted felons (60%) and young adults aged 25 to 34 (48%).

- The annual percentage of juvenile (17 and under) end-users increased almost 10% between 2017 and 2021.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-publication-third-volume-national-firearms-commerce-and

I think we all agree that preventing criminals from obtaining weapons is a good thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

If possible, and the costs to the law abiding were not very great, sure, it would be a good thing. I know of no way of actually preventing criminals from obtaining weapons, without putting them behind bars.

So we're actually talking about making it marginally less convenient for criminals to obtain weapons, and, no, I don't think much burden at all on the law abiding is justified by that modest goal.

[Martinned2]

You could also try making it a lot less convenient for criminals to obtain weapons...

[Jerry B.]

Common-sense gun control?

[CountmontyC]

How about punishing criminals ( convicted felons) for being in possession of a firearm? It's been done before but it was stopped for being racially discriminatory because it was mostly black people being punished.

[Malika the Maiz]

That was stopped?

[Ed Grinberg]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City

[Malika the Maiz]

Stop and frisk is an investigative thing, not a sentencing (*punishing*) thing.

[Ed Grinberg]

"[A]n Illinois bill mandating stricter sentencing for illegal gun possession was blocked by the black caucus in Springfield in 2013, on the ground that it would have a disparate impact on blacks." (source)

[Malika the Maiz]

That was a bill for *stricter* sentencing, this doesn't imply the past processes have stopped.

[Harvey Mosley]

Maybe not stopped. But California has removed sentence enhancements for criminals who use a gun during the commission of a crime. If gun control was really about public safety that wouldn't be the case.

[Martinned2]

Given that, by definition, that only comes up when the criminal has already been caught and is already being punished, I guess that depends on whether there is any provable relationship between that enhancement and criminals' willingness to use guns during the commission of their crimes. And given that the Becker model of criminal behaviour hasn't held up so well, I'm not sure that there is.

[Noscitur a sociis]

– The three most frequently identified violations of federal law in the investigations analyzed during this study included: (1) dealing in firearms without a license, (2) providing false information to an FFL, which is associated with straw purchasing, and (3) possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

[Brett Bellmore]

How? 24 hour monitoring?

There is no way to make criminals obtaining weapons any more inconvenient than criminals obtaining meth or crack. And that's not very inconvenient at all. It's just not enough to justify the infringement of the liberties of everybody else.

The problem here is that you're not conducting a proper cost/benefit analysis, when it comes to gun control. You're doing "benefit/benefit" analysis, since you view the imposition on the law abiding majority as a benefit, not a cost.

[jb]

This weird helplessness when it comes to guns ignores the fact that gun possession and gun crime are MUCH lower in many other countries.

"That's impossible" is a pretty feeble argument when there's scores of counterexamples throughout the world.

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't say it was impossible. I said that it fails any reasonable cost-benefit analysis unless you assign depriving the law abiding of guns to the 'benefit' column. Which, of course, you do.

Not "impossible", "impossible in a free society."

If we Americans wanted to live in Europe we'd move there.

[jb]

If we Americans wanted to live in the Northern Triangle we'd move there too!

But looking at Europe, countries like Switzerland and Finland manage to have relatively high gun ownership rates with MUCH lower rates of gun death. They also treat guns akin to other dangerous things like cars and require licensing and learning how to use them safely. Those sorts of regulations seem to do quite well on the cost/benefit spectrum. In fact, it's your position that there should be almost no regulation whatsoever that seems to fail the test since there's very advantage to allowing so many people to die when it can be mitigated with relatively little burden on responsible gun owners.

[Harvey Mosley]

"... allowing so many people to die when it can be mitigated with relatively little burden on responsible gun owners."

California has a very large burden on gun owners and can't seem to mitigate it.

[jb]

I agree that in a country with freedom of internal movement and central regulation of interstate commerce, it's going to be challenging for one state to adopt policies with the same kind of efficacy as an autonomous country like Switzerland.

Having said that, California's gun death rate is 9 per 100,000. That's below average for the US and MUCH lower than states with the loosest gun regulations like Mississippi (34), Georgia (20), Arkansas (23), Montana (25), Wyoming (26) and Idaho (16). (For contrast, Switzerland's rate is 3 per 100,000 so as much better to California's as California is to Wyoming.)

[Sarcastr0]

An argument wherein Europe is declared not free is a pretty fringey one.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, try homeschooling your child in Germany. Try being a cattle farmer in the Netherlands. Then tell us about free and fringey.

[Martinned2]

You’re doing “benefit/benefit” analysis, since you view the imposition on the law abiding majority as a benefit, not a cost.

In the abstract, "the law abiding majority" is neither a benefit nor a cost, unless you think owning a gun is a benefit per se. It depends on what those law abiding people do with their guns, other than commit suicide (RIP Kurt Cobain) and accidentally shoot each other.

[Brett Bellmore]

"In the abstract, “the law abiding majority” is neither a benefit nor a cost, unless you think owning a gun is a benefit per se."

I think that getting to do what you want to do is a benefit, per se. Getting to own a gun is just a subset of that.

[Martinned2]

That's not how cost/benefit analysis works.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure it is. You just don't assign any value to being free.

[Martinned2]

Neither does anyone else who carries out a cost/benefit analysis.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CircularA-4.pdf

What you assign costs and benefits to is what people will/may do with that freedom.

[Brett Bellmore]

The funny thing is, that circular does use rights on the benefit side; It just doesn't acknowledge that regulations ever have rights costs.

[Sarcastr0]

You can do that, Brett, but I don't think you would want to put rights into a cost-benefit analysis paradigm.

[Davedave]

It says a lot about the state of things in the US that it's no harder to get hold of a gun than to get hold of small quantities of illegal drugs, and you can't imagine it being different.

Here, it's far easier to get hold of drugs than guns. Not sure there's any much meth around, but I wouldn't find it hard to get hold of some crack. The people I know who dabble in illegal drugs could point me in the direction of crack, though they'd think I was insane. They wouldn't know anyone who has a gun, let alone would sell me one.

If I wanted crack, it'd be easier to get a number for a coke dealer and cook my own, but that's a whole different issue.

[Brett Bellmore]

I can perfectly well imagine it being different, and I am determined not to pay the price that would come at.

You want to trade some of our liberty for security. Chiefly because you don't value that liberty all that much to begin with, it being the liberty to do things you don't want to do.

I think if we make that trade, we'll lose the liberty, and won't get the security. I say that because there are all sorts of ways our government could be pursuing that security NOT at the cost of our liberty, and it's blowing them off.

[Michael P]

Mean of 16 but median under six implies a pretty huge Gini coefficient. Maybe the federal government needs to step in and subsidize or mandate firearm ownership to even out that inequality. (/s)

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, Apedad -- how about we make it more difficult for BLACK PEOPLE to have guns because they are statistically more likely to commit crimes with them?

For that matter, how about we have some demographically adjusted statistics and not the biased ones presented.

" The majority of traffickers who directly or indirectly facilitated the movement of firearms to illegal markets were white (53%), male (84%), and U.S. citizens (95%)."

So a race that constitutes 70% of the population *only* committed 53% of the crime. That means that the remaining 30% of the population committed 47% of it.

And as US citizens were 100% of the people who could legally purchase guns, the 0.5% should not exist.

It's not White teenagers in Southern Illinois shooting each other every weekend --- it's Black teenagers in Chicago who are. We all know that.

So if you are going to violate the 2nd Amendment for the greater good, why not also violate the 14th & 15th Amendments for the same reason. Make gun ownership White Only -- for the children...

NB: I'd prefer we not violate any amendments....

[Sarcastr0]

Using the worst of racists' bad statistics will not make any useful point. Other than about you.

You also beg the question about the 2A and regulation of gun trafficking.

[apedad]

"So if you are going to violate the 2nd Amendment for the greater good . . . . "

Preventing these violations do NOT violate 2A.

(1) dealing in firearms without a license
(2) providing false information to an FFL, which is associated with straw purchasing
(3) possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, 1 does. What other civil liberty do you need a government license for? Do you have to pass an FBI background check to speak? Satisfy some bureaucrat to join a church? Will they put you in prison for 20 years if you preach without a preacher's license?

(2) Almost all false statements on FFL's are left prosecuted, despite being almost trivially easy to prove. Why?

Because it's practically impossible to prove they weren't innocent mistakes, or not even wrong to begin with. I mean, try proving somebody didn't legitimately buy a gun, and then simply decided they didn't want it after all, and sold it off.

[Nige]

How many civil liberties have annual death-counts in five figues?

[Sarcastr0]

Each right has different contours. Different parts of the First Amendment go by utterly different tests. e.g. Government endorsement of a viewpoint is fine, of a church is not.

You are exclaiming that this square peg doesn't fit into any of the other shaped holes in the board therefore the squareness is wrong.

It's a fundamental misapprehension of rights jurisprudence. You don't get to copy off the precedents of some other right; make your own.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Each right has different contours."

Imagine me saying that in a mocking voice while making air quotes, and you'll have my reaction.

[Sarcastr0]

Sorry that the law isn't the logically smooth edifice you want it to be, in denial of all human nature.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not sorry that rights you happen to dislike also get treated as rights.

[Sarcastr0]

You've not established that.

Not all rights are treated the same. That does not mean they are not treated as rights.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, not all rights are treated the same, because judges disfavor some rights, and thus fail to uphold them.

What does it mean to say that something is a "right", Sarcastr0? Doesn't it mean that it is something where the individual, not the state, gets to make the choice? That you don't need the government's permission to do it?

What is "licensing"? Isn't it permission from the government do do something?

There is a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between something being a right, and having to get the government's permission to do it. All your rationalization can't make that contradiction go away.

[Sarcastr0]

Again, not the same does not mean disfavored. Rights are not a one-dimensional thing. There is no one-size-fits-all rights jurisprudence.

There are two ways to think of a legal right. The originalist way is a thumb on the scales - a presumption against government action in that region.
The way we do it now is indeed focused on individual freedom of choice, hence civil rights being a thing, even as government is pretty active in that arena.
But the contours of a right vary because there are practical considerations depending on how a right is deployed.

So time place and manner restrictions are allowed regarding speech. And licensing even.
And endorsement for government with respect to religion.
Animus survives only wrt free exercise, not Equal Protection
The exigencies of the 4A don't show up when it comes to the 1A.
We have no funds to positively enable people to exercise their rights, except for the 6A.

This does not mean one of these rights is favored and others are not - you can't really compare these very differently shaped legal regimes to each other.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Again, not the same does not mean disfavored."

Not the same does not necessarily mean disfavored. One could imagine a jurisprudence where the 2nd amendment was treated a little different from the 1st for perfectly defensible reasons. That's just not the jurisprudence we're looking at.

You have to look at the history of this. We went through a decades long period when the legal community became radically hostile to this right, and went through all sorts of contortions to rationalize it away.

When Levinson wrote The Embarrassing 2nd amendment, it was an admission that, really, the anti-2nd amendment emperor was naked. He was not happy to admit that:

"I cannot help but suspect that the best explanation for the absence of the Second Amendment from the legal consciousness of the elite bar," he wrote, "is derived from a mixture of sheer opposition to the idea of private ownership of guns and the perhaps subconscious fear that altogether plausible, and perhaps even 'winning' interpretations would present real hurdles to those of us supporting prohibitory regulation."

A bit later Laurence Tribe had his own unwelcome admission to make. For years he'd mocked the idea that the 2nd amendment guaranteed an individual right, and he finally decided to research the subject, and write a definitive rebuttal of the notion. It was not to be, he was too honest to write it:

"My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise. I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control."

A good deal of the judiciary are still stuck in that anti-gun morass, too hostile to this right to honestly address it. They're still, like Stevens in his Heller dissent, determined to render the right moot through 'interpretation'.

So, yes, this right gets treated differently from other rights. Not because of it's different nature, because a lot of the judiciary simply loath it.

[Sarcastr0]

I told you again and again you need to established disfavored, and you kept coming back with just noting that the 2A isn't the same as 1A.

This is the most you've done in that direction, and it's your usual - telepathy and assumption of bad faith as to why the Court changed it's mind 16 years ago. The right has expanded, that does not mean it was ever disfavored.

I think the Court is right finding it's an individual right, but that doesn't mean I'm going to weave a conspiracy that's existed since 1939.
But you? You never just see an opinion you disagree but that you call it bad faith. Even Levinson just talks about unconscious bias - you go further, as you do.

[Longtobefree]

(1) dealing in firearms without a license, (2) providing false information to an FFL, which is associated with straw purchasing, and (3) possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

(1) is an infringement.
(2) is an infringement.
(3) is an infringement. (If they have served their time, they should have their rights)

But who cares about some silly old piece of parchment?

[apedad]

I fully agree with your #3.

The others are valid govt actions.

You guys seem to think the BOR lists absolute rights - and you're wrong.

NOTHING is absolute.

[Armchair]

How Biden-flation increases taxes on working class families.

Many liberals tell working class families that the economy is really good, and they shouldn't believe their lying pocketbooks that show no money. Of course, Biden-flation finds a way. Beyond other ways, one critical aspect is the Child Tax Credit. This important tax credit...isn't indexed for inflation. So working class families who have seen their income rise with inflation, have also seen their tax bills rise dramatically.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/04/the-1000-tax-hike-on-middle-class-families/

[Sarcastr0]

Guess which party won’t pass an update to the EITC?

Your blaming Biden is like killing you parents and asking for mercy because you’re an orphan.

[Armchair]

The party which held majorities* in the House and Senate in 2020 and 2021, during which inflation spiked.

*Technically, 50+VP in the Senate with independents, but you get the idea.

[Sarcastr0]

This is getting dumber.

You abandoned your EITC argument. But now you posit that inflation is caused by Congress? And immediately, at that?

Inflation is complicated. And lags its cause by a year at least.

And buying power is the right metric if you want to talk about practical effects.

Reductionism in service of partisanship is your brand, but this is a particularly sad showing.

[Armchair]

You're not making any sense. I never brought up the EITC.

[Sarcastr0]

CTC.

[Ed Grinberg]

The other day, Not Guilty (approvingly) quoted someone saying: "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil – that takes religion."
compare (source):
The Twentieth Century is a graveyard in which millions of corpses were sacrificed to the illusion of an earthly salvation.
...
Blaise Pascal was an agnostic of the intellect, but a believer of the heart. He recognized that his condition was hopeless: only a divinity could heal his sickness and make him whole. Because science provided no answers to his questions, he trusted in the God of Abraham to provide what no mortal can. Pascal was a realist of faith. He drew a line between the sacred and the profane, and respected the gulf that separates this world from the next. He did not presume to achieve his own salvation in this world, or anyone else’s.
Not so the redeemers. They cannot live with themselves or the fault in creation, and therefore are at war with both. This makes them profoundly unhappy people. Because they are miserable in their own lives they cannot abide the happiness of others. To escape their suffering they seek Judgment, the rectification that will take them home.
If they do not believe in a God, they summon other men to act as gods. If they believe in God, they do not trust His justice but arrange their own. In either case, the consequence of their passion is the same catastrophe. This is because the devil they hate is in themselves and the sword of their vengeance is wielded by inhabitants of the very hell they wish to escape.

[Sarcastr0]

The religious seeking to explain the secular…isn’t there something about rendering unto Caesar?

Or to put it another way do you want a committed atheist to be explaining to you how your faith works, scientifically?

You are not in your lane.

You also appear to be anti enlightenment, which was a secular project to define and seek moral ways to govern society. It was far from perfect and had its successes and failures, but one of its successes was Locke who was foundational to the founding of the USA.

[Bwaaah]

"You are not in your lane."

Yes. People should stay in "lanes." What are "lanes"? Which "lanes" are mine? Who determines what a "lane" is, and which ones we should stay in?

You model the dogma faithfully, in all its thinness.

(The definitions of all their words are fungible, and their concepts are boundless.)

[Sarcastr0]

Using faith to explain the motives of the secular.

[Bwaaah]

What's a lane, and why did you imply an issue with somebody not being in one?

[Bwaaah]

Oh. I get it. A "lane" is a stereotyped caricature of a person, and when a person doesn't match up with your stereotypical view of that kind of person, you say, "You're not in your lane."

That's an odd way of looking at people. No particular person actually fits into any lane, because lanes are idealized generalizations. But when you model people like that in your head, indeed, they are not in their "lanes" (according to which lane you've put them in).

So what? Do you really want people to stay in their lanes, or are you just saying, "You're not behaving exactly like the idiot type I've pegged you to be in my head."

You're a groupist, bigoted person, in so many ways, and you just think of it as humanism.

[Malika the Maiz]

The very next paragraph from the source reads:

There is no redemption in this life. Generation after generation, we transmit our faults and pass on our sins. From parents to children, we create the world in our own image. And no power can stop us. Every life is an injustice. And no one can fix it. We are born and we die. If there is no God to rescue us, we are nothing.

[DaveM]

Of course, there is no such thing as uniformly "good" people nor uniformly "bad" people, nor does anyone always "behave well" nor always "do evil".

Moral reductionism is the curse of our age. It makes us feel superior while simultaneously making us brutish and unthinking.

[David Nieporent]

Of course, there is no such thing as … uniformly “bad” people,

There's NY Yankees fans.

[Don Nico]

No, those are Red Sox fans

[Ed Grinberg]

Here's an interesting article I came across:
https://www.thefp.com/p/niall-ferguson-treason-intellectuals-third-reich

[Martinned2]

Niall Ferguson, that tracks.

[Nige]

Lol. 'US academia is the opposite of Nazism and that's bad.'

[Armchair]

Do we need more Jones-Act type regulations on international shipping to the US?

So, the Jones Act gets lots of hate (requiring shipping intra-US ports to be done on US-registered/owned/crewed ships). That of course, increases costs (US Crew are expensive, non-US crews are cheap), relative to "normal" international shipping.

But normal international shipping seems to have a race to the bottom in terms of regulations. The cheapest possible crews, cheapest possible regulations, etc. And in the wake of the Key Bridge Disaster, where one of those cheap ships cost several lives and likely $3 Billion+ in damages...maybe it's time for a change.

Maybe we need MORE Jones-Act type regulations. Perhaps we need to require a certain percentage of international shipping be done on US-Owned/Crewed/Regulated ships. Perhaps we need more enforced regulations on international ships that come to the US.

Will that increase shipping costs? Yes. But will it also potentially save us from more $3 Billion disasters? Yes.

[Sarcastr0]

Don’t make policy based on an anecdote.

How often do these disasters happen that you think this is worth the cost?

[Armchair]

Interesting argument to be making....

Here's a major disaster that will cost billions and multiple lives, and potentially could've been far worse (ie, if it happened at rush hour, instead of 1 AM). Perhaps some regulations are needed to prevent that in the future.

Sarcastr0: Don't make policy based on just ONE major disaster.

[Sarcastr0]

Same argument holds true for mass shootings.

You don’t like cost benefit analysis?

[David Nieporent]

You don’t like cost benefit analysis?

He apparently doesn't like any sort of analysis.

[Michael P]

Even two or three would just be "anecdata", doncha know? You can't be REALLY sure about the danger of Islamist terrorism just based on two attacks on the World Trade Center.

[Sarcastr0]

Even black swan analysis is based on risk and cost benefit.

Numbers keep us honest,

[Martinned2]

That's actually an excellent example of the government making terrible decisions based on terrible data and equally terrible analysis thereof. It was basically "we have to blow something up so that voters won't be scared anymore", and even that was only a feeling not a properly evidenced conclusion.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"How often do these disasters happen that you think this is worth the cost?

How often does a 9-11 happen to make it worth the cost we have expended on the Kabuki Theater of Homeland Security?

[jb]

It's obviously not worth it, especially given how ineffective TSA screenings are. But I think that makes Sarcastr0's point--let's not do knee-jerk things in response to unusual events.

[Armchair]

"given how ineffective TSA screenings "

Hard to prove a negative, and how many bombings and hijacking didn't occur.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Multiple tests of efficacy have been performed over the decades, and they all have come to the same conclusion that TSA misses a ton of shit and it's nothing more than security theater.

Maybe your arguments would fare better if your head wasn't buried somewhere.

[jb]

The TSA fails 90 to 95% of the time in Red Team exercises (i.e., a simulation of someone trying to sneak a bomb through rather than accidentally leaving your water bottle or even a gun in your bag).

https://reason.com/2021/11/19/after-20-years-of-failure-kill-the-tsa/

[Armchair]

They also apprehended over 6,000 firearms at airports in 2023 alone.

https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2024/01/10/tsa-detects-6737-firearms-airport-security-checkpoints-2023

Bombs are tricky, especially if you have to assemble them on the plane and "sneak" them in unconventional pieces. It's the high visibility stuff which needs to be caught.

[Martinned2]

That doesn't seem like something to brag about. Instead, it speaks volumes about the Mad Max nature of American society, as well as about the stupidity of the average American. (Just like those signs near the Canadian border reminding people that you can't bring guns into Canada.)

[jb]

Yes, like I said they're great at finding stuff people accidently or stupidly try to take through security. Mostly water bottles, though.

On the other hand, people intentionally trying to sneak stuff through (including firearms, not just bombs) succeed almost all the time. And that's what really needs to be caught.

TSA is really good at annoying people. Keeping us safe, not so much. Although I do agree that generally having less guns in an environment is overall safer. Glad we agree on that at least.

[Martinned2]

Are you aware of what a pilot is, in the context of shipping?

[Michael P]

Are you suggesting that the Baltimore bridge disaster was caused by pilot error? If so, based on what specific evidence? (Every story I've seen about likely causes says there was a mechanical failure that caused total loss of steering control. The pilot cannot predict, control or recover from such an event.)

[Martinned2]

No, I'm suggesting that any problem that can't be fixed by requiring ships to take on a pilot can also not be fixed by shutting down competition from foreign ships/crews.

[Armchair]

Let's put it this way.

A better trained, more competent crew, with higher standards for maintenance may absolutely have prevented this disaster. And Jones Act-type regulations would have enabled that.

Rather than the race to the bottom, where the cheapest possible crew, and cheapest possible regulatory regime are chosen.

[Martinned2]

If what you're after is "a better trained, more competent crew, with higher standards for maintenance", why not set standards for crew training and ship maintenance (and enforce them), instead of shutting down competition and pushing up profit margins?

[Armchair]

What exactly do you think the Jones Act does in the first place? Do you actually know the full details?

[Martinned2]

It does lots of things, but in this discussion (and in many other discussions) it is used as shorthand for 46 US 55102, which says in the relevant part:

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter or chapter 121 of this title, a vessel may not provide any part of the transportation of merchandise by water, or by land and water, between points in the United States to which the coastwise laws apply, either directly or via a foreign port, unless the vessel—
(1) is wholly owned by citizens of the United States for purposes of engaging in the coastwise trade; and
(2) has been issued a certificate of documentation with a coastwise endorsement under chapter 121 or is exempt from documentation but would otherwise be eligible for such a certificate and endorsement.

As you might have inferred from my frequent references to restrictions of competition, this is the bit that I object to.

[Armchair]

Sigh...OK, some explanation is in order.

1. The US can only issue regulations, standards, and such for US-Registered ships. It can't tell a ship registered in, say, Singapore or Liberia, that "you need to have your seamen trained up to this level of competency, with this level of salary, with this level of labor protections." (There are limited exceptions, when directly entering a port, but that typically isn't labor law). That's because that ship follows Singapore law...not US law.

2. The US, unsurprisingly, has higher standards, higher levels of labor protections, and higher salaries for US seamen, than Liberia or Singapore. Because of those higher training standards, and higher labor protections...a US-registered ship is more expensive to operate. Or, in other words...one way to make a company "more competitive" is to use the cheapest possible crew, with the least level of training, and least number of labor protections.

3. Because of that, the vast number of ships in the word register in these "low regulation" type countries. But that simultaneously strips out the labor protections and training that helps to avoid these mistakes.

4. The Jones act helps keep a level of competition (and number of US-based merchant marine, important for national disasters) that otherwise wouldn't exist. The alternative would be to strip the level of protections for US-Merchant Marine down to the international "standard". Then the US would be "competitive".

[Jmaie]

Curious if you are an industry insider or are just quoting others?

Should we assume without evidence that US crews are superior to foreign, just because they are more highly paid?

[David Nieporent]

(There are limited exceptions, when directly entering a port, but that typically isn’t labor law).

Setting aside that it doesn't matter whether you call it "labor law" or something else, how on earth do you think this argument, even if valid, justifies a rule that ships must be built in the U.S.?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm saying that it is likely partially pilot/port/USCG error.

Even without a possible fuel switchover, if they knew they were having problems with the electrical system, and the electrical system is necessary to keep the engine going, they shouldn't have left port until they knew it wasn't going to quit on them.

[grb]

Background for people who haven't followed recent comment threads:

Our Ed is on a mission to spin ever-more tenuous theories about the Key Bridge accident until he "proves" it was the fault of black people. Therefore an electrical or fuel problem alone doesn't get the job done. He's got to pile-on the suppositions and off-the-wall conjectures until he gets where he needs to be : Bad Accident Caused by THOSE People.

[Jerry B.]

Even an experienced pilot has a difficult time conning a ship if the engine quits.

[Martinned2]

That almost makes it sound like restricting competition doesn't make America's ports safer.

[Armchair]

That might work...if it was a US-flagged ship that destroyed the bridge.

It wasn't. It was the full "race to the bottom" competition that did it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ships have two fuels -- clean #2 Diesel fuel that they burn in US waters and cheaper #6 residual fuel oil which is quite dirty and not that far from asphalt.

Ships are required to use the #2 in US waters and the USCG checks when they dock to make sure they have it in the line that was feeding their engine. US flagged ships may be under a stricter rule to use #2 all the time -- I don't know.

Further complicating things is that while #2 is a free flowing liquid at room temperature (it's what trucks use), the #6 is so thick that it has to be heated to 149–248°F in order to pump it, and will turn to jelly if it drops below 100°F. It's only slightly lighter than asphalt.

It gets worse -- engines get really upset if you suddenly switch between hot & cold fuel -- Exxon/Mobil says that the temperature change of fuel going to a running engine can not change more than 2°C per minute.

They also say that switchovers should be done " prior to entering crowded and restricted channels where there is a higher risk of grounding or collision.

They're supposed to be at least 12 miles offshore before they switch to #6 oil, but what if they did it as soon as they left the dock? And what if they did it with an abrupt temperature change? That would stall you generators which takes out your engine and would also explain the black smoke when they restarted them.

This is a possibility.

[David Nieporent]

What if Russian hackers did it? Or angry crustaceans? They’re possibilities, too. It would be irresponsible not to speculate.

[Armchair]

Just because you don't know enough to comment intelligently, doesn't mean that something reasonable someone else posts isn't possible.

[ThePublius]

That's very interesting, thanks. I think it's certainly a possibility.

[Nige]

I'm not sure that's a viable solution - every global shipping company creates a subsidiary registered in some US state-of-convenience? - but at least we're acknowledging a psychopathic level of cost-cutting as the problem, not fucking DEI.

[Armchair]

DEI is unrealistic.

The massive cost cutting, due to a race to the bottom in terms of regulations

[Nige]

Welcome to late stage capitalism.

[David Nieporent]

But will it also potentially save us from more $3 Billion disasters? Yes.

I mean, as phrased, sure. Mandating that every ship have a pair of hippopotamuses on board could "potentially" save us from disasters. But there's no rational mechanism to explain how or why that would happen. Just like there's nothing to explain why an expanded Jones Act would. But we do know that the Jones Act itself is incredibly costly and wasteful.

[Armchair]

" But we do know that the Jones Act itself is incredibly costly and wasteful."

Uh huh...sure. And so it the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And the US Army and Navy too. No need to have a Merchant Marine reserve in case of disaster or war around.

I'm sure Hawaii and Puerto Rico will get on just fine if there was an interruption to their merchant marine traffic due to some natural disaster, mass epidemic, or war, and there were no US-ships to send them supplies. Not like Hawaii imports 85-90% of its food.

[David Nieporent]

When Puerto Rico is in need of emergency relief after a disaster, the restrictions of the Jones Act have to be waived. The Act does not do anything to protect the island; it hurts it.

There is no conceivable situation where there would not be ships built in foreign countries or manned by foreign crew to bring supplies to these places. A war that was so big that international shipping stopped would make Puerto Rico's situation trivial.

[Armchair]

“There is no conceivable situation”

This just ignores history. The Jones Act was passed in response to WWI when “the belligerent countries withdrew their merchant fleets from commercial service to aid in the war effort. This left the US with insufficient vessels to conduct normal trade impacting the economy.”

Not only is there a conceivable situation…it already happened.

I'll reiterate...if you can't actually comment intelligently...perhaps you should stop commenting.

[Martinned2]

Again, there are solutions to that problem that don't involve restricting competition.

[Armchair]

Such as?

[David Nieporent]

There's no conceivable situation now. It's not 1920. You might as well defend the telephone excise tax on the grounds that we need to pay for the Spanish American War.

[Armchair]

You can't conceive of a world-wide conventional war today?

What about just a war between China and Japan? That alone would strip ~28% of the world merchant fleet away....

[Sarcastr0]

How far afield you got from the bridge of your OP.

You have an outcome you want and if one anecdote won't get there, another will.

[Armchair]

Try staying on track with the conversation.

[David Nieporent]

You can’t conceive of a world-wide conventional war today?

No. Let alone one that lasted for four years.

[Armchair]

Well, that says a lot more about your lack of ability to conceive potential scenarios than anything else.

[Malika the Maiz]

Scientists and entrepreneurs are developing new technologies to create meat from animal tissue cultivated in labs…Republican politicians in Alabama, Arizona, Tennessee and Florida are considering legislation that would ban the sale, distribution or import of any “cell-cultured food product” intended for human consumption. Depending on the state, penalties could include everything from a $1 million fine to prison time…It’s about a conservative nanny state prohibiting the voluntary consumption and sale of these products (which again, mostly don’t yet exist). What happened to the Republicans who wanted the free market to choose winners and losers? Where is the party of limited government?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/02/lab-meat-republicans-ban-climate/

[Jerry B.]

Why are you citing the DNC Newsletter?

[Sarcastr0]

Ad hominem is pretty sad.

Do you think this isn’t true?

[Jerry B.]

I think that legislators are protecting their constituents, meaning the beef, poultry, pork, lamb, mutton, etc. businesses, although I doubt that vat grown meat will be anything more that an expensive virtue signal for quite a while.

[Sarcastr0]

Who is to say the pace of technological progress.

This is already turning into a partisan issue.

It's going to get dumber before it gets accepted.

[Malika the Maiz]

Republicans in at least seven states have introduced legislation since the beginning of the year to ban sales or distribution of lab-grown meat, a form of edible protein cultivated from animal cells.

https://www.ft.com/content/afb4be5d-e363-4ef7-b509-2a4c909144ca

[Brett Bellmore]

The natural concern here is that, if they ever get this product even vaguely practical, a major push will be made to shut down normal animal husbandry. Much like you're seeing with the attack on ICE vehicles right now.

I don't think there's actually much chance of it becoming that practical, since you have to artificially supply all sorts of features of whole organisms, and that's hugely expensive and finicky. With enough genetic engineering? Sure, you could produce some sort of plant-animal that grew something like meat inside gourds, or something like that. I'm sure the GMO fanatics would love that.

[Malika the Maiz]

Do you think government should prohibit a product because some speculate that if it becomes successful some future government might then prohibit its competition?

[bernard11]

The natural concern here is that, if they ever get this product even vaguely practical, a major push will be made to shut down normal animal husbandry.

Pathetic fucking argument. Slippery-slopeism at its worst.

[Malika the Maiz]

It's an incredible argument. If someone develops a more energy efficient window, should the government prohibit it on the grounds that a future government might mandate such a window over other types? If someone develops a more low calorie or cholesterol food product, should the government prohibit it because a future government might prohibit its competitors?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Remember r-GBH milk?

It wasn't banned, but states required it be labeled. Same thing with GMO grains.

[Nige]

Plus the idea that modern factory farming represents an ideal of animal husbandry that would be some sort of sad loss if it went away.

[Noscitur a sociis]

We love libertarianism!

[Dr. Ed 2]

US V Caroline Products...

[Malika the Maiz]

???

[Dr. Ed 2]

The dairy lobby got filled milk banned a century ago. Google the case...

[SRG2]

I don’t think there’s actually much chance of it becoming that practical

So no legislation needed, then.

[Moderation4ever]

You will never see an end to raising animals for food, but lab grown meat could significantly affect the industry. Right now, high volume meat production is done in factory farms. Raising chicken and pigs. These are big money operation and the most likely to fall if lab meat can be scaled up to meet these production levels. People will always be able to go to small producers for pasture raised animals. to get high quality meat. But I can see the high volume users, particularly fast food, go to lab grown meat. The government will not have to be involved the market will end factory farms.

[Brett Bellmore]

The market will NOT end factory farms. Not based on lab grown meat, anyway.

Animals have digestive tracts, they can convert low quality, unprocessed vegetation into meat.

Animals have reproductive systems, they're self-manufacturing.

Animals have immune systems, they don't need to be raised under ultra-sterile conditions to avoid being turned into a bacterial mess.

Animals have circulatory systems, delivering nutrients and removing wastes from the interior of solid meat.

Animals have lungs to bring in 02 and get rid of CO2, kidneys to get rid of waste products.

ALL these come built into animals, and have to be artificially provided for lab grown meat. This pretty much guarantees that lab grown meat can not be economically practical. The only practical upside of lab grown meat is a bit higher efficiency, if you don't take into account all that extra effort. It goes away, if you do.

So, what is driving this? There's a quasi-theological PETA objection to eating animals, (Which could be much more cost effectively satisfied with a vegan diet!) and the mostly subconscious urge of urbanites to free themselves from dependence on rural agriculture. (The same thing driving 'vertical farming'.)

Both of these imply imposing a switch to lab grown meat upon the market, in the same way Green quasi-theology is driving the government to force the adoption of electric vehicles.

[Sarcastr0]

This is simple – animals do a bunch of stuff that isn’t straight meat production. They're basically a very overcomplicated Rube Goldberg system if your final goal is meat production

A process that is straight meat production will be trivially more efficient, once the R&D is done.

I cannot believe you are an engineer, with a post like this.

[Davedave]

You lot are all as nuts as each other. Obviously cultured meat is going to be great 'once the r&d is done'. But so is fusion power. They're both 10 years away, every year.

[Brett Bellmore]

"This is simple – animals do a bunch of stuff that isn’t straight meat production."

But much of which which DOES have to get done, in order for straight meat production to happen, which was my point.

[Sarcastr0]

‘Much of which’ is absolutely not established.

You’re eliding the skeletal, reproductive, neurological, systems. And a whole complex multi-stomach system.

None of that is required infrastructure to grow muscle and fat from stem cells.

[Nige]

Yeah, you're just arguing that if they succesfully find a way to create a form of meat that avoids all of that, the current meat industry is fucked. And this is bad? And requires Republicans to pre-emptively ban it?

[Voize]

ALL these come built into animals, and have to be artificially provided for lab grown meat.

It's just like gasoline, why go to all the trouble of refining and transporting it when wood just grows all over the place?

[jb]

"Animals have digestive tracts, they can convert low quality, unprocessed vegetation into meat."

This is true. But in practice most meat animals aren't grazing low-quality non-arable land, they're eating plants grown specifically for them using the same inputs that could be used to grow food for humans.

As Sarcast0 notes, the rest of it is pretty inefficient in terms of energy in versus energy out in the form of food. Sure in the short term it's not going to be that efficient because we're still trying to figure out how to do it, but in the long run it should be a lot more productive in terms of inputs and outputs.

Regardless of any of the discussion above, though, not sure why you'd need or even want to legislate against it. Supposing that we agree that meat is tasty but some people have objections to killing animals, why shouldn't they be able to have the same delicious food without the ethical concerns?

[Bored Lawyer]

Which just proves that Republicans can also go against their principles and act stupidly. As if we need more proof of that.

[David Nieporent]

Principles?

[Longtobefree]

Because other sources get all mixed up by all that truth stuff – – – – – – – –

[DaveM]

Well, the Washington Post isn’t going to tell you why these states are opposed to cultured meat. That doesn't fit their narrative.

There are some legitimate questions about the safety of cultured meat. Animal muscle volume grows over years, while cultured muscles are grown in just a few weeks. To do that, they have to continuously stimulate the cells with growth factors, including anabolic sex hormones. I’m no evolutionist, but I’m fairly confident that biological processes worked out over thousands of years of cultivation are going to be less risky than something cooked up in a lab.

It does sound unnecessarily alarmist to outright ban cultured meat, I will grant you that. And, if it turns out that the only reason cultured meat is being forbidden is due to protectionism, I would also agree that this is hypocritical.

But as in most disputes these days, we’re only getting the part of the story our media betters want us to hear.

[Nige]

'but I’m fairly confident that biological processes worked out over thousands of years of cultivation are going to be less risky than something cooked up in a lab.'

If the meat substitute is safe, it's safe. As a product of scientific intervention, it's only different from centuries of selective breeding and factory farming, where growth is controlled and accelerated, in terms of how recent the scientific breakthroughs that make it possible are.

[DaveM]

“If the meat substitute is safe, it’s safe.”

Yes, and the COVID vaccine prevented the spread of COVID, until it didn’t, and it didn’t originate from a Chinese lab, until it most likely did, and Boeing made the safest aircraft in the world, until they started to fall out of the sky.

Not a great time to be relying on the word of our professional classes alone. Time-tested is a thing.

[Sarcastr0]

1. It does prevent the spread of Covid. Prevent does not mean 100% stop.

2. It is not most likely that it originated in a Chinese lab.

3. Not sure if you can lay Boeing's issues at the feat of anyone by Boeing.

You've chosen different, more partisan experts, that's all.

[DaveM]

I'm laughing on the inside. On the outside, I'm wearing my poker face.

[Sarcastr0]

You're very confident about a buncha wrong stuff.

And thus you distrust the experts, which will lead to further confidence about other wrong stuff.

Not a great cycle.

[Don Nico]

"1. It does prevent the spread of Covid. Prevent does not mean 100% stop."

It would be nice if 25% were achievable now.

" It is not most likely that it originated in a Chinese lab."
There is no evidence of origin anywhere else, and 2 US IC agencies have concluded that.

As for Boeing, they are now their own worst enemies.

[Nige]

Yeah, not sure what your point is. The covid vaccine slowed the spread of covid and saved many lives, and was, more to the point, safe. Not sure what the origin of covid has to do with anything and Boeing are clearly for shit.

'Time-tested is a thing.'

Ah yes, Johnny-come-lately Boeing. Maybe sbject the new meat to the same sort of safety scrutiny as the covid vaccine, and not the sort Boeing gets. For a start.

The New Meat is sort of Cronenbergian, though.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't even think it's protectionism, I think it's mongering fear of change for populist political reasons.

[Nige]

Vat-grown meat is 'woke,' that's all you need to know.

[DaveM]

Hey, eat your bugs and just be grateful we're not feeding you Solyent Green, prole. /s

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, bullshit like this.

[Nige]

Hey, just be glad we're cutting down all the rainforests and using up all the water and the arable land and various feed crops so people can consume more protein than is actually good for them while generating tons of methane and choking the waterways with nitrates!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, conservative blog
with a vanishingly thin academic veneer
has operated for no more than

FOUR (4)

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

EIGHTEEN (18)

occasions (so far) during the
first three months of 2024
(that’s at least 18 exchanges
that have included a racial slur,
not just 18 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 worthwhile. The original four were magnificent. Roger will be touring in the U.S. shortly -- you should try to be there.

This one is good, too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones pointers:

The tour is to begin in three weeks in the United States.

Don't miss this . . .

or this . . .

[Martinned2]

The Rolling Stones have made two decent songs during my lifetime: Anybody Seen My Baby and Angry. In both cases people should definitely also see the music video.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, come on, Paint it, Black was fantastic. It was my personal anthem after my divorce...

[Noscitur a sociis]

Perhaps Martinned is less than 58 years old?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not Cartman's Kyle’s Mom is a Big Fat Bitch?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTYJi37EKpk

[Malika the Maiz]

No love for Honkytonk Woman?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Perhaps Martinned is less than 55 years old?

[Martinned2]

I am. I was born a few months after the Stones released Tattoo You, arguably their last good album.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Tattoo You was widely observed as a "filler" album, submitted to comply with a contractual obligation. It assembled a bunch of long-ignored tracks (a discarded reggae work, Start Me Up, was polished a bit and place on Tattoo You; they even used a few Ronnie Wood tunes, Black Limousine and No Use In Crying, to reach an albumworthy number of tunes).

Of course, when the Rolling Stones assembled a casserole of scraps, they were able to add some Sonny Rollins, Billy Preston, Sugar Blue, Nicky Hopkins, and the ghost of Mick Taylor.

A double-album dose of post-Tattoo songs for your consideration:
1. Undercover of the Night
2. She Was Hot
3.Slipping Away
4. Rock and a Hard Place
5. Highwire
6.You Got Me Rocking
7. I Go Wild
8. Anybody Seen My Baby
9. The Worst
10. Can't Be Seen

1. Saint of Me
2. Flip the Switch
3. This Place is Empty
4. Let Me Down Slow
5. Rough Justice
6. Back of My Hand
7. Angry
8. Sweet Sounds of Heaven
9. Mess It Up
10. Whole Wide World

For the extended rerelease:
1. Eileen
2. Take It So Hard
3. Wanna Hold You
4. Hurricane
5. How I Wish
6. Lonely at the Top
7. Thief in the Night
8. Thru and Thru
9. Make No Mistake
10. Just Another Night
11. Terrifying (12" remix)

[Martinned2]

I stand corrected. Exile on Main Street it is, then.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Terrific

[Moderation4ever]

I have dropped seeing the Stones live from my bucket list. First Chalie Watt is dead, and I want to see him too. Second, I am too cheap to pay the prices they ask. Third the idea of seeing them in a stadium is ridiculous, particularly at the prices they want.

I settle for recordings, youtube, and concert videos. I spend my money for live shows of the up and coming acts.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Charlie toured the world for 60 years, most recently a couple of years ago. Anyone (older than 15 or so) who wanted to watch Charlie with the Stone had every chance.

Tickets can be pricey but also can be had quite readily at a good bargain. Lucky Dips, for example, offer potluck seating at a pittance. I have used them more than a dozen times with enormously enjoyable (and variable) results.

I have been in the front row for smaller Stones shows and toward the back for Stones stadium shows. I enjoyed them all greatly.

(When I was young, I sat in the final row of the Carrier Dome -- one of the largest indoor venues, at least then -- for an E Street Band concert and have a wonderful memory.)

When I am at my deathbed I doubt I will be worrying that I spent a few extra dollars for tickets for the Stones, the Who, Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band, Green Day, Southside Johnny and the Asbury Jukes, Paul McCartney, Fleetwood Mac, the Eagles, Don McLean, the Tubes, the Doobie Brothers, Roger Waters, John Lee Hooker, America, Ron Wood, Keith Richards, George Thorogood, Leon Russell, Allen Toussaint, Rockin' Dopsie Jr., Pure Prairie League, Lisa Fischer, Rod Stewart, John Fogerty, Elton John, O.A.R., Pure Prairie League, Stevie Wonder, David Bowie, Bob Dylan, and a hundred others.

Instead, I may regret that I neglected to get tickets for Chuck Berry (rode a blackjack hot streak at the Desert Inn and missed Chuck), the Blues Brothers, Van Morrison, Cat Stevens, the Beach Boys, Sam and Dave, Aretha Franklin, Supertramp, Wilson Pickett, Robert Cray, and many others, that I missed the Beatles, the Carpenters, CSNY, the Rascals, the Animals, Pink Floyd, Harry Chapin, Jimi Hendrix, and innumerable others.

[darkknight9]

I think I only regret missing Public Enemy in 1990 (parents wouldn't let me go) or when they opened for U2 in 1992 (U2 wasn't really thrilling me but the ride to Madison dropped out at the last moment).

What was it like seeing John Lee Hooker live?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I enjoyed it. I watched him play with the Stones in Atlantic City. That was good. Also saw him a few times when a client sponsored a bunch of shows. Those were more uneven but I always was glad to be there. I don’t remember him playing much along the east coast. If he did I missed them. He was playing by feel, I sensed, by the time I saw him.

[Martinned2]

This could be interesting:

House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Chair Maria Cantwell (D-WA) unveiled the American Privacy Rights Act. This comprehensive draft legislation sets clear, national data privacy rights and protections for Americans, eliminates the existing patchwork of state comprehensive data privacy laws, and establishes robust enforcement mechanisms to hold violators accountable, including a private right of action for individuals.

https://energycommerce.house.gov/posts/committee-chairs-rodgers-cantwell-unveil-historic-draft-comprehensive-data-privacy-legislation

[Moderation4ever]

Data is now a commodity and a valuable one. I will be interested to see how this bill is received. This bill, as I read it, also allows people to voluntarily give data and it seem to me that a lot of that is going on now. People will trade data for convenience, and I would expect that to continue.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I think the federal government will continue to listen to the American people.

[Jerry B.]

Hmm. Remind me when they started.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

No later than the invention of wiretaps.

[Nige]

What are the American people saying?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What am I, the NSA?

[Nige]

I'm sure you're the NSA of the American peoples' hearts.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You do understand that "listen to the American people" is a joke, right?

[Nige]

It was an attempt.

[Malika the Maiz]

As a child growing up in the Hare Krishna community in the United States, I was forbidden to be outside during a solar eclipse.

In our version of Vedic astronomy, eclipses are believed to be a deeply inauspicious time when the demon Rahu’s decapitated head chases the sun and the moon. In this chase, Rahu’s head obscures or swallows the sun. A visceral fear would sweep our community as an eclipse approached. We crowded into the inner sanctum of the temple to recite prayers, hoping to counteract the forces of darkness that were consuming our universe. As totality enveloped us, a profound sense of unity between our community and Lord Krishna crescendoed. As Rahu receded, the sun gradually dispelled the darkness, bringing collective relief as the forces of goodness triumphed over chaos once more.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/07/opinion/solar-eclipse-hare-krishna.html

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This telling is a bit longer than the day's eclipse; the particularly apt wisdom appears toward the end.

Another great sermon, along a similar line. The heart begins a bit more than three minutes in and requires but 30 seconds.

[SRG2]

FWIW though in Judaism there appears to be a blessing for everything, e.g. convenient pocket card, not only is there no specified blessing for seeing an eclipse, one is not permitted to make one. Eclipses were considered a bad omen.

[Davedave]

https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/555210?lang=bi

It's much more complicated than yay or nay. Orthodox Jews mostly believe it deserves prayer. Reform and liberal Judaism doesn't deal in superstition and bad omens, so say the shehechiyanu prayer upon doing something new (that Jewish year or in one's life).

[Commenter_XY]

When it is eclipsed in the middle of the sky, it is a bad omen for the entire world.

Ouch.

[Nige]

when the moon fills the sky
blocks the sun from your eye
that's an omen

[darkknight9]

Ahh the phenomenon of the insta-expert. Whenever it rolls around, and the amount of “professional opinions” gets so deep you should pull up your pants legs because its too late to save your shoes, that is when this place is most entertaining on a Monday. Folks who usually only resort to name calling and/or baiting actually try putting on their thinking hat and make l-o-n-g posts/comments about how they are right, their unconfirmed credentials are best, and how everyone else’s model or #’s are wrong.

Did I mention what with the number of ‘read this’ links that there are provide enough for me to dryly skitter about all 10,000+ lakes around here without needing ice or other methods of flotation?

Now that I’m done complaining about it, here’s my donation to the great unwashed ‘my opinion is the only one that matters’ zeitgeist this morning.

“Senator Blumenthal Suggests Justice Sotomayor…”

If you’ve never had children you can talk about statistics all you like, you still haven’t had one and your interest and knowledge are limited to what people tell you through whatever medium. If you’re a social scientist, bean counter, or professional children’s care worker, you may have heard more than others. So why would you presume to do the same thing with diabetes?

She (her family) discovered she had it when she was 7 (ooh single digit year scary!). That’s going to work out in her favor. The easiest time to transition to testing, counting foods, eating exactly and setting up the necessary habits are when you are young. You don’t have time to devote to sitting on the couch (computer chair for those of you that call a couch your ‘bed’) and eat salty snacks and death chocolates until you pass out from high blood sugars. Further, the better off your family is both financially and in stability, the better your chances for building up all the habits you need. If you’ve got parents who can afford the care, you have your foot in the door. If you have parents who don’t let you eat chips and watch tv until 3am when they play the national anthem and stop broadcasting, you’re in.

YES there are complications. NO they do not magically appear due to being diagnosed with the dreaded diabetes!!! It takes years of high or out of control blood sugars to negatively effect your other systems. You don’t find out you have diabetes and have to go on dialysis the following week (which I know wasn’t exactly said but its how Henny Penny some of you are acting). She started taking insulin immediately when she was diagnosed.

Did you know that it was diabetes and Perry Mason that got her to pursue a career in law?

Unless someone has actual proof that she doesn’t and *hasn’t* taken care of herself in years prior, I do not believe that she is in too much trouble. My only educated guess is that unless getting a law degree is significantly easier than a PhD in Materials Science/Chemistry, spending an extra 5-6 hours everyday sleeping on top of 7-8 at night is not going to be conducive to succeeding as well as she did. (see what I did there, ‘educated’ guess? I couldn’t resist)

I am the youngest person in the “old folks” support group for diabetes at the local hospital. The 23 person cohort teases me about being the youngin, but its in good fun. If you want to predict (and predict and predict and predict) how long she’s going to live why don’t you get out and get in contact with a community group, or give the American Diabetes Association a ring? Nearly *every* resource they have is currently hyper focused on detection and prevention. Find out how people are actually getting along who have it.

You haven’t lived by the way until you’ve heard a 97 year old woman tell you to “go outside and feel some grass young man!”

She heard the related term from her granddaughter but her delivery was top notch. ????

Do they still have an end of the broadcast day? Do they still play the anthem?

[Dr. Ed 2]

All I can say is mean, median, & mode.

And that 1975 is considered a threshold to improved blood sugar monitoring for statistical purposes.

[darkknight9]

Mean of you to be so narrow minded. Cross that median and leave that mode of pontification of puny problematic points in the past!

I wonder how many people have died since the 70's who had diabetes who didn't die from diabetes complications. Do you think your #'s might change a lil? I would think the folks who died from cigarettes alone might skew the results.

'75 might be the banner year for advancing the tech of glucometers (that felt like driving a 4x4 post into your finger then drawing out a vampire sized helping of blood) however the symptoms of high and low sugars was not only established before 75, they were used as a check to see if the numbers over the decades were consistent.

You know when you're high or low. Your body has a very specific set of behaviors one way or the other. Do your stats predict that all diabetics died from not being able to read their sugars as well as a post 1975er? Did all diabetics older than 25 or so die when 75 rolled around?

The Dextrometer didn't come around until 1980 anyway. The 70's had improvements to testing strips at the doctors office but not for us.

[David Nieporent]

For the record, the phrase is "touch grass."

[darkknight9]

Oh I know. Hearing her say it that way was all kinds of quality smirks.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Does anyone know why Court Listener has two listings for a lot of cases? For example:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656595/united-states-v-trump/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/

Does PACER also have two listings?

[Jerry B.]

Democrats piling on? How many indictments is it now?

[rloquitur]

Is there a federal constitutional right to self-defense?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I would hope they'd find it in the 9th Amendment and privileges/immunities.

[Sarcastr0]

Under the usual tests for a right under SDP, I think it's hard to argue (enables other rights, is a longstanding tradition, deeply rooted in our culture).

YMMV on the specific contours of that right.

[#FFFFFFPride]

This from a guy who also shits all over a parental right universally recognized officially by the UN amd its signatories.

[Martinned2]

If there's no right to life, how can there be a right to self-defense?

[Michael Resanovic]

There’s a federal constitutional right to any natural right that is being taken away for no good reason, so unless you’re a Quaker-yes.

This was always a restriction on the legislative power of states; it simply became federally enforceable in 1868.

But what is a good reason has always been principally a legislative judgment, and ultimately a popular judgment. No proponent of the 14th sold the amendment on the idea that it would transform state legislative power. Horizontal judicial review on rights related grounds was always about abuse of discretion.

So yes, there is, but judges shouldn't see themselves as being the principal definers of what is an appropriate restriction or regulation of the right.

[NOVA Lawyer]

GOP Congressmen Mike Turner (chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence) and Michael McCaul (chair of the House Foreign Committee) both confirm what most of us see, but too many in these comments ignore:

GOP Rep. Mike Turner said Sunday that Russian propaganda has taken hold among some of his House Republican colleagues and is even “being uttered on the House floor.”

“We see directly coming from Russia … communications that are anti-Ukraine and pro-Russia messages, some of which we even hear being uttered on the House floor,” Turner, chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“There are members of Congress today who still incorrectly say that this conflict between Russia and Ukraine is over NATO, which of course it is not,” he added.

And McCaul:

McCaul, a Texas Republican, told Puck News that he thinks “Russian propaganda has made its way into the United States, unfortunately, and it’s infected a good chunk of my party’s base.”

“[The propaganda] makes it more difficult for us to really see this as an authoritarian versus democracy battle, which is what it is,” Turner told CNN, adding, “President Xi of China, Vladimir Putin himself have identified as such.”

both from: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/gop-rep-mike-turner-russian-propaganda-uttered-house-floor-rcna146760

This is democracy versus authoritarianism. It is hard to take seriously any argument against Ukraine aid that doesn’t engage with this fact. (And, yes, any argument against Israel’s war in Gaza or their conduct of it must engage with the fact that Hamas is evil.)

[Nige]

Saying the quiet part loud.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Error

[Jonathan Affleck]

Only a white racist genocide-supporter considers Hamas evil. Everyone else (including a majority of US Gen Z) considers Hamas to be an heroic native resistance movement that struggles against the genocide, which the depraved and evil Zionist baby-killer nation has been perpetrating since Dec 1947.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I see there's a competition for dumbest comment of the day.

[#FFFFFFPride]

In what world is suspending elections and banning religions "democracy"?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Never one with very insightful comments, but suspending elections when trying to actively repel an invasion is reasonable given that actually holding elections is impossible in these circumstances. However, in prior elections, entrenched leaders were kicked out of office and, most recently, a political outsider won. Not because he was wealthy or linked with power players, but he legit won an election. Meanwhile, in Russia, they don't have actual elections, but rather rigged "election-style events" and those only after murdering political opponents.

As for banning religion, what is the world do you think that has to do with "democracy"? That's why we have a First Amendment, because voters in a democracy very well may vote to outlaw or otherwise persecute religions.

On the substantive point, a google search fails to indicate that the October 2023 passage of a first draft to amend Ukraine's law guaranteeing religious freedom. Yes, that is concerning they even were considering it. But not nearly as concerning as the fact that there is ongoing, Putin-approved persecution, torture, and imprisonment of disfavored religions in Russia (including, particularly brutally, adherents to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in occupied territories). So, yes, even on that score, despite being far from perfect, Ukraine is much closer to the West and its ideals of freedom of religion than is the unaccountable, authoritarian Putin and his government.

[NOVA Lawyer]

*a google search fails to indicate that the October 2023 passage of a first draft to amend Ukraine’s law guaranteeing religious freedom ever became law.

[#FFFFFFPride]

You shouldn't use Google when you need to find any information not approved by the Cognitive Infrastructure/Democracy Protectors at CISA or State.

https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/3562-IX#Text

Item 155, search for 8371.

Careful, though, knowing this may put you on an FBI watch list as a Putin-loving White Supremacist Domestic Terrorist.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It's a draft law, you racist moron. I already said that. Thanks for confirming it never went into effect.

[NOVA Lawyer]

And just to be clear, for those who might be misled by FFFF's lies, the link he provides is in Ukrainian, which is why he probably thought he could get away with lies. But the link demonstrates that the draft law he is referencing has not become an actual law.

[#FFFFFFPride]

The proposition was "democracy vs authoritarianism", where Ukraine was "democracy" and Russia was "authoritarianism".

What's more authoritarian in Russia than Agenda 2030? or COPD's 15 Minute Cities?

[Nige]

'15 Minute Cities?'

It's like saying, what's more authoritarian, Russia, or a local bookshop you can walk to.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Haha yeah, 15 minute cities are something that people will freely choose to do and not be forced into by the Globalist Marxists!

So, haha yeah, it's exactly like you characterized it!!@@@@!!!!!

[Sarcastr0]

forced into by the Globalist Marxists

Just say Jews, man.

[#FFFFFFPride]

You don't think if I meant Jews I wouldn't have said "Jews"?

There are plenty of Globalists, Marxists, and Globalist Marxists these days that aren't Jews. Look at Trudeau, is as Commie and Fascist as any Jew, but he isn't Jewish.

[Sarcastr0]

Commie and Fascist as any Jew

That's the good stuff.

[Nige]

Gentiles In Name Only.

[Nige]

Forced to live in walkable neighbourhoods with low pollution and easy access to amenities? The horror! I'd much rather be forced to live in the opposite by profit-driven capitalists who don't give a shit about people!

[NOVA Lawyer]

What’s more authoritarian in Russia than Agenda 2030?

Pretty much everything. But, for a particular notable example:

https://www.politico.eu/article/alexei-navalny-killed-eve-prisoner-swap-team-claims/

Plenty more examples here:

https://freedomhouse.org/country/russia

[#FFFFFFPride]

> but suspending elections when trying to actively repel an invasion is reasonable given that actually holding elections is impossible in these circumstances.

I'm sure you would say the same thing about Japanese internment camps too.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I’m sure you would say the same thing about Japanese internment camps too.

That just proves how stupid you are in addition to being a racist. But I repeat myself.

Imprisoning people for their nation of origin or ancestry is not the same as delaying an election when 20% or so of your country is actually occupied by an invader and most of the rest is in danger of missile attacks, etc., and a huge portion of the population are refugees.

[apedad]

Trump sues judge to shut down hush-money criminal trial at 11th hour, reusing failed tactic from civil fraud gag order fight

Trump first sued Engoron in September 2023, as he has now with Merchan, to halt the start of trial (and in) the ensuing weeks, Engoron found Trump liable for fraud at the summary judgment stage of the case. Trump went on to drop the lawsuit.

A second Article 78 suit was filed against Engoron in November 2023, that one in response to the judge’s gag orders, which were issued after the former president posted about the court’s clerk during the trial (and that) second lawsuit failed one month after it was filed, and Trump declined to testify in the case.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/trump-sues-judge-again-to-shut-down-hush-money-criminal-trial-at-11th-hour-reusing-failed-tactic-from-civil-fraud-gag-order-fight/

It's like watching a scared, caged rat.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Who else thinks Brazil / Musk drama is a Trashworld preview of the US after the Deep State rigs another election in favor of the Establishment?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Only other morons who say things like "after the Deep State rigs another election in favor of the Establishment."

[#FFFFFFPride]

Imagine how stupid you have to be to believe federal agencies aren't interfering in our elections.

[jb]

Imagine how stupid you have to be to think the federal government administers our elections.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Who said anything about administering?

The election officials in a few key counties also interfere in our elections, but I wasn't talking about them.

[jb]

You're literally the guy who was recently talking about the IRS or FBI agent with ballots coming across their desk as if that was a thing that happened as part of our election process. You can't deal with the fact that your guy lost in 2020, but you're too dumb and/or lazy to learn anything about how the elections actually work, so you're left grasping for straws and blaming three letter agencies you don't like but who aren't involved in any way.

[#FFFFFFPride]

>You’re literally the guy who was recently talking about the IRS or FBI agent with ballots coming across their desk as if that was a thing that happened as part of our election process.

Quote me literally saying that.

[jb]

Sure thing:

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/04/01/monday-open-thread-46/?comments=true#comment-10505384

[NOVA Lawyer]

The racist pwned.

jb, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

[jb]

In his defense, there's probably a different person from the Russian Troll Farm at the keyboard each week so they can't be expected to know what the last guy wrote.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This is true.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Imagine how stupid you have to be to think the federal government administers our elections.

Since he said “interfering in”, and you seem to think that requires “administration of” we can now conclude that you think anyone who claims/believes that Russia or any other entity that does not administer U.S. elections interfered in any of them is stupid.

[Nige]

Imagine how stupid you have to be to rely so heavily on appeals to incredulity.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I don’t have that good of an imagination, FFFF just goes to new depths of stupidity with every comment.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/403705554101854520/

[not guilty]

The Court of Appeals of Indiana has affirmed the trial court's issuance of a preliminary injunction based on that state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act in favor of (mostly) Jewish plaintiffs who claim that Indiana's statutes prohibiting abortion substantially burden their right to obtain an abortion under circumstances where their sincere religious beliefs require abortions that are prohibited by the Abortion Law. https://public.courts.in.gov/Decisions/api/Document/Opinion?Id=ceRhQVOHpmrAKEFEgOb-ljReHIDalwhQNh8pti3VNauTIeWgUy8xAPlzKMgmNo3L0

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Didn't Indiana water down its religious freedom bill?

[apedad]

What happened with the FLA lawsuit?

I find any results.

https://floridapolitics.com/archives/563611-rabbi-co-plaintiffs-suing-state-over-abortion-law-demand-judges-removal/#:~:text=Rabbi%20Barry%20Silver%20of%20Congregation%20L%E2%80%99Dor%20Va-Dor%20in,than%20three%20hours%20later%2C%20calling%20it%20%E2%80%9Clegally%20insufficient.%E2%80%9D

[not guilty]

I am not familiar with that lawsuit, but the article you link to indicates that the trial judge ruled that the case is a non-emergency that should be stayed pending the outcome of a separate abortion ban challenge that was then pending before the Supreme Court of Florida. That suit has now been adjudicated last week, so perhaps the religious freedom claim can now go forward before the trial court.

[John F. Carr]

The most interesting part for me was on page 62, where the court found the exception for rape, incest, and IVF undermined the claim of a compelling state interest. I agree for the first two, at least. A product of rape has as much right to live as a product of consensual sex. You could say that right is great or does not exist at all, but it should be equal.

The controlling opinion was on statutory grounds. Judge Bailey seemed inclined to strike the law on constitutional grounds as well. Because the law can be amended to remove the religious exemption granted by the courts, the constitutional issue will likely come up again.

[#FFFFFFPride]

What sincere Jew beliefs require a prohibited abortion?

Some Moloch sacrifice? I thought they only did those with Christian children.

[not guilty]

Have you read the Court of Appeals opinion which summarizes these plaintiffs' beliefs?

[#FFFFFFPride]

No, i was commenting for the lulz.

Have you taken anti-racist steps to equitably distribute your ill-gotten privilege?

[not guilty]

"Have you taken anti-racist steps to equitably distribute your ill-gotten privilege?"

WTF does that mean?

[#FFFFFFPride]

Your profession has been officially found systemically racist by a court.

You, a white male, has benefited at the expense of an important and protected class, yet you wallow around in your privilege without an ounce of shame.

Being anti-racist means you take proactive steps to reduce your racist privilege and share your ill gotten gains with a Black.

[not guilty]

My profession has been officially found systemically racist by what court? Do you have a link to the applicable opinion or order?

I want to see an original source material before commenting.

BTW, my commenting history here indicates that I am male, but why do you think I am white?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Because it's a white, male blog, duh!

[#FFFFFFPride]

https://mynorthwest.com/3954879/rantz-supreme-court-washington-state-bar-exam-racist/

I'm not going to hunt down court records. Your sealioning around here is legendary.

[Sarcastr0]

Right or wrong that’s nothing like your DEI strawman here.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Did the Washington State Supreme Court not find the Bar to be systemically racist?

If the Bar is systemically racist and you're a lawyer, did you not benefit from a systemically racist system?

[not guilty]

"Did the Washington State Supreme Court not find the Bar to be systemically racist?"

No, it did not. While I am loath to do your homework for you, the two, two-page orders which I suspect you are referring to are here: https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20Orders/Orders%2025700B710%20and%2025700B711.pdf

No judicial findings of racism, systemic or otherwise. (There is some discussion of race-equity in the report of the Washington State Bar Licensure Task Force -- which is not a court.)

What, however, does that have to do with me? I took and passed the Tennessee Bar Exam in 1987. I have never litigated or been admitted to practice in the State of Washington, nor have I even visited there.

[#FFFFFFPride]

You passed the Bar, a racist institution, in a Confederate State with a such a vile history of racial oppression that the DOJ still has to monitor it's voting? Where did you take the exam? At the Gen. Stonewall Jackson Center for Enslaving Blacks?

lol good one, you racist. Disavow your white supremacy and your bigoted privilege.

No wonder the Justice System is so racist. It's filled with racist lawyers who passed the racist Bar exam and whom still REFUSE to acknowledge their white supremacy.

[Estragon]

“Gen. Stonewall Jackson Center for Enslaving Blacks?”

Why would this be in Tennessee? Jackson was a Virginian.

The obvious reference here should have been to Nathan Bedford Forrest, who was actually from Tennessee— but perhaps that would have been just slightly too on-the-nose?

[Estragon]

I mean, you know, what with Ft. Pillow and his… ahem… involvement with the KKK

[not guilty]

"You passed the Bar, a racist institution, in a Confederate State with a such a vile history of racial oppression that the DOJ still has to monitor it’s voting? Where did you take the exam? At the Gen. Stonewall Jackson Center for Enslaving Blacks?"

The only accuracy in that screed is that I passed the bar. I took the bar exam on July 31 and August 1, at Vanderbilt Law School in Nashville. The DOJ is not monitoring voting anywhere in Tennessee. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-monitor-polls-24-states-compliance-federal-voting-rights-laws

The second day of the bar exam was specific to Tennessee. The multistate portion given on the first day consisted of 200 multiple choice questions. I have no idea whether that corresponded to any testing that may have been given in Washington state.

And as I asked upthread, why do you think I am white, #FFFFFFPride?

[not guilty]

That should be on July 31 and August 1, 1987.

[Sarcastr0]

not guilty showed that your interpretation was wrong and you doubled down.

Another day in the life of WhitePride, being a demerit to his race.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Where did I double down? Are you saying that because I might be wrong on some quibble I'm wrong on the Bar being racist?

Is the Bar exam racist or not?

[Sarcastr0]

You were using that as your source for your weird DEI fan fiction.

No more source, but lots more fan fiction!

It's pretty mockable tho.

[not guilty]

#FFFFFFPride, it is risky to get your talking points from talk radio.

There is no substitute for original source materials.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Given the disparate impact of the Bar exam, do you believe the Bar exam is racist?

[not guilty]

There is not a single, national bar exam. Each state supreme court administers its own. In that I haven't seen evidence one way or another, I don't have an opinion or belief as to whether any particular bar exam is or is not racist.

[not guilty]

Suddenly not so verbose, #FFFFFFPride?

[#FFFFFFPride]

What has the Federal Government done to earn your trust, deference, and or respect?

I mean both as an institution and the individuals who work there.

[Sarcastr0]

He posts this, on the Internet.

[#FFFFFFPride]

So? I don’t get your insinuation.

Internet technologies under government control languished for 20 years then when turned over to the smart people in the 90s changed the course of humanity forever.

Just imagine if the federal government was tasked with creating the internet now. It would cost $890T, be 40 years late, be slower than sending packets via the post office, and only work for blacks and illegals.

And what does that have to do with “trust”, “deference” or “respect”?

[Sarcastr0]

Counterfactuals and ignorance about basic research tech transition won't let you dodge the point.

America is great, and has done great things in science and beyond. You cannot disentangle that success from it's government, no matter how much you want to.

[#FFFFFFPride]

>Counterfactuals and ignorance about basic research tech transition won’t let you dodge the point.

Unsupported assertions won’t get you anywhere with me.

>America is great, and has done great things in science and beyond.

Tell that to the blacks.

>You cannot disentangle that success from it’s government, no matter how much you want to.

You don’t think America could be great in spite of the government? But only because of the government? The government that spends $72,000 on a conference table, and when it “shuts down” deliberately cuts services in a way to harm as many Americans as possible, and secretly infects blacks with syphilis?

Do you think it was the syphilis that made us great? What about the climate harming corn subsidies? Or price controlled raisins? Maybe it was the drone strikes on children? Maybe it was the illegal spying by the FBI 280,000 times that no one got in trouble for? Could it be the student loan system they created, then "saved" in 2010 that's been crushing young families for generations? Do you think maybe it was that?

Your State Dept masters are going to be pissed you’re out here anti-messaging about America’s greatness. Next thing you’ll be saying we’ll need to make American great again.

lol

[Sarcastr0]

I work with black people. Some even do DEI work.
They, believe it or not, love America even imperfect as it is.

Look at all the work you're putting in to concentrate on only the negative. Just tankie-esque in it's personal striving to stay miserable.
The few and far between examples you've been able to pick up over the past 2 decades really underscore how much good there is alongside the bad.

As you post about it on the Internet, warm and secure and free to pass along your fearful hate.

[Jumaira]

No, they love their sick idea of a transformed America where they have all the power and whites are their slaves.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Who is your favorite Volokh Conspirator, Jumaira?

[Nige]

Why? Is that what your heart yearns for? Some one or thing to defer to, to trust, to respect? Have you tried BDSM?

[#FFFFFFPride]

No, but I have tried your mom.

But then again, who hasn't.

[Nige]

She says to tell you to come crawling back like the worm you are.

[Don Nico]

Wow! That's crude.

[Michael Resanovic]

To quote that kid at the end of The Incredibles:

THAT WAS TOTALLY WICKEEEEEED!!!!

[ThePublius]

Anyone here play an instrument?

I've played guitar all my life, and classical guitar very seriously for five or so years.

I'm my retirement I've just taken up saxophone. It's great! But, it's challenging.

Music, playing an instrument, and reading music, etc., is supposed to be good for the aging brain.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bass guitar, guitar, drums. Mostly bass guitar in front of people. Mostly drums at home. No vocals

[ThePublius]

Cool. I like bass. It wasn't until fairly recently that I recognized the importance of bass in musical ensembles. I really like the upright string bass. I wanted one, but they are so expensive I gave up! So, I went for sax.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I respect upright bass but have had no interest in trying it.

I stick with a Fender MusicMaster (early 1970s example, with flatwounds); a Gretsch Electromatic (not fancy, but I like it and its neon rotowound strings); a five-stringer (the extra string sounded like a better idea than it was); and a Fender Bass VI (I think I'm just too lazy and set in my ways to let it shine; also, its strings are a bit crowded for my ossified style, so I use it maybe twice a year in a "jam" context, when a show starts to wind down).

[M L]

Guitar and vocals. Occasionally plunk piano keys.

[not guilty]

The Special Counsel has now filed the prosecution’s SCOTUS brief in Donald J. Trump v. United States, No. 23-939. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/306999/20240408191803801_United%20States%20v.%20Trump%20final%20for%20filing.pdf It is a commendable piece of work.

The brief at page 2 summarizes the factual underpinnings as set forth in the indictment:

From January 2017 until January 2021, petitioner was President of the United States. According to a federal grand jury indictment, petitioner, while serving as President, conspired with several private individuals and a public official to “overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the federal government function by which those results are collected, counted, and certified.” J.A. 180-181, 183-184. The indictment alleges that petitioner sought to accomplish the conspiracy’s objectives through five means: using deceit toward state officials to subvert the legitimate election results in those States, J.A. 192-207; using deceit to organize fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted States and cause them to send false certificates to Congress, J.A. 208-215; leveraging the Department of Justice (DOJ) to use deceit to have state officials replace the legitimate electoral slate with electors who would cast their votes for petitioner, J.A. 215-220; attempting to enlist the Vice President, in his capacity as President of the Senate, to fraudulently alter the election results during the certification proceeding on January 6, 2021, and directing supporters to the United States Capitol to obstruct the proceeding, J.A. 220-230; and exploiting the violence and chaos that transpired at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, J.A. 230-235.

In that the matter is on appeal from the lower courts’ denial of Trump’s motion to dismiss the indictment, these facts must be regarded as true. See Boyce Motor Lines v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 343 n.16 (1952).

The Court of Appeals recognized no circumstances under which a former president is immune from criminal prosecution. 91 F.4th 1173 (D.C. Cir. 2024). I suspect that SCOTUS granted cert here in order to recognize that there may be immunity for acts involving national security or foreign and military affairs for which the President has unique responsibility, leaving the contours of any such immunity for future cases where, unlike the matter at bar, the issues may be squarely presented. Part II of the Special Counsel’s brief (pp. 44-49) appears to anticipate such a result.

[tylertusta]

Part II of the Special Counsel’s brief (pp. 44-49) appears to anticipate such a result.

That may be one of the least bad results that Smith would accept, but in part II, Smith is trying to hedge against a more expansive loss if the court finding that Presidents have absolutely immunity within the outer perimeter of their responsibilities.

Frankly, I think it's a weak argument that he's making in part II. And I think he knows it's weak, too.

I suspect that SCOTUS granted cert here in order to recognize that there may be immunity for acts involving national security or foreign and military affairs for which the President has unique responsibility, leaving the contours of any such immunity for future cases where, unlike the matter at bar, the issues may be squarely presented.

I have similar suspicions, though I think that the Court might be willing to entertain criminal immunity up to and including the "outer perimeter" similar to Nixon v Fitzgerald.

[Martinned2]

Borrowing a paragraph from Politico:

Labour MP Diana Johnson, chair of the House of Commons' home affairs committee, has now put forward a plan to change the law so no woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy could be found to have committed an offense. She's drawn up an amendment to the government’s Criminal Justice Bill, which MPs could vote on when it returns to the House of Commons after Easter.

[John F. Carr]

Quoting The Guardian:

Johnson’s proposal would mean that a woman who misleads an abortion provider in order to obtain pills to terminate a pregnancy at home after 24 weeks would not be committing an offence.

At 24 weeks she's going to the hospital sooner or later. I don't know if that is clear to Parliament or Guardian writer Eleni Courea.

Another Guardian story says that MPs are allowed to vote contrary to their party's will on abortion bills. The bills are being pushed by Labour MPs.

[Don Nico]

Just for fun:

" The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, France delivered its ruling in a case brought by more than 2,000 Swiss women, the majority of whom are in their 70s, against Switzerland’s government. They argued that climate change-fueled heat waves undermined their health and quality of life, and put them at risk of dying.

The court ruled that the Swiss government had violated some of the women’s human rights due to “critical gaps” in its national legislation to reduce planet-heating emissions, as well as a failure to meet past climate targets. "

[Martinned2]

The first scholarly analysis of the judgments is already in: https://www.ejiltalk.org/a-quick-take-on-the-european-courts-climate-change-judgments/

(Though at the moment the website seems to be down, so I was only able to read this post through my RSS reader.)

It's important not to overestimate this judgment. The ECtHR told the Swiss to do their homework again. There is little to nothing in the way of remedies here. (Which makes sense. The ECtHR tends to play things quite cautiously, and avoids ruffling too many feathers whenever possible.)

[myself]

Arizona bringing an anti-abortion law from 1864 highlights not just an issue with Dobbs, but an issue with how the court deals with reversing precedent in general.

If the state wants to take advantage of new powers it should have to affirmatively pass a law to do so. A law passed by a long past legislature under completely different circumstances should not suddenly leap into effect.

Imagine if the court suddenly re-interpreted the 2nd amendment and a bunch of states suddenly found they had the power to confiscate piles of guns through laws they could never pass today. Would that be a just outcome?

[John F. Carr]

Last year the Supreme Court of Georgia decided on the validity of state abortion law. The pro-abortion argument was the law contradicted Roe v. Wade when it was passed in 2019, so it was void ab initio. The decision was to keep the law. The constitution didn't change so it means the same in 2019 and 2023. Dobbs taught us that the Supreme Court made a mistake in 1973. Abortion has always been up to the states. So the law was valid. (I think any federal court injunction against the law had already been vacated. Injunctions do not ordinarily vanish simply because they rest on untenable legal grounds.)

I think that is a defensible position. If New York had a gun grabbing law on the books before Bruen then when liberals take over the Supreme Court New York can start grabbing guns.

I support routine cleanup of obsolete or unenforceable laws. Such efforts are difficult because people want unconstitutional laws on the books. Twenty years ago my state senator wanted to repeal Massachusetts' abortion ban. The Catholic Church was too powerful a foe.

Implied repeal was a better argument in many states that passed new laws after Roe v. Wade.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like voter rolls, statutes should be “cleaned up” on a regular schedule.
(Not that either are)

[myself]

Implied repeal was a better argument in many states that passed new laws after Roe v. Wade.

Do you mean the law passed in Arizona in 2022?

Or do you mean the states that passed performative trigger laws after Roe v. Wade with no real plan for enforcement, and suddenly found those laws in effect?

In either case I don't think the never-enforcable or long unenforcable laws should suddenly come into effect.

[Brett Bellmore]

"If the state wants to take advantage of new powers it should have to affirmatively pass a law to do so."

But Dobbs didn't give states "new powers". It reversed a wrongful prohibition on them exercising powers they'd had all along.

Remember, when the Court rules against a law on constitutional grounds, it does NOT repeal it. It just declares it to be unenforceable in the courts. That law remains on the books, and if at some point the Court decides it was mistaken, the law resumes being enforceable.

[Mr. Bumble]

...except the 2nd Amendment isn't a law, so bad example.

[myself]

Neither was Roe v Wade.

Abortion was seemingly protected by the constitution, the court reinterpreted those section to eliminate Roe v Wade.

No reason the same thing can't happen with the 2nd amendment.

[not guilty]

In an opinion issued today the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the constitutionality of 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(G), which prohibits parading, demonstrating, or picketing in Capitol buildings, against a January 6 defendant’s overbreadth and vagueness claims. https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/229855A16C6ED28785258AFA004FE51A/$file/23-3069-2048774.pdf

[M L]

"To diffuse a uniformity and purity of language in America, to destroy the provincial prejudices that originate in the trifling differences of dialect, is the most ardent wish of the author."

- Noah Webster

In other words, to make everyone think and speak like New England. The Puritan quest to dominate America by destroying local customs and traditions isn't new.