Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

After remand from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, District Judge Amit Mehta has ruled that the civil damages actions against Donald Trump arising out of the events of January 6 need not be stayed pending resolution of the criminal case brought against Trump.by the Special Counsel. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24555476/ddc_1_21-cv-00400-apm_106_0.pdf The case will now proceed to discovery to determine whether Trump’s alleged conduct “can reasonably be understood as the official actions of an office-holder rather than the unofficial actions of an office-seeker.” Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F4th 1, 30 (D.C. Cir. 2023).

One more step on the way to Trump being held accountable.

Reply

[Kazinski]

"One more step on the way to Trump being held accountable."

Heh.

[Commenter_XY]

NG...The Court's discussion of the four stay factors was interesting; it read like a 'we have to check this box' discussion. Did it seem that way to you, that they were writing for the next court up (SCOTUS) to review?

Hypothetically, what happens if two of the four stay factors favor the defendant, not plaintiff, in the Court's analysis? Does the 'tie' go to the defendant?

[not guilty]

The burden of persuasion is on the proponent of the stay. The trial court has considerable discretion in evaluating the four factors and determining what weight to give each factor.

The next court up would be the Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit. Neither the granting nor the denial of a stay would be appealable as of right. A dissatisfied litigant could apply to the Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus, but that would be an almost insurmountable burden.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, I have thought about the longer term implications of what we are seeing wrt POTUS Trump, in a more general sense. What I wonder is whether POTUS Trump is the first of a line of billionaires to be POTUS, or the last.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you mean President Biden, or are you just mumbling incoherently?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Trump is no more a billionaire than he is POTUS.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We have officially become a Banana Republic..

[Balisane]

We became that with Roe v. Wade.

[Malika the Maiz]

Roe simply followed Griswold.

[Balisane]

Roe was much more outrageous.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Banana Republics were famous for protracted civil litigation against former heads of state. This is true.

[Balisane]

The Democrats can't kill all white conservatives, like they want to, so they're chipping away slowly.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If Democrats actually wanted to kill white conservatives they would probably just adopt most Republican policies.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Where do you think crimes against Whites is greatest?

In Democrat controlled urban areas, or in Republican controlled rural areas?

I mean, what do you think the data say?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well since most violence is intra-racial most crimes against whites would be in predominantly white areas.

[hobie]

If we truly wanted to kill you, we'd shut down The Cracker Barrel and most government welfare assistance

[Balisane]

Shutting down welfare assistance would kill 2/3rds of blacks and 1/2 of Hispanics, but only 15% of whites.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

What percent of statistics are fictitious?

[Noscitur a sociis]

What happened to make it official?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Don’t you remember when Chiquita used its considerable control over our agricultural export-based economy to install the Democrats into power so they could further support their neocolonial exploitation?

[tylertusta]

The case will now proceed to discovery to determine...

I suspect that a roughly similar process will occur in Trump's DC criminal case sometime later this year.

[not guilty]

What does discovery have to do with the D.C. criminal case in this regard? For purposes of any immunity determination, the facts averred in the indictment must be taken as true.

[tylertusta]

What does discovery have to do with the D.C. criminal case in this regard?

Should the Court rule that some form of Presidential immunity exists for criminal prosecution (which is by no means certain), Chutkan will have to undertake some sort of fact finding determine which facts alleged in the indictment constitutes official acts.

For purposes of any immunity determination, the facts averred in the indictment must be taken as true.

Including Smith’s concessions that at least some of Trump’s actions constitutes official acts? That’s going to be a real pickle for him at the district court should SCOTUS rule that immunity exists.

However, it’s possible that Chutkan will blithely continue her string of maximalist anti-Trump decisions that results in another own goal for her, Smith, and the rest of Team Blue.

Should Chutkan refuse to dismiss the indictment solely on the basis that she's assuming that all facts alleged within are true- including the alleged facts that some of Trump’s actions were not official acts- then she is going to set in motion another interlocutory appeal that will see another precedent set in Trump’s favor.

[not guilty]

"Should the Court rule that some form of Presidential immunity exists for criminal prosecution (which is by no means certain), Chutkan will have to undertake some sort of fact finding determine which facts alleged in the indictment constitutes official acts."

Any such determination would necessarily be made based on the four corners of the indictment itself. No discovery would be necessary or useful.

"Should Chutkan refuse to dismiss the indictment solely on the basis that she’s assuming that all facts alleged within are true- including the alleged facts that some of Trump’s actions were not official acts- then she is going to set in motion another interlocutory appeal that will see another precedent set in Trump’s favor."

Do you have any authority for that proposition, tylertusta?

Whether the facts alleged do or do not constitute official acts presents a question of law. In that the courts are at this stage considering the defendant's motion to dismiss, the factual averments of the indictment (though not the legal conclusions) must be regarded as true. See Boyce Motor Lines v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 343 n.16 (1952). On a motion to dismiss the trial court has no authority to negate or disregard the facts as found by the grand jury.

[tylertusta]

Any such determination would necessarily be made based on the four corners of the indictment itself. No discovery would be necessary or useful.

NG, when someone sues a President, how does the trial court determine whether a Presidents “acts within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility?”

Does the Judge not make factual determinations outside of what is alleged in the complaint when they ‘consider the relationship of the challenged conduct to the claimed corresponding function of the President?’ as Judge Mehta did in Lee v Trump?

Do you have any authority for that proposition, tylertusta?

Should the Court rule that Presidents have some kind of immunity from criminal prosecution, they’ll likely do it by expanding the logic of Nixon v Fitzgerald from the civil context into the criminal. In Fitzgerald the Court flatly refuted that kind of logic:

“This construction would subject the President to trial on virtually every allegation that an action was unlawful, or was taken for a forbidden purpose. Adoption of this construction thus would deprive absolute immunity of its intended effect.”

You can see how the DC Circuit has analyzed absolute immunity in the civil context without holding to the four square corners of the complaint in cases like Banneker Ventures, LLC v. Graham (emphasis mine):

“We must instead evaluate the relationship of each of the challenged acts to Graham’s relevant, official duties. With respect to each act, we ask whether it was among those entrusted to Graham and, if so, whether Graham’s means of accomplishing his official duties were manifestly excessive. Graham is entitled to immunity only if he persuades us that each alleged act was taken appropriately in performance of a corresponding official duty.“

[not guilty]

IOW, I asked for authority related to criminal prosecutions; you've got bupkis.

In civil litigation, a defendant claiming immunity can make that claim at the pleading stage, in which case the facts alleged in the complaint (but not legal conclusions asserted therein) are regarded as true. The defendant's claim of immunity can also be asserted on a motion for summary judgment after an opportunity for discovery. Criminal litigation has no procedure corresponding to summary judgment litigation.

An indictment returned by a legally constituted grand jury, if valid on its face, is enough to call for trial of the charge on the merits. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363 (1956). There is no authority for a federal district court considering a criminal defendant's motion to dismiss to second guess the factual findings of the grand jury.

[tylertusta]

IOW, I asked for authority related to criminal prosecutions; you’ve got bupkis.

No shit, Sherlock. The Court hasn’t decided the criminal immunity question yet. If the Court decides that criminal immunity exists for official acts, suddenly we’ll have an authority, won’t we?

If the Court finds immunity exists, how do you think that district courts will determine which acts are official and which are private?

There is no authority for a federal district court considering a criminal defendant’s motion to dismiss to second guess the factual findings of the grand jury.

Something tells me you aren’t going to like how this case progresses come Thursday’s oral arguments.

[Riva]

Yeah, I get it, you and your little fascist left buddies hate President Trump. But one would hope that anyone above grade school level, let alone a federal court judge, would at least understand that it it is not the province of the courts to impose political accountability. Sorry to disappoint you but this hack’s nonsense will be reversed.

[not guilty]

"But one would hope that anyone above grade school level, let alone a federal court judge, would at least understand that it it is not the province of the courts to impose political accountability."

The civil suits are for money damages. The remedy there is not political. The various plaintiffs are seeking a rectangular apology bearing the message "Pay to the order of . . ." and the signature of Donald J. Trump.

[Harvey Mosley]

"The various plaintiffs are seeking a rectangular apology bearing the message “Pay to the order of . . .” and the signature of Donald J. Trump."

"Rectangular apology." That is hilarious.

Thank you for making my Monday morning a little brighter.

[Riva]

Truly childishly idiotic. I underestimated you.

[Jay Ash]

Once more we're seeing videos of people in public areas blocking the otherwise completely legal and peaceful passage of others by creating "human chains". And we're seeing these chains used to push people out of a space, along with other tactics like just crowding into a person's physical space, holding umbrellas or scarves in front of them, or just blocking their passage physically.

So I ask again, what can be legally done to stop this?

I've asked this same question here before in the context of antifa blocking people, and in the context of netflix employees blocking people, and now it's in the context of Columbia students blocking the passage of visible Jews from just crossing Columbia.

What can be done to assert that I have a right to walk in this direction that will stop this blockade and that will not be seen as a battery?

Or is this just a loophole in US jurisprudence?

[Kazinski]

It's not that there can't be accountability, it's just that the officials don't want to hold them accountable.

It's a fools errand trying to hold people accountable for speech, but it's not hard at all to hold people accountable for blocking people on public throughways, assault, etc.

Just enforce that we'll will be ok.

[Jay Ash]

What can I do after the fact to punish officials who don't enforce the appropriate laws allowing these people to block me?

[Kazinski]

Not much.

Ironically, being a resident of New York is like being a resident of Gaza: if you can't, or won't, hold those officials accountable for their decisions, then you will eventually suffer the results.

[Malika the Maiz]

If you're going to make such crazy, inapt analogies, why not go full Godwin?

[Kazinski]

Or how about Godwin2:

"Anybody that explicitly supports Hamas will be be accused of supporting Hamas"

I'm fine with that.

[Malika the Maiz]

You've veered from your initial provocation. Why? Maybe you've found equating New York to Gaza was a bit of momentary fun hyperbole, but pretty silly after all?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm not so sure there still is a distinction...

[Kazinski]

So where is the veer?

Obviously there is an element of degree, but the principle is the same.

NY voters vote for politicians that allow lawlessness, NY'ers are increasingly subjected to lawlessness.

Gaza residents (I'd say voters but Hamas stopped.allowing voting after they won the first time) that supported Hamas, are victimized by Hamas' policies of jihad.

Columbia students that picked a revolutionary university (or didn't pay attention to what they were getting themselves into) get branded as counter revolutionaries and suffer the consequences.

[Malika the Maiz]

When accused of silly hyperbole, admitting "Obviously there is an element of degree" is a white flag. I'm sorry you can't see that.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

When accused of silly hyperbole, admitting “Obviously there is an element of degree” is a white flag. I’m sorry you can’t see that.

I'm sorry you're so ignorant regarding the purpose of an analogy that you end up making stupid comments like these.

[bernard11]

NY’ers are increasingly subjected to lawlessness.

Yeah. NYC's rate of violent crime is awful, right between Norfolk, VA and Colorado Springs, CO, in 42nd place. It's 81st in murder and non-negligent homicide, ties with Allen, TX for 80th highest.

Do you even care about facts, or is repeating whatever Trump says good enough for you?

[Brett Bellmore]

Violent crime, USA as a whole. (In '22 it was about 370 per 100k)

NYC comparable statistics. (In '23, about 570 per 100K)

NYC's rate of violent crime is pretty darned high, it's JUST the murder rate that's sorta low. Not dramatically low, just sorta. I'm guessing really good trauma centers you can reach quickly is the main reason: An awful lot of violent assaults in NYC would end up recorded as murder in places where it takes longer to reach a trauma center.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/12/1229891045/police-crime-baltimore-san-francisco-minneapolis-murder-statistics#
In 2020, the United States experienced one of its most dangerous years in decades.

The number of murders across the country surged by nearly 30% between 2019 and 2020, according to FBI statistics. The overall violent crime rate, which includes murder, assault, robbery and rape, inched up around 5% in the same period.

But in 2023, crime in America looked very different.

"At some point in 2022 — at the end of 2022 or through 2023 — there was just a tipping point where violence started to fall and it just continued to fall," said Jeff Asher, a crime analyst and co-founder of AH Datalytics.

In cities big and small, from both coasts, violence has dropped.

"The national picture shows that murder is falling. We have data from over 200 cities showing a 12.2% decline ... in 2023 relative to 2022," Asher said, citing his own analysis of public data. He found instances of rape, robbery and aggravated assault were all down too.

Yet when you ask people about crime in the country, the perception is it's getting a lot worse.

A Gallup poll released in November found 77% of Americans believed there was more crime in the country than the year before. And 63% felt there was either a "very" or "extremely" serious crime problem — the highest in the poll's history going back to 2000.
------------------------
According to NYPD crime statistics, violent crime in New York City is continuing to fall in 2024. Through March 17, the data show homicides are down 19% from the same period in 2023.

Meanwhile, violent crime in the New York City housing developments fell 3.2% in 2023 from the previous year, according to the NYPD data.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/us-stats-show-violent-crime-dramatically-falling-rising/story?id=108042096

Yes, places where people are closer together will have a higher baseline crime rate. Making that partisan continues to be dumb.

[Bwaaah]

Distortions from Sarc as usual. Here’s NYC data through March 17 for 2019 and 2024.

Murder in NYC has indeed finally come down significantly in 2024, now up only 6% over 2019 (first few months of year through March 17, as Sarc cited). But here’s the full picture that Sarc characterizes as “violent crime in New York City is continuing to fall in 2024” (compared to 2019):
  Murder: +7%
  Rape: -17%
  Robbery: +48%
  Felonious assault: +52%

And though murder is down 19% this year over last, robbery and felonious assault CONTINUED TO CLIMB THIS YEAR, up 6% and 4% respectively.

Sarc destroys what potential value there is in data. (Notice how he provides a link to storytelling, but not to data.)

[Sarcastr0]

now up only 6% over 2019

Crime went way up in 2020, so 2019 is a choice tuned for an anemic result.

The stats show good news, quit trying to explain them away so you can stay angry.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Do you even care about facts, or is repeating whatever Trump says good enough for you?

Don't you ever tire of looking like a complete moron?

[Bwaaah]

I don't listen to ANY storytellers, state or otherwise, when there's data (of satisfactory quality and applicability) available. NYPD's crime statistics have been maintained and published reliably for many years, and meet my standard.

You're about "good news" about crime, Sarc. I'm just trying to paint an accurate picture of crime. I admit that I wouldn't be talking about it if I didn't think it was a problem. But it's that sticky data that drives me Sarc, not stories of "good news" that ignore the data or twist the explanations. You're so not serious about data, in crime and everywhere else.

Good data presents an opportunity for us to learn and to adapt; misstating data just to win an argument is a common way in which many people misinform (sometimes disinform) others. I believe you routinely [intentionally] disinform through misrepresentation of data.

[Sarcastr0]

When the stats tell a good news story, and your response is ‘could be better, which is the same as bad news’ you are absolutely committed to some story over the truth.

[Bwaaah]

Violent crime, overall, in New York City is at a level that is approximately a 15 year high. Petty crime, e.g. theft, is the worst I've seen in my lifetime.

And you have good news.

[Bwaaah]

Oh, and yes, murder in NYC is finally coming down close to pre-pandemic level. You might want to consider how uncommon murder is compared to other crimes that are soaring, more than an order of magnitude more common than murder.

[Sarcastr0]

"approximately a 15 year high" if you pretend every year after 2020 isn't a year.

There was a spike, since then we've continued to come down from the spike.

You're pretending there was no spike so you can pretend it's the current trendline is the opposite of what it is.

This is simple stuff to visualize, so your denial is pretty transparent.

[Absaroka]

Looking at Bwaaah's 2024 link, there is a column headed '14 year % Chg'. Is that comparing today vs 14 years ago? If so, murders are down 30%, rapes are up 24%, felony assault up 68% (that, coupled with the murders, would be consistent with Brett's trauma care hypothesis), burglaries down 27%, and so on. It's a mixed bag.

Happily, all categories are down a lot from 31 years ago, as they are most everywhere.

The numbers are what they are. Looking just at the murders and saying 'look crime is down!' is silly. Looking just at some other category that is up and saying 'crime is up!' is also silly. 'We should only look at the categories that favor my side' seems profoundly silly to people who aren't out on one fringe or the other.

[Bwaaah]

Absaroka: I agree on all your points.

One important component of crime that’s not reflected in those stats is petty theft, which I reiterate is a huge problem that I think probably rivals the worst of history.

Also, note that NYPD has changed those historical reference columns in some years (i.e. how many years they look back for comparison). They seem to pick reference years that emphasize how bad it was many years ago, and how much better (or not worse) it is now in comparison to a more intermediate year. Also, note that stats like this weren’t published 31 years ago, and I’m not sure that they were even compiled using a similar methodology then. (Earliest data under current methodology only seems to go back to 2000.) I suspect that the 31-year old data points were inferred from other data. So these are just some caveats about the data.

All your points remain valid and consistent with my understandings.

[Ed Grinberg]

.

Ironically, being a resident of New York is like being a resident of Gaza: if you can’t, or won’t, hold [your public] officials accountable for their decisions, then you will eventually suffer the results.

Isn't that always the case? As someone said: "Every nation gets the government it deserves."

[Bwaaah]

Indeed.

[Commenter_XY]

Vote them out.

[Bwaaah]

That's it right there.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not a lot. You notice that this only happens where one (particular!) party utterly dominates the politics. This takes the best threat, electing the opponent in the next election, off the table.

[Malika the Maiz]

I think this post was about Columbia University, a private university. When they did call the police I think the police arrested a bunch of people.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's still an institution utterly controlled by that one party. They may not be holding regular elections, but the general dynamic is the same: Once the Democrats control an institution, the possibility of them losing control soon gets taken away as a threat that might moderate their behavior.

Almost everywhere the Democrats get control eventually turns into a little one party state. Even in the 'purple' states, they're 'purple' because of the local areas of total Democratic dominance.

[Malika the Maiz]

The authorities at Columbia fell over themselves in appeasing GOP House members and broke long standing norms to call the cops for mass arrests. You picked a bad example for your generalization today!

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Omar’s daughter has her uncle’s nose! So pretty!!

[Bob from Ohio]

She disappointed the two most important people in her life: mom, dad and uncle

[Martinned2]

Stay classy!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Remember the good old days when Trump was fondling and lusting after Ivanka? Think he nailed her? Now, of course, he is so old and flabby he is no threat to her. Couldn’t catch her without a golf cart.

[Michael P]

In your book, what are university officials supposed to do when their campus is occupied by violent protesters breaking long-standing norms, campus policies, and laws?

[Malika the Maiz]

Were they violent protestors? Violent protestors should be dealt with via the police.

[Bwaaah]

What about protestors who use unlawful physical force to prevent the passage of law-abiding people? I see you alluding to "long-standing norms" in which those unlawful behaviors are ignored, but more destructively, the protections of lawful behavior of people are denied.

Your "long-standing norms" are normative for who? They are a consistent history of New York City government permitting unlawful punishment of innocent bystanders by political actors, solely because that government is sympathetic to the views of the law-breakers. Might you consider supporting new norms in which the government protects people from such unlawful behaviors?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Last time I checked, the stiff-arm was not considered a foul. Just grab a football and run straight at the line...

[Don Nico]

Fell over themselves to avoid falling on their sword.

[Nige]

'It’s still an institution utterly controlled by that one party.'

Who's on the Board? Because this sounds like slack-jawed dumbness.

[Bob from Ohio]

A bunch of rich people mainly.

Deputy NYC mayor and Obama's Homeland Secretary. No obvious GOP figures.

There is a wikipedia article.

[Drewski]

Ah, yes, I remember the time the Supreme Court just kept going further and further left and never stopped.

[bernard11]

Brett, this is madness. Your derangement is worsening.

Even in the ‘purple’ states, they’re ‘purple’ because of the local areas of total Democratic dominance.

Wouldn't there have to be matching local areas of total Republican dominance? I know, only those in rural areas count, and they are mostly Republican.

Your anti-urban bigotry just continues to seep through.

[Brett Bellmore]

“Wouldn’t there have to be matching local areas of total Republican dominance?”

No, there wouldn’t. One of the interesting things about American political geography is that it’s NOT symmetric. Republican areas tend to be only about 55-60% Republican, they essentially always have a fairly large minority of Democrats. While Democratic areas frequently reach 70, 80, 90, and yes, even 100% Democratic.

For instance, DC is over 90% Democratic, with some precincts reporting no Republican votes at all. There isn’t anywhere in the country that’s equally Republican.

Here’s a look at the 2020 election on that point. (It’s per county: You don’t see 100% until you break it down by precinct.)

The only places that show up as VERY Republican are essentially empty areas that just have a few Republicans living in them. You go any place with a significant population density, Republicans are always mixed with Democrats. But the reverse is not true.

Here’s a graph from 2012 showing how this works, with a distinct tipping point around 800 people per square mile. Notice that the graph ISN’T symmetric, the Democrats are recording much higher percentages where they are in control.

Here's the money quote: "Studying this graph, two important facts are revealed. First, there are very few cities in red states. Second, the few dense cities that do exist in red states voted overwhelmingly democratic."

Which is what I was saying: 'Purple' states are actually red everywhere except some Democratic dominated cities. And "dominated" is the word, the cities are not remotely competative.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Which is what I was saying: ‘Purple’ states are actually red everywhere except some Democratic dominated cities.

No, that's what bernard11 was saying.

You were saying there weren't places that were equally red.

It's not really a news flash that there are a whole lot of small counties that are mostly red and few but more populace urban areas that are mostly blue. You're pretending there is something nefarious about urban places being mostly blue while vast swaths of rural areas being equally red is, apparently, just normal.

For instance, DC is over 90% Democratic, with some precincts reporting no Republican votes at all. There isn’t anywhere in the country that’s equally Republican.

As just one of many examples, the appropriately named Crook County, Wyoming. 89% for Trump, 9% for Biden. If you mean there is nowhere that has as concentrated a population, sure. But that's just restating the urban/rural divide in politics right now which, again, is not news. Further, you trying to make it normal that vast rural areas would be 90% red, but not normal that urban areas would be 90% blue is just being prejudiced in favor or your priors.

This isn't evidence of horrible Democrats "taking control" of urban areas. It's geographic sorting such that Republicans take control of areas they can and Democrats do likewise and people are geographically sorting by political affiliation more than ever, sometimes intentionally. (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/18/us/greenville-real-estate-conservatives.html)

Shorter, you're losing it, Brett.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Private my arse -- only Hillsdale and Grove City Colleges are private.
The US Taxpayer is paying for that crap.

[Malika the Maiz]

My local Krogers takes food stamps but it's still private.

[Dr. Ed 2]

END THE LARGESS...

Congress can vote to de-authorize the higher aid act and Columbia goes away.

[BadLib]

Ballot box?

Yes, that's likely futile in Democratic strongholds - but although Democracy sucks, it's better than the next best alternative so some are stuck.

[Malika the Maiz]

"Columbia students blocking the passage of visible Jews from just crossing Columbia."

Sounds awful. Can you supply us with evidence of this?

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://nypost.com/2024/04/20/us-news/columbia-student-demonstrator-taken-away-on-stretcher-as-anti-israel-protests-rage-on/

[Malika the Maiz]

Can you quote the part of the article that you're proposing we focus on?

[Bwaaah]

Here is an example of protestors blocking the passage of all people other than protestors from entering a university building on April 20.

[Don Nico]

Try reading the NYT or CNN or whatever news medium that you like.

Many Jews have been effectively terrorized on the Columbia campus. But Columbia is not alone in that. It has good company in Cambridge.

[Malika the Maiz]

I've read many Jews feel "effectively terrorized" but I want to know what criminal acts have been documented before I sign off on the police being involved.

[Bwaaah]

The illegal act is willfully impeding the lawful movement of people. No need to refer to "criminal," "terrorized," or "Jews."

[Martinned2]

So much for First Amendment absolutism...

[Ed Grinberg]

Don Nico said: "Many Jews have been effectively terrorized on the Columbia campus. But Columbia is not alone in that. It has good company in Cambridge."
Martinned2 replied: "So much for First Amendment absolutism…"
This is precisely the tack taken by the three hapless college presidents during last year's congressional hearing on antisemitism in U.S. colleges. The only problem was that everyone knows that colleges do not limit themselves to the legal free-speech rules when administering discipline to their students and faculty. Instead, they routinely punish "politically incorrect" speech. But, as it turns out, calling for the genocide of Israelis (Jews?) does not count as "politically incorrect" (as they see it). Some people have a problem with this (not Martinned2 though).

[Martinned2]

Sure, but what do *you* want? Free speech or speech policing?

[Don Nico]

Martin,
It is not the speech, but rather the physical intimidation, the direct harassing of individuals, the trespass against published campus policies.
People can say whatever they want. That does not mean that they can trample the rights of others.

[Bwaaah]

^YES^

[Ed Grinberg]

I've previously stated my position at length:
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/13/university-presidential-testimony-fallout/?comments=true#comment-10356914
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/02/05/monday-open-thread-38/?comments=true#comment-10429855

[Bwaaah]

Yes! to your stuff there.

[Bwaaah]

Free speech. Unlimited. (Exception: imminent threats/fighting words.) With viewpoint neutral time-of-day restrictions, such as between 8AM and 10PM.

Harassing, stalking or intentionally impeding the lawful movement of others? Cease immediately or be arrested for violation of law.

Enough of the physical intimidation unhelpfully described as “speech.”

"From the river to the sea..." Sure. Say it. Whatever.

[Martinned2]

Who gets to decide the difference between "speech" and "physical intimidation unhelpfully described as speech”?

[Bwaaah]

"Physical intimidation" was not one of the violations I listed. "Harassing, stalking or intentionally impeding the lawful movement of [people]" were the violations. Police, prosecutors and judges would be responsible for identifying those cases, just like it works now. Those are violations of existing laws that are already easily prosecuted, but that are ignored in some cases in order to give special privilege to people whose violations are motivated by [some] political positions.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Who gets to decide the difference between “speech” and “physical intimidation unhelpfully described as speech”?</i.

Anyone with an IQ north of room temperature. It would appear that you're disqualified.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And Amherst.

[bernard11]

Oddly, Don, I freely walk the streets of Cambridge without being terrorized, or even bothered by anyone.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Oddly, Don, I freely walk the streets of Cambridge without being terrorized, or even bothered by anyone.

And that has what to do with what's been happening at Columbia?

[NOVA Lawyer]

If you're going to enter a comment thread at maximum snark, do try to keep up:

Don Nico: Many Jews have been effectively terrorized on the Columbia campus. But Columbia is not alone in that. It has good company in Cambridge.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If you’re going to enter a comment thread at maximum snark

First off, if there are any adults in your home with a better command of English than yours, have one of them explain to you what "snark" means. You clearly are just repeating a word you don't understand.

Secondly, I missed the mention of Cambridge at the end of Nico's comment. So rather than duck the error I'll acknowledge it. But I'll also follow-up based on that information:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/caileygleeson/2024/03/08/lawmakers-request-documents-from-mit-in-antisemitism-probe-heres-what-we-know/

There are others as well.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Kudos for acknowledging your error rather than dodging.

As a show of appreciation, I'll admit yours wasn't maximum snark. But was, in fact, pretty mild.

There are allegations of inadequate response to antisemitic events, but bernard11 didn't dispute that, only that the situation was as stark as indicated by the original comment (and others' suggesting it's like being in Gaza). It's not that there is no antisemitism or that there have been no instances of threats or violence (and those are, obviously, serious and rightly condemned), but the hyperbole regarding rampant attacks is overblown. Hyperbole like that generally undermines a cause rather than helps it.

[Bwaaah]

Yeah...that didn't strike me as snark at all. Bernard11 presented a non-elucidating argument as evidence of protestor abuses at Columbia (and Cambridge) *not* having occurred. WuzYoungOnceToo challenged that with a fairly straightforward question. I missed the snark in his question. (I did see it in your response, though: "do try to keep up".)

For a person who speaks negatively of snark, you...are kind of snarky. (just sayin')

[NOVA Lawyer]

Yours is a fair point in regard to my snark.

bernard11 wasn't providing evidence that protestor abuses didn't occur, he was providing evidence that Jews were not effectively being terrorized on the streets of Cambridge or, in other words, despite the seriousness of some antisemitic incidents (and the atrocious antisemitic rhetoric at some events), people in these comments were way overhyping the general danger to people minding their business on the streets of Cambridge or New York (comparing it to Gaza, for example).

But, at any rate, my only point was Cambridge was part of the conversation. I should have noted that with zero snark.

[Bwaaah]

Well...you're not all snark.

🙂

[Stephen Lathrop]

Jay Ash, I think the law governing peaceable assembly has a chaotic history, which has left it hard to interpret. What follows is my view of how the law ought to be interpreted.

Peaceable assembly is a feature of American constitutionalism. You have a continuing right to peaceably access public spaces demonstrators use to demonstrate. You do not have a right, and government has no legitimate power, to eject demonstrators from those spaces.

Disruption of customary uses is a permissible feature of demonstrations in public spaces, and one which imparts Constitutionally intended political power to peaceable assemblies. If that practice is taken so far that public safety becomes endangered, then the demonstration may not be deemed peaceable, but the legitimate remedy ought to be to enforce public safety insofar as it can be done without dispersing the assembly. For instance, if demonstrators block necessary access for emergency vehicles, then public authorities ought to temporarily clear that access as needed. That in no way implies a power for public authorities to preferentially restore the space to customary public use, in preference to a peaceable assembly's intended use.

The question whether demonstrators can access particular spaces owned privately, but otherwise used publicly for other purposes, also needs consideration. My view is that the private owner has a right to call on law enforcement to enforce its property rights. Note that amounts in some cases to discretion for the private owner to determine that some spaces are off limits for demonstrations, but not off limits for your use, if your use is one the private owner chooses to authorize. I do not think that gives you a right or a power to invoke law enforcement on your own, if the private owner has chosen to permit a demonstration instead of prioritizing your intended use.

I do not think government has legitimate power to question private owners' discretion with regard to permitting assemblies. I think presidents of private educational institutions, for instance, who have been called upon to be questioned in the House or the Senate, are unwise to accommodate the politicians.

I think the presidents should usually choose to attend such occasions, but politely tell the politicians to pound sand. I think private educational institutions would be wise to replace leaders who do not do that with other leaders made of sterner stuff.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Disruption of customary uses is a permissible feature of demonstrations in public spaces"

Here you're just begging the question, assuming up front that the offense in question is legal and proper.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, really? How could it be otherwise?

When you say, “offense,” what the hell are you talking about? I’m talking about Constitutionally authorized peaceable assemblies in public spaces.

That’s before you get to the history. Some founders were made notable (notorious in the eyes of this nation’s enemies) for the disruptions inflicted by the assemblies they organized.

More recently, the entire civil rights movement was organized around a series of planned disruptions of customary uses of public spaces. Government attempts to prevent those by force established a shameful record, notorious world-wide. The demonstrators suppressed, beaten, and jailed, were disciplined, trained volunteers, carefully drilled in advance to remain peaceable despite even deadly provocations. Do you assert that those noble examples were, “offenses?”

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm talking about denying people lawful access to public spaces, obviously. Notably, none of Jay's examples you were responding to were actually peaceable assemblies.

[Stephen Lathrop]

So you do condemn the civil rights movement?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Pity that Jews can't show up with rifles like the Blacks did at Cornell...

[Martinned2]

Why not? Isn't that their Sacred Right under the Constitution?

[Frank Drackman]

It is, wow, you said something that makes sense for a change.

[Mr. Bumble]

Except NY feels that the 2nd has been incorporated.

[Mr. Bumble]

obviously that should be hasn't

[Brett Bellmore]

No kidding:

NYC Man Convicted Over Gunsmithing Hobby After Judge Says 2nd Amendment 'Doesn't Exist in This Courtroom'

"The judge disrupted Varghese’s opening statement multiple times as he tried to set the stage for Taylor’s defense. Even further, she admonished the defense to refrain from mentioning the Second Amendment during the trial. Varghese told RedState:

She told us, ‘Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.'"

This would be a perfect case for my suggestion that the Supreme court advise lower court judges that they are setting themselves up for federal 1983 lawsuits if they don't start taking the Court's 2nd amendment rulings seriously.

[Sarcastr0]

This story is just the word of the defendant as to what the judge said.

Brett, if it appears too good to be true, maybe it is.

[David Nieporent]

This would be a perfect case for my suggestion that the Supreme court advise lower court judges that they are setting themselves up for federal 1983 lawsuits if they don’t start taking the Court’s 2nd amendment rulings seriously.

Judges have absolute immunity under 1983.

Also, you're not relying on a news report or transcript; you're relying on a claim by the defendant's lawyer. Let me say that I'm skeptical that it's being related accurately.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Judges have absolute immunity under 1983"

No, section 1983 expressly limits judicial immunity to injunctive relief, which hardly qualifies as "absolute immunity". Under Section 1983 you could still sue for other forms of relief, such as a monetary award or declaratory judgement.

Perhaps you meant that judges have absolute immunity under rulings by judges?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it's not this case, unfortunately, but the Court did decide to take Garland v. VanDerStok, which is also about "ghost guns".

[not guilty]

"No, section 1983 expressly limits judicial immunity to injunctive relief, which hardly qualifies as 'absolute immunity'. Under Section 1983 you could still sue for other forms of relief, such as a monetary award or declaratory judgement."

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

The doctrine of judicial immunity from suit for damages, both at common law and as recognized by the U. S. Supreme Court, predates the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983). "Now it is a general principle applicable to all judicial officers that they are not liable to a civil action for any judicial act done within their jurisdiction." Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 523, 535 (1868). Judges of courts of general jurisdiction "are not liable to civil actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, unless perhaps where the acts in excess of jurisdiction are done maliciously or corruptly." Id., at 536. A judge is not suable for damages for his judicial acts unless he acts in clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject-matter. Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 351 (1871).

This common law immunity was not abrogated by the Civil Rights Act of 1871, as authoritatively construed by SCOTUS:

We do not believe that this settled principle of law was abolished by § 1983, which makes liable "every person" who under color of law deprives another person of his civil rights. The legislative record gives no clear indication that Congress meant to abolish wholesale all common-law immunities. Accordingly, this Court held in Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951), that the immunity of legislators for acts within the legislative role was not abolished. The immunity of judges for acts within the judicial role is equally well established, and we presume that Congress would have specifically so provided had it wished to abolish the doctrine.

Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554-555 (1967) (footnote omitted).

In the 57 years since Pierson was decided, Congress has not amended § 1983 in regard to judicial immunity for suits for damages. The Congress has accordingly acquiesced in the judicial construction of the statute.

Bloviate all you want, Brett, about what you think the law should be. But when you claim to pontificate on what the law actually is, keep in mind Justice Robert Jackson's comment about the role of SCOTUS: "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final." Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 540 (1953) (Jackson, J., concurring in result).

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes, some of the people in the civil rights movement committed (nonviolent) crimes. They did so knowing that they were crimes and with willingness to accept the consequences of committing them. That’s kind of what sets them apart from these goofballs.

[Don Nico]

" but politely tell the politicians to pound sand. "
Easily said when you are not in front of the committee and you know that your job is likely on the line.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Don Nico, what on earth are your talking about? The politicians cannot fire a private university president.

[Martinned2]

That still doesn't make it a good idea to piss them off.

[Don Nico]

Come on SL. You are purposefully obtuse or plain old dishonest.
You really think that the shit-poor performance on the Hill had nothing to do with the fate or the Penn and Harvard presidents?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, I think it had everything to do with their fate. Which might well have been different if they knew how to handle a political witch-hunt, by returning well-judged defiance and ridicule.

Or even counter-threats. I had an acquaintance in college during the 60s. His politics were of the most radical stripe—violent overthrow of government, openly espoused. That got him a summons to testify before Congress.

He got asked if he meant to use armed force. “Of course,” he said. That’s why all of us in the Progressive Labor Party go armed all the time.” They couldn’t get him out of there fast enough.

More generally, if you intend to make a big deal about politics, you can't get very far crying about what a victim you are. All that accomplishes is to invite less whiny folks with bolder ambitions to take advantage of you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's worse than this -- their Rabbi has told the Jews to LEAVE COLUMBIA -- to go home and not come back as it is unsafe.
https://nypost.com/2024/04/21/us-news/columbia-rabbi-warns-jewish-students-to-go-home-dont-come-back-to-campus-because-of-extreme-antisemitism/

This is where Columbia should be SHUT DOWN.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That rabbi sounds like a partisan, superstition-addled dumbass.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yeah, how dare he get in the way of your friends terrorizing Jews? Doesn't he know that in RAK's world, Jews are just supposed to cower while terrorized?

The last few days, your friends promised an Oct. 7 every day, chanted to raze Tel Aviv to the ground, and poked a Jew in the eye with a flag pole.

Your tiresome "clinger" shtick is convincing no one.

[Reallynotbob]

No, no. Palestinians are supposed to cower when terrorized. (/sarcasm for the benefit of future historians).

The problem is the "team" categorization playing out...
American Jew = "zionist" = Israeli sympathizer = genocidal maniac.
American Palestinian = "pro-Hamas" = anti-Semitic = genocidal maniac.

Gonna have to find common ground which probably consists of, "most Americans/Israelis/Palestinians want peace more than they want revenge." That's difficult to actualize when new provocations refresh with each headline.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, academia has been a hotbed of radical islam foe decades.

[Bored Lawyer]

Palestinians have been offered a state numerous times, and numerous times have said NO. Really, the equivalency shtick is also getting tiresome.
To repeat for the 1000th time, Israel withdrew completely from Gaza. Every last Jew -- even the dead ones -- were removed. The Gazans had the opportunity to make it into the Singapore of the Mediterranean. Instead they elected a government whose express purpose is annihilation of every Jew "between the river and the sea."
They reap what they have sown.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

“most Americans/Israelis/Palestinians want peace more than they want revenge.”

That must explain why the overwhelming majority of those peace-wanting Palestinians elected a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel to run their government.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

No one should be terrorizing Jews or anyone else.

Criticizing Israel's criminal, unlawful, disgusting right-wing belligerence does not constitute terrorizing Jews. The only people defending Israel in that context are superstition-addled dopes with faulty moral compasses.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Hey Brother!

Wanna rail on some immoral, disgusting Jews together today?

I saw some black a little too close to my 'hood, if you know what I'm sayin', do you wanna chip in and fund some black baby abortions at a PP? I'll find the one closest to my gated community. I'm sure it's a far away, but hopefully close enough to keep the vermin away.

[Bored Lawyer]

But don't worry, after they come for the Jews, they're coming for you. You're "God is a fairy tale" schtick will earn you death once the Islamists take over.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I expect reason to prevail over superstition (regardless of flavor; they all seem similar).

[Bored Lawyer]

The internet never forgets. If you think you will be safe once the Islamists take over, you are whistling past the graveyard.
"Zindiq" is Arabic for heretic. Get used to it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If the Christian god is all-powerful (or even extant), how are Islamists going to take over.

Is the Christian god an all-talk weakling?

[Martinned2]

It was the Patriarch of Jerusalem who opened the gates of the City for the Caliph in 637, confirming whose god was stronger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(636%E2%80%93637)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Along a similar line, who is stronger, Superman or Hulk?

Wonder Woman or Thor?

Bugs Bunny or Daffy Duck?

[Sarcastr0]

once the Islamists take over

I'm not sure what content you are replying to, but good lord take off the drama pants.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, this isn't Malmo.

[Sarcastr0]

We know what it looks like when Islamists take over, and it's not scattered riots.
Quit reading white supremacists.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, we know that Islamists being finished taking over doesn't look like scattered riots. Beginning to take over? Yeah, maybe THAT can look like scattered riots.

[Nige]

The police came for the protesters. There were probably Jews among them, though.

[DaveM]

People linking their arms in pipes is so stupid. While their arms are thus disabled, you can pull their pants down, blow on their ears and faces, whisper jokes in their ears, tickle their noses and sides, put a bucket on their head, give them a wedgie, and tie their shoelaces together and use those pipes like a swingset.

"Oh, I'm sorry yer honor, I thought they were inviting me to play. I had no idea!"

[Jay Ash]

of all the responses here to the question, what can I do that lets me pass and is least likely to be seen as a battery, I like yours best, along with a jury trial.

[Sarcastr0]

Malika makes a good point.

Columbia brought the hammer down as the right insists is the right thing to do. It didn’t help and the right is in full attack mode anyhow.

If you ever wanted to show that the right does not care about Jewish students, and are just opportunists seeking any reason to attack schools, this is exactly that.

[Michael P]

Yes, you certainly have a reflexive position that spits out hot takes, with no concern for coherence.

Columbia waited far too long to respond. Their campus was a no-go zone for Jews even before that protest. We shouldn't tolerate universities forsaking their mission because they have excessive sympathy for hateful bigots breaking campus policies and criminal laws.

[Sarcastr0]

This is a retcon. Because you are all in on this attack in schools.

It’s some good populist red meat for dupes like you, but do you think for a moment this ‘no go zone’ nonsense is helping actual Jews who have actual concerns about this?

Your partisan hyperbole and lies are counterproductive. The schools will remain standing, and probably this crisis (and it is a crisis) will be solved despite the efforts of right wing opportunists.

but you get your jollies so yay.

[Michael P]

The right, and others, have been telling Columbia that their campus was out of control well before that particular protest turned violent. For example, https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/02/us/columbia-university-students-israel-hamas-war/index.html . There's no retcon here, only a school that seems determined to pander to a violent gang of antisemites.

[Mr. Bumble]

...including the incestuous spawn of a US congress person.

[Sarcastr0]

"Beyond Columbia University’s heavy iron gates emblazoned with the words “May All Who Enter Here Find Welcome and Peace,” a 25-year-old graduate student said he felt immense pressure to “pick a side” in the Israel-Hamas war.

The student, who is working on a PhD in statistics and asked not to be named because of safety concerns, recalled being approached repeatedly by friends on both sides of the conflict and refusing to lend his name to petitions or statements on the emotionally fraught topic."

That sucks, but it does not support your thesis: "Their campus was a no-go zone for Jews."

And how would the school administration prevent students pressuring other students to take a side?

Hyperbole, retcons, and asking for the impossible. This is you taking this opportunity to be counterproductive.

[Armchair]

"In a letter to Jewish students earlier Sunday, rabbi Elie Buechler of the Columbia/Barnard Hillel and Kraft Center for Jewish Student Life, recommended they return home and stay there, saying it was clear the university and city police “cannot guarantee Jewish students’ safety in the face of extreme antisemitism and anarchy.” Buechler declined requests for an interview.

The Columbia Jewish Alumni Association on Sunday sent a letter to Shafik noting the rabbi’s concerns and claiming that the environment on campus has been hostile for Jewish students, including those it claims have been “openly threatened and harassed.”

Alleging lax enforcement, the group urged Columbia to “enforce the university rules with regard to protests and harassment and restore order and safety on campus.”

Student Nicholas Baum, a freshman, said he’s weighing the rabbi's invitation to leave.

“I feel disturbed but I feel it is completely indicative of the horrible disturbances that Jews on campus have been feeling,” he said. “As a Jew, I no longer feel welcome on campus. I no longer feel safe on campus.”"

[Sarcastr0]

This also does not establish Michaels no go zone thesis.

I also think you fucked up the timeline we are discussing here.

[Davedave]

What part of the Hillel House leader for that university advising Jewish students to stay away for their own safety does not sound like a no-go-zone to you?

What a mental load of denialism. You lot here are all as bad as each other.

[Michael P]

Today it's a no-go zone in general, with mandatory remote classes. Sad!

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13336023/Columbia-University-cancels-classes-pro-palestine-protests.html

[Sarcastr0]

Nice new goalposts and fresh new timeline from your original ‘took too long to respond.’

Now you are back to just point and attack.

Not even a hint of actually attempting to do anything but go after schools.

[Michael P]

Take the L and go home, dude. Columbia is swirling around the drain because they didn't clean things up when they had a good opportunity. Now the campus al-Eichmanns have ruined it for everyone else there.

[Sarcastr0]

Columbia is swirling around the drain

Good lord.

al-Eichmanns
LOL.

I love that you tell me to take the L, and then take refuge in reality breaking *maximum drama*

[Brett Bellmore]

I'll grant you that Columbia isn't yet Yale in this regard.

Jewish Yale student journalist stabbed in the eye with Palestinian flag during protest

But Yale wasn't Yale in this regard, not so long ago.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noah Rubin, a University of Pennsylvania student helping document the protest at Yale, bashed the university for going against its own policies by allowing the demonstrations to continue.

Pretty sure Yale does not have a policy against protests.

Also? No allegation in the link that the allegedly stabbed student suffered any injury.

Yale says university police are investigating, and anyone found to have violated rules will be punished.

Could be a tendentious link.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
You work in a bureaucratic bubble and have no real idea about what faces Jews and especially Israelis on many campuses. Yet you always minimize the degree of harassment and intimidation by referring to right wing attacks on campuses and other drivel.
That is your smoke screen for a clear lack of concern for the atmosphere of intimidation that Hamas supporters have created at Harvard, Columbia, MIT, Cal, etc.

[Mr. Bumble]

From the amount of time he spends here it doesn't seem like he does much "work".

[Sarcastr0]

Quit your gatekeeping. You don't know my job, who I work with, who I meet with, and who I know outside of work.

Yes, I think a lot of people here are being overdramatic because they want to attack schools, not defend Jews. I point you to the Nazi melodrama, the calls for speech restrictions.

And, worse of all, the idea that anything other than calls for renewing crackdowns means you don't care about Jews.
That's you, doing that.

I say "I would tend to agree with you [about physical harassment being a line where sanctions come into play]."
And you? You accuse me of not caring about Jews because I'm not making common cause with Armchair and Michael P, who demonstrate over and over that they are no friend of the Jews.

You're not helping your cause at all with your hair trigger on telepathic accusations that I'm in bad faith.

If it were Muslim students being targeted, I'd also think force and expulsion are not a one size fits all way to deescalate.

[Absaroka]

"If it were Muslim students being targeted, I’d also think force and expulsion are not a one size fits all way to deescalate."

The last time we had whites blocking blacks from attending school, we sent in the 101st Airborne.

I hope the current situation doesn't go that far, but I really, really, really don't want to live in a country where blocking Jewish students from going to class is even a tiny bit acceptable. That smells way too brownshirt to be even a little bit acceptable.

[Sarcastr0]

I think you can just generalize about illegal protests from both sides of the aisle and see that deescalation is not a one size fits all thing.

The current situation sucks, on an individual level. I'm not anywhere near thinking brownshirts are next.

That kind of drama is how you fuck up and escalate the problem.

[Absaroka]

"I’m not anywhere near thinking brownshirts are next."

Dunno how much 1930's history you have read, but scroll down to November 12, 1938 for a pic of Brownshirts linking hands to keep Jews out of U of Vienna. Have you heard of any similar things recently?

If recent headlines were 'KKK supporters link arms to keep black students from attending U Miss', would you be all 'protests are groovy, the important thing is to think about deescalation'?

[Sarcastr0]

1. And Nazis had beer parties;
party A and party B doing the same thing does not establish party A will soon become party B.

2. The Brownshirts arose during vastly weaker national institutions than we have.

3. Counterfactual hypocrisy is below you.

4. You fail at your hypothetical counterfactual parallel. You are paralleling these protesters with the KKK.
Very much begging the question of whether they are brownshirts.

[Absaroka]

Well, we're going to disagree. I have long been interested in how a pretty liberal democracy oozed into the vilest regime of all time. You can find detailed accounts of the slow ooze. So I am pretty sensitive to hearing those echoes in my own country.

There is nothing inherently evil about Germans. They - good Germans - stood by and let evil take over, a little bit at a time. As the saying goes "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”. I hope you are right and I am wrong - but this is rhyming with history.

"And Nazis had beer parties"

Wow.

[Sarcastr0]

Lots of people have asked that question. There's pretty good consensus that the weakness of the Weimar Republic was an important element.
Ed's protestations aside, our institutions, both public and private, are not nearly so weak.

Maybe we'll end up in some kind of horrible authoritarian regime not long from now. But it really can't follow anything like the path the rise of Nazi Germany did.

[Absaroka]

"our institutions, both public and private, are not nearly so weak."

Well, they will either be strong enough to stop private actors keeping Jews (blacks, gays, whoever ...) off campus, or not. I hope our institutions will prove to be up to the task. We'll see the results.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, of course I agree with that.

I just don't think we're facing a crisis wherein Nazi America is on the horizon.
Or that being a Jew at Columbia is like being a citizen of Gaze.
Or that Columbia is swirling around the drain.
Or that we are in the prelude before Islamists take over America (or Sweden)

There's more than a problem, there is a crisis. But good lord the melodrama is running hot these days.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"Columbia waited far too long to respond. Their campus was a no-go zone for Jews even before that protest."

Really? That would explain this incident . . . or maybe not.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslighto, today is Monday. We shall see.

And maybe we can ship the twit running Columbia back to Egypt which is where she's from. Yep, she's one of them, that's part of the problem...

I've never seen a Rabbi declare a college unsafe before...

[Sarcastr0]

One of them. Well you sure do continue to suck!

[Armchair]

"It didn’t help"

Sure about that? (Of course not).

What might also help? Expelling all those in the protests, and kicking them off campus. Then the Jews on campus will be safer.

[Sarcastr0]

Protests are what is making people unsafe, eh?

You may want to narrow your scope a bit lest people think you want to punish speech.

Perish the thought I’m sure.

[Don Nico]

"Protests are what is making people unsafe, eh"
No, it is physical harassment. Wake up S_0.

[Sarcastr0]

Sounds like you and Armchair have a disagreement.

I would tend to agree with you, and think Armchair is just out to make noise.

[Don Nico]

I am not trying to support of Armchair. I'm only saying what I see directly on my campus and its neighboring university

[Dr. Ed 2]

First intelligent thing Nico's ever said.

[Don Nico]

"show that the right does not care about Jewish students"
Oh nonsense.
You never want to believe that there has been gross intimidation and harassment of Jews and especially Israelis on campuses. It has persisted since Chanukah.

[Sarcastr0]

Read Armchair, and Michael P, and Ed, and Bob from Ohio. Read what they want to happen, and how they change to make sure whatever the facts they can always attack left.

They’re not allies, they are opportunists.

And I'm not counting the growing number of pro-Trump antisemites around here.

[Davedave]

Just because they're more concerned about using Jews to enable their own hatred of Muslims doesn't mean you aren't saying crazy antisemitic shit here.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why do I have a hatred of the culture of death?
Raping clueless hippies and beheading innocent babies wouldn't have anything about it. Nor would it's intent to kill me.

[David Nieporent]

Why do I have a hatred of the culture of death?

You mean, like running over people with snowplows? Or just machine gunning civilians for stepping over a line? Or murdering sex workers for fun?

[Bob from Ohio]

Screw you. As a Jew I have more right to comment than you.

You are just deflecting for all your ideological friends abusing Jews. No enemies to the left!

[Sarcastr0]

You can’t top talking about defunding all of higher education, and even taking their endowments. Don’t pretend your agenda isn't some radical nonsense well beyond the safety for Jews on campus.

[Reallynotbob]

"...more right to comment than you."

Really earned that superiority, did you? Don't lead with your chin.

[Kazinski]

Well if we're going to come up with a rule that victims of discrimination and repression shouldn't get their voices amplified any more than the people cheering on the oppression and discrimination then I'm fine with it. I'm not oppressed by anybody but the taxman.

But don't apply it selectively.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You’re a right-wing bigot, Bob the Bigot, with no more right to comment than anyone else. You can whine as much as you like . . . until you are replaced by your betters.

I find your whining to be a welcome sign that your stale, ugly thinking is losing and dying off.

[Kazinski]

Well maybe if we have a federal law that makes it a felony to block abortion clinic access, then we need a federal law to make it a felony to block university classroom access.

Here is an example of one incident at Columbia:
"Heard outside Columbia University last night: "Never forget the 7th of October. That will happen not 1 more time, not 5 more times, not 10, not 100, not 1,000, but 10,000 times! The 7th of October is going to be every day for you"

https://twitter.com/EFischberger/status/1781287784897991134?t=wecTXNOipTL54mfoObyHEw&s=19

[Sarcastr0]

The abortion law has been a nightmare to implement, but yeah, if this becomes a longer-term issue then at least we have some previous experience with the balancing of speech with access requirements.

[Don Nico]

Universities don't need any new law. They are in a position to punish violations of published rules of conduct. And If violations extend to vandalism, trespass, etc. They are capable of summonsing the police.... IF they want to

[Mr. Bumble]

...and suspending or expelling "students".
No more student visa for you!

[Michael P]

Yawn. That's a lot of projection from Gaslight0 to excuse his genocidal allies from being scrutinized.

[Bob from Ohio]

He's afraid of being cast out by his friends.

[Sarcastr0]

Michael P, helping the Jews by saying I'm allied with Hamas.

[Commenter_XY]

Well if the shoe fits....

[Michael P]

The shoe that fits him is friend-of-a-friend with Hamas, I think. A bunch of the bigots protesting on campuses want genocide; those, rather than Hamas itself, are who he has allied himself with.

[Michael P]

Yes, read what we want: We want schools to uphold their promises of providing a physically safe environment for students. We want the federal government to enforce civil rights laws about hostile educational environments and harassment. We want to fix the shitty culture that led to colleges teaching hate rather than critical thinking or research.

Maybe you should stop whining about us and contemplate why you are defending angry mobs and feckless, dishonest administrators.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh, just fix a culture. Of teaching hate.

What good faith you have.

[Balisane]

If Merrick Garfinkel went after these thugs with the same zeal he has in enforcing FACE against peaceful protesters outside abortion clinics, the problem would go away in a minute.

[Dr. Ed 2]

True.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It gets worse -- they are now refusing to let Jewish PROFESSORS on campus! https://nypost.com/2024/04/22/us-news/columbia-professor-and-outspoken-israel-supporter-shai-davidai-says-hes-been-barred-from-the-main-campus/

That strikes me as an employment discrimination suit if they are allowing non-Jewish professors on campus.

[Ed Grinberg]

"He said administrators told him they banned him for campus because they could not ensure his safety."

compare (Mark Steyn, 2015):
Yesterday the Swedish city of Umea held a Kristallnacht commemoration without any Jews - who were excluded on the grounds that it would be "unsafe" for them to attend.
Wouldn't it be easier just to hold another Kristallnacht?
Oh, give it a year or two...

[hobie]

I don't think there is much that can be done. One of the latest right-wing abominations is the 'first amendment auditor' scum who stalk police and government workers with cameras and if they complain they shout obscenities at them or even mace them. And there appears to be nothing anyone can do about it

[Michael P]

I don't think you have any evidence to support your claims there. For example, abusive "first amendment auditors" can and have been successfully prosecuted:
https://ktxs.com/news/texas/mcmanus-says-youtubers-use-first-amendment-as-guise-to-attack-insult-police-officers
https://thebaynet.com/first-amendment-auditor-sentenced-to-90-days-in-jail-for-criminal-trespass-in-calvert-county/

Neither of them used a chemical spray, even.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I don’t think there is much that can be done. One of the latest right-wing abominations is the ‘first amendment auditor’ scum who stalk police and government workers with cameras and if they complain they shout obscenities at them or even mace them. And there appears to be nothing anyone can do about it

I think it might be time for you to give your experimentation with psychotropic drugs a rest.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Remember those third party ballot-access law laws which, commenters assure us, are designed with total competence with safeguarding the democratic process from the perils of too many choices. Well, it made a glitch, and wouldn’t you know, the glitch is to the disadvantage of the third party.

“RALEIGH, N.C. (WNCN) — It was April 1 when the Constitution Party of North Carolina walked into the North Carolina State Board of Elections with what they believed to be more than the 13,865 signatures needed to be recognized as a party and get on the fall ballot.

As any third party or individual can, they referred to the petition page on the State Board’s website for any updates. Constitution Party Chairman Al Pisano saw what he thought was a discrepancy in total signatures.

“”After inquiring about the issue, an attorney for the N.C. State Board of Elections emailed Pisano saying there was an error in how the petition tracker, that’s posted online, pulled in the number of verified signatures from the county Boards of Election.
The email stated in part: “As part of that review, the numbers of signatures your organization submitted to and were validated by the county boards of elections is double-checked against what is listed on the petition tracker on the State Board’s website. Bear in mind that the petition tracker on the website is merely an indicator provided for public benefit and does not establish, legally, the status of a petition campaign.”

““So this really put us behind it, really. They they really injured us in that way. So we’re under the crunch time now where we should not have been,” said Pisano.”

Vote suppression, election misinformation. Even if it’s all just a big whoopsie.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/nc-constitution-party-s-effort-to-get-on-ballot-hits-technical-snag/ar-BB1lK77G

[DaveM]

Are you saying this was an intentional roadblock? Elections are live events, mistakes happen constantly, that's why you have people watch these things.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Do you support strict liability for government officials who engage in election misinformation and vote suppression, or should they be able to wriggle off the hook by claiming it was just one of those accidents which could happen to anyone?

Specifically, what if Republican officials (or Democratic officials, if you’re a Republican), made a “minor” error like this which risked your party's ballot status? Would you just say, “oh, well these things happen”?

[NOVA Lawyer]

You’re really stretching. The people collecting and submitting the signatures didn’t have as many as they thought. How is that anyone else’s fault?

Instead of counting the signatures they had collected and verifying that with an actual official, they relied on a website “tracker” that wasn’t an official publication of the Board of Elections. There was a coding error that included old signatures from the 2016 effort. That’s why, if you’re a serious party, you count your own signatures, you talk to actual officials to get their official count (so you can compare the two), and you get far more signatures than needed in case some are invalidated. Why? Because mistakes like this happen.

made a “minor” error like this which risked your party’s ballot status

The error didn't risk the Constitution Party's ballot status. The Constitution Party unwisely relying on unofficial data to stop collecting signatures, as well as stupidly not having an accurate tally of their own to compare to the Board of Elections' count, is what risked their ballot status.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The duopoly shouldn’t benefit from its own misconduct. They’re the ones who want an excessive number of signatures, but, being the paragons of competence that they are, they miscounted, for once, in a third party’s favor. They should be estopped from denying the figures on their own .gov web site.

If the Constitution Party is “stupid,” that should be a matter for voters to deal with, by voting against them in favor of one of the two genius duopoly parties whose vast intelligence has made this country politically what it is.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

A condensed version of NOVA Lawyer's argument:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPJDPSUevt4

[NOVA Lawyer]

If the Board of Elections told them to rely on the "tracker" data, then sure. But, from what I can tell, they didn't. Again, if the entire point of your project depends on accurate data, why would you not confirm your data rather than rely on websites which are subject to all sorts of errors, especially when the website you are relying on was never put forward as a definitive source.

It's like a football coach relying on a color commentators estimation of whether they made the first down when calling his next play rather than consulting the official for the actual call. Sure, the color commentators are usually correct in relaying the info, but they make mistakes. If your season depends on getting it right, go to the official numbers.

The Constitution Party didn't. They quite obviously didn't keep their own tally of their numbers so they could error check and challenge the Board of Elections if they undercounted. It was their screw up.

(And you're pretending these errors only happen in one direction. Unlikely. But there are quite obvious reasons the errors only gain national prominence when the mistake allegedly hurts a party. Squeaky wheel and all that. No one complains if the Constitution Party relied on the tracker count, the count shows too few signatures, it is discovered, and the Constitution Party gets on the ballot like they wanted.

You're just looking for conspiracy theories. Without more, it's an honest mistake on the part of whoever ran the tracker and negligence by the Constitution Party in conducting their signature drive.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

No, I said the state did it because they were "paragons of competence," which (allow me to explain) is a sarcastic remark suggesting incompetence - no more is required. By acting like my position depends on the existence of a deliberate conspiracy, you move the goalposts and reduce the work you need to do to defend your duopolist friends.

You act like this happens in a vacuum, as if collecting all these signatures was simply the natural state of things, dictated from on high, whereas in fact these signature requirements are discriminatory - a form of vote suppression and election misinformation to steer the voters away from alternatives and into the arms of your duopolist friends. Because they don't simply want to depend on the attractiveness of their policies; they want to suppress competition.

If the Constitution Party is incompetent, then it would, as I said, be for the voters to vote for a more competent party, such as one of the parties which got the country into its present position. Plenty of competence there.

Again, you're trying to enshrine "you fucked up - you trusted us" into a legal and political principle, as if limiting voter choice were simply an amusing game and not a serious matter of the integrity of the vote itself.

Now in North Carolina, they're complaining that convicted felons can't vote - talk about stupid choices limiting one's voting rights! And you're hung up on whether the Constitution Party is worthy of being on the ballot?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Well, it made a glitch, and wouldn’t you know, the glitch is to the disadvantage of the third party.

Vote suppression, election misinformation.

You’re trying to play both sides. Acknowledging on the one hand that it was a technical glitch. On the other, you are heavily implying intentional misconduct by expressing doubt that it was a mere mistake and explicitly calling it an effort in vote suppression and misinformation.

…..

Part of the problem is you are conflating two things, the idea that there should be some threshold before getting on the ballot at all (apparently) and this particular technical glitch and the Constitution Party relying on unofficial data to make determinative choices about their ability to get on the ballot. You muddy everything and make no clear point on either.

On the screw up, it was a mistake. They happen. The Constitution Party knew the rules, they should have sought official information and should have had their own count, two steps they should have taken either of which would have alerted them to not stop collecting signatures, which is how it “harmed” them.

On ballot access being limited to parties who can show sufficient support via collecting sufficient signatures on a petition for ballot access, I’m not sure a ballot with several hundred names for each of the major offices and, then, to be fair, those names presented in random order, is actually helpful to an informed electorate. Or are you just arguing this particular signature threshold was too high? You aren’t making a coherent argument unless you are for the chaos of anyone who wants to be on the ballot can be. And in that case, your argument strikes me as ridiculous and counterproductive to ensuring meaningful voting rights (as it forces people to wade through the equivalent of spam to find their preferred candidate). Anything else is line drawing and none of your comments engage with where the line should be, but instead are just a bunch of slogans in support of an amorphous, apparently incoherent, position.

Do better.

[David Nieporent]

If you've been following Margrave over the last year, he absolutely wants ballots with 100+ names on them.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Thanks, David. I haven't been following him on that issue, or much of any issue. But I'll make note of that.

[David Nieporent]

(And you’re pretending these errors only happen in one direction.

If the error occurred in the other direction, there is no doubt in my mind that Margrave would be bitching just as much: "The state website undercounted their signatures so they had to waste a lot of time and money getting unnecessary extra signatures — time and money that they could've been spending campaigning."

[Intro2Awesome]

The anti-federalists were right about almost everything.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Like what?

[Kazinski]

We needed a 2nd Amendment.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Yep, the one individual right from inception…strange McDonald was even necessary?? I guess the 2A initially protected the RKBA of citizens in DC and federal territories which is why Heller was brought in DC.

[Brett Bellmore]

The need for a Bill of Rights, for one. Almost everything the anti-Federalists warned of, the Federalists actually attempted at one point or another.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Those against including a bill of rights argued that whatever rights are enumerated would become the only ones protected, regardless of text specifically stating otherwise. They were exactly right.

[tylertusta]

I think both were correct.

[apedad]

"The anti-federalists were right about almost everything."

You're right and too bad we didn't listen to them.

We could have become the richest, most powerful nation in the worl . . .

Oh wait . . . .

[Brett Bellmore]

We DID mostly listen to them, which is why we've got a Bill of Rights in the first place. Maybe if we'd listened more, we could have delayed our transition from a prosperous and free federation of states to an increasingly authoritarian nation even longer.

[Martinned2]

As the Federalists would have said, another way to delay a transition to an authoritarian nation is to not vote for authoritarians. Have you considered that option?

[Kazinski]

Well we've never elected a Hitler or a Mussolini, so we're doing well in that regard.

Obviously there are pluses and minuses to a strong or weak federal system. The pluses are a strong enough state to deter external threats which was a big plus when we were a much smaller nation. Plus a central government that can deter internal oppression by the states against their own people.

The EU seems to have the worst of both worlds a federation not strong or cohesive enough to deter external threats, but plenty strong enough to oppress it’s population so there is no longer freedom of speech or a right to self defense.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Which EU laws "oppressed the population" by limiting the right of free speech or to self defense?

It's almost like you have no idea how EU law works.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary." Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights

[Martinned2]

Yes, and that basically does what the US First Amendment does, which has exceptions for obscenity, defamation, national security, yelling fire in a crowded theatre, and whatever else the courts come up with. The only difference is that in a sensible human rights document the exceptions - and the limitations thereto - are explicitly set out, rather than leaving all of that up to the courts to invent out of thin air.

[Kazinski]

It's almost like you have no idea how a federation works.

[Martinned2]

In addition to what ObviouslyNotSpam said.

Plus a central government that can deter internal oppression by the states against their own people.

Sure, but only if it wants to. Which for decades before and after the civil war, up to the 1950s, it didn't.

[Ed Grinberg]

Is it true that "for decades before and after the civil war, up to the 1950s," U.S. central government failed to "deter internal oppression by the states against their own people" (specifically, blacks)? Sure.
I wonder though whether Martinned2, apedad, & Co. would agree with me that the same thing has been happening more recently (though a different group was being oppressed (which is maybe why they don't see / don't care about that oppression)):

In May 2020, the Supreme Court denied cert. in ten cases involving the Second Amendment—including a New Jersey case, Rogers v. Grewal, that would have been perfect to examine the right to bear arms. According to CNN journalist Joan Biskupic, "sources have told CNN that the [four] justices on the right did not believe they could depend on a fifth vote from Roberts."

(source)

[Martinned2]

Not letting someone have a gun isn't "oppression".

[Kazinski]

Well you are right about that, we are hardly perfect.

But I’ll point out Europe* spent 250 years establishing slavery in the Americas, but it took us 80 years to abolish it. We should have been better.

Keep holding that over our heads.

*Not all of Europe to be sure, it was UK, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, France, mainly.

[Martinned2]

It took the British a lot less time to abolish slavery, since you brought it up.

[Malika the Maiz]

"during President Shafik’s testimony on Wednesday before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, she disclosed that several faculty members are under investigation for making discriminatory remarks. “President Shafik’s public naming of [these faculty members] to placate a hostile committee,” the American Association of University Professors observed, “sets a dangerous precedent for academic freedom and has echoes of the cowardice often displayed during the McCarthy era.” In setting this precedent, Shafik violated a longstanding norm of confidentiality regarding internal disciplinary proceedings. University rules provide that allegations of discrimination will be handled in a confidential manner. Often, these proceedings are handled so secretively that even the complainant is kept in the dark. To have an ongoing investigation revealed by a top administrator on live TV, in the absence of a subpoena or other legal compulsion, is a stunning departure from campus customs and investigatory best practices more generally."

https://balkin.blogspot.com/2024/04/norm-breaking-at-columbia.html

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, Minoush is doing a bang-up job at Columbia. So well, that Rabbi's are now telling their congregants who are students at Columbia to leave the campus for their safety.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/388891

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

So well, that Rabbi’s are now telling their congregants who are students at Columbia to leave the campus for their safety

This is unfortunate. If those students miss enough classes, maybe they'll be as illiterate as this guy.

Carry on, clingers.

[Davedave]

What a bizarre thing to say about people who aren't missing classes out of choice, but due to racist persecution. Normally you're quite good about not being one of the clingers, but when it comes to Jewish people experiencing racism your antisemitism leads you to discard all principle.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

First, the guy complaining is a religious fundamentalist (a superstitious kook) and, likely, a right-wing partisan taking sides based on tribalism rather than evidence or reason. Hardly a reliable source. I have seen little or no evidence of racist persecution (beyond rantings from other partisan, unreliable sources).

Second, that comment was aimed mostly at the previous commenter's flouting of standard English.

Third, people who can't take legitimate criticism don't belong on a strong, modern, mainstream campus. They would be a better fit on dogma-enforcing, academic freedom-rejecting conservative campuses.

[Davedave]

You're talking about the warning given by the Hillel House rabbi for the university in question.

If you haven't seen evidence of the wave of antisemitic hatred currently washing over Jews worldwide, you are clearly refusing to see.

We aren't talking about 'legitimate criticism', we're talking about Jews being physically prevented from accessing their classes. The antisemitism you won't see any evidence of is literally trying to render this university - and the centre of London, and many other places - Judenrein.

I have no time at all for most of the commenters here, seeking to use the troubles Jewish people are facing for political points-scoring. But that doesn't make it OK for you to flat-out deny some very obvious, very serious antisemitism.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I have seen evidence of improper and even unlawful conduct from both sides of current Israel-Palestine arguments at Columbia and elsewhere, but nothing indicating that problems at Columbia associated with protests are severe.

Mostly, I see right-wing jerks (Reps. Foxx and Stefanik, for example) tying to make political hay of low-grade straw. In particular, right-wing bigots -- likely tired of the trend toward making their bigotry less popular in America, and therefore eager to scream "bigot" at other people for once in their deplorable lives -- are ranting about one side's exaggerated missteps while ignoring the other side's circumstances.

(The Columbia student newspaper seems a reasonable source of information and opinion concerning the situation at Columbia. It is not supportive of right-wingers' depictions.)

(That protestor reportedly filed his complaint as John Doe -- any chance Prof. Volokh will object, or will this be another "Publius exception" to the professor's ostensible principles?)

[ThePublius]

“I have seen evidence of improper and even unlawful conduct from both sides of current Israel-Palestine arguments at Columbia and elsewhere, ….”

Both sides?

“…but nothing indicating that problems at Columbia associated with protests are severe.”

Not severe? NYPD called to help clear protesters. 108 arrested. Columbia switches to virtual/remote learning. Jewish students urged to stay home.

Arthur, you are delusional, as usual.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Both sides, vividly.

Do you see only one side of this, clinger? Or do you claim to see just one side?

[Davedave]

The Jewish students are being warned to stay away by their representative. The university has had to shut-down on-campus classes.

"The Columbia student newspaper seems a reasonable source of information and opinion concerning the situation at Columbia"

It's quite hyperbolic to compare that to reading Der Sturmer to get an idea of what life was like for Jews in Nazi Germany. But I can't think of a good analogy. Obviously the student newspaper doesn't think antisemitism is bad. That's the whole fucking point here.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Their representative is a religious kook. Subscribers to his particular brand of superstitious nonsense tend to favor right-wingers. The students he supports seem to be unreliable, partisan snowflakes.

[Davedave]

That's just nakedly antisemitic, now. It's one thing to dislike all religions, it's another to pretend the members of one particular religion hold particular political leanings.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The AAUP needs to read FERPA. There is an explicit (and extensive) exception to all the privacy rules for Congressional investigations.

This presumes that there are still literate persons at the AAUP -- of which I am not so certain.

[Balisane]

The Democrats had no issue breaking privacy norms regarding Trump's tax returns for a supposed "Congressional investigation."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

There were no legal grounds to stop Congress from obtaining Trump’s tax returns and conducting their “investigation”. What I objected to was the subsequent public release of his tax returns for political purposes. That ought to be illegal.

[Balisane]

Right, that's what I'm talking about. But in any case, the investigation was clearly pretextual.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Don't tell me that bothers you.

[Michael P]

It's funny how the Jack Balkin crowd is only concerned about "violating norms" but not people violating civil and criminal laws. But not ha-ha funny.

Stating that there are investigations doesn't violate confidentiality. From the lack of fire-breathing about the end of academic freedom, I infer that no one was named as the subject of an investigation.

[Malika the Maiz]

They named them at the hearings.

[Bwaaah]

Good thing you've adopted amorphous free speech rules that are like a checkerboard of preferenced dos and don'ts. Heads: you're right; tails: they're wrong.

[Don Nico]

"violated a longstanding norm of confidentiality regarding internal disciplinary proceedings"
Tell us how you propose that she refuse to answer. A 5th A response seems out of place. You must really want the woman fired.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Suppose for the sake of argument that evidence can be produced that jurors in Trump's ongoing New York trial have been identified, and are receiving threats of violence. Does that call into question the ability to try Trump at all? If so, what should be done to restore the rule of law?

[Brett Bellmore]

We need to establish that the media aren't actually entitled to know anything about the jurors, obviously. This would prevent media doxing of them.

[not guilty]

Here the media were reporting on proceedings occurring in open court. The protection of the First Amendment against prior restraint should have particular force as applied to reporting of criminal proceedings. Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976). An injunction prohibiting publication of what occurs in open court bears a heavy presumption against its constitutionality.

[Kazinski]

Well for once I agree with you, maybe the best thing for all is to delay all of Trump's trials until after the November election, so the "Bad Actors" can't claim the trials are about influencing the election.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, you join a growing faction which advocates a lawless interval prior to elections. Even justices of the Supreme Court seem to have signed on.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Stephen, that is why we have something known as "change of venue" -- move the case to Montana or Mississippi.

[not guilty]

How would a court in Montana or Mississippi have jurisdiction over a state criminal offense that is alleged to have occurred in New York?

[Mr. Bumble]

How about Staten Island?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is there a right to be tried in the shittiest section of a city? What is wrong with you?

[Don Nico]

Exactly.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Assuming that this was in fact an option, in what possible way to do you think it would reduce the danger to potential jurors.

[John F. Carr]

Traditionally judges have the power to lock up jurors during trial to protect them from outside influence. Sequestration is not favored these days. If it is ever justified a low grade felony like the New York business records case is not the time.

The people making threats can be prosecuted. If the threats are pro-Trump, Trump himself could be held incommunicado (lawyers excepted). The judges in his NYC and DC criminal cases are tolerating disruptive behavior that would put a lower class defendant in jail awaiting trial.

If no fair jury can be found the trial is postponed or cancelled. The right to a fair trial is superior to the right to convict criminals.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Does that call into question the ability to try Trump at all?

No.

This has been another edition of simple answers to easy questions. Thanks for joining!

[David Nieporent]

They can be sequestered.

[Stephen Lathrop]

A few hours ago Neal Katyal suggested an answer to my question above. It might be the best I have heard, and generally applicable in similar cases.

Katyal suggested the judge hold Trump in contempt for violations of the gag order, and announce a term of imprisonment as punishment, but suspend sentencing until after the verdict. The judge could also announce Trump will be under a continuing order not to repeat the contempt, and that further instances of contempt will be sentenced separately and consecutively. That way Trump loses power to delay the trial with his antics; he will delay only himself.

Any legal objections to doing it that way?

[Kazinski]

I guess I haven't been following this enough because there is more information that indicates that Joe Biden had no basis to announce the withholding of 1b in loan guarantees to Ukraine if they didn't fire Victor Shokin.

Eric Ciaramella who was described as "a CIA official assigned to the Obama White House for Ukraine issues"

Said this when he found out about Joe's "audible", when he the told the Ukrainians to fire Shokin or wouldn't get the previously approved 1b in loan guarantees:

"Yikes. I don’t recall this coming up in our meeting with them on Tuesday, although we did discuss the fact that the PGO IG condition has not yet been met,” Ciarmella wrote the IPC task force members. “I’ve been meaning to write to you about our meeting – we were super impressed with the group, and we had a two-hour discussion of their priorities and the obstacles they face.”

At least according to Eric Ciaramella, who would know, it was not US policy to hold out the loan guarantees to fire Shokin.
https://justthenews.com/government/diplomacy/hold-shokin-firing-installment-3-timeline

[Malika the Maiz]

Do you generally find John Solomon to be a trusted source?

[Michael P]

Are you typically convinced by ad hominem arguments?

[Sarcastr0]

Solomon lies. So when a fact comes from him, it is legit to question it.

If he were making an argument and Malika was discarding it, that’d be ad hominem. But he is not.

[Mr. Bumble]

By that logic no one should believe anything you post.

[Michael P]

Sarcastr0 almost always avoids making falsifiable claims, much less supporting any of his assertions. That seems to be what he really took away from law school. That, and a terribly mistaken idea of what an ad hominem argument is.

[Sarcastr0]

If I'm not making falsifiable claims, I'm not really making assertions.

I have asserted what an ad hominem argument is. Mostly based on the key word 'argument' you helpfully provided.

I don't get why you're angry I don't make a lot of bare assertions myself. Is it a requirement that good posters mistake their opinion for facts and assert things without support?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Michael P being mad that you don't make falsifiable claims is hilarious.

I guess he's jealous that, unlike him, you don't routinely get called out for stating falsehoods. Maybe rather than be mad, he shouldn't make false claims that are falsifiable.

[SRG2]

An ad hominem argument rejects logical reasoning or conclusion not on the grounds of logic but on the grounds of who said it. It is not ad hominem to question or reject the initial premise based on who said it because the premise is not the logical element of the argument.

[Michael P]

Yes, and Sarcastr0's ad hominem argument is that we should not believe the conclusions that John Solomon offers based on specific evidence because John Solomon lies (about unspecified topics).

[Sarcastr0]

Kazinski linked to Solomon for facts, not conclusions.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Michael P,

No. They rejected the information on which the arguments were made because the alleged information came from Solomon who is a known purveyor of false information. It is entirely legitimate, and entirely unrelated to ad hominem, to ask for a reputable source of information before arguing or conceding a point.

[Sarcastr0]

How often do I make bare factual assertions?

[Kazinski]

The NY Times lies too, so does Joe Biden, and Karine Jean-Pierre and Donald Trump. Eric Ciaramella lies too for that matter, but it doesn't mean we can't have any conversations about anything any of them says. I'd also like an example where John Solomon was caught lying, I'm not aware of any specific instances.

I quoted just 2 facts: Eric Ciaramella was a CIA analyst posted to the Obama WhiteHouse, and he wrote an Email expressing surprise at Biden's announcement that the US was holding up 1B in allocated loan guarantees for Ukraine. Maybe if you just pointed out why you think those two facts are wrong it would be more productive.
Otherwise it just looks like you are afraid to discuss why Joe insisted on firing the prosecutor at all.

But in anycase, here is another source for both facts:
http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2024/04/17/impeachment_whistleblower_was_in_the_loop_of_biden-ukraine_affairs_that_trump_wanted_probed_1024937.html

[Malika the Maiz]

“there is more information that indicates that Joe Biden had no basis to announce the withholding of 1b in loan guarantees to Ukraine if they didn’t fire Victor Shokin.”

Yes, just pointing out two facts….

Edit: Also "though we did discuss the fact that the PGO IG condition has not yet been met"

[Sarcastr0]

This, of course, is a fallacy - tu quoque.

Re: Soloman, check out his wikipedia: "A February 2020 internal review by The Hill concluded that there were multiple flaws in Solomon's 14 columns about Ukraine and the Bidens, including omitting important details and failing to disclose that the sources used by Solomon were his own attorneys Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova—both close associates of Trump and his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani"

What is this 'I quoted just two facts' nonsense. You have a thesis. Lots and lots of sources and examples go against that thesis. Pretending you're just offering facts to try and dodge all that is weak.

You do this a lot - taking thing that aligns with your priors and not really bothering to check around if it holds up. That's not the behavior of someone seeking the truth, it's the behavior of someone seeking confirmation.

[Kazinski]

I don’t see in there any allegations of actual lies, they just didn’t like his sources.

I don’t deny he’s biased, or as you put it has a theses, I don’t see anything about retractions or lies.

But lets just take note of this discussion, hopefully over the next few weeks Ciaramella will be called to testify about these very notes in front of the House Impeachment inquiry, if he disavows the notes, then I’ll concede your point, but we both know he won’t because the notes Solomon writing about have been verified. So I’ll bring it up then, if that happens, and give you a chance to concede Solomon has his facts right.

Here is the closing paragraph of the RCP story I linked to above:
“What Ciaramella witnessed and what he documented in notes he took during high-level Biden-Ukraine meetings could now be relevant to the active impeachment inquiry of President Biden. The House may have little choice but to hold the kind of hearings the Democrats blocked during the earlier impeachment by keeping Ciaramella’s identity – and his own potential conflict – secret.

As the catalyst for Trump’s impeachment, Ciaramella could now be a reluctant witness for Biden’s.”

[Sarcastr0]

Pedantic bullshit.

Pretending your sources are legit so your stenography of their lies looks like reporting *is still lying*.
You quote Giuliani and don't say who he is, that's a lie and getting pedantic about omission versus commission is just you covering.

See also Uranium One. Remember that? That conspiracy theory got him demoted on the Hill from reporter to opinion columnist.

But lets just take note of this discussion, hopefully over the next few weeks
Then why did you post this at all??

May this be a lesson you learn.

[Kazinski]

What lesson? Don't discuss prospective events until the actually happen?

That would take all the fun out of life. Can't talk about the NFL draft, the presidential election, when the Fed will finally cut interest rates, what the climate will be in 30 years, how the Supreme Courts going to rule based on the briefs.

That's a lot of entertaining topics off the table.

[Sarcastr0]

You posted something half baked; you appear to realize it was half baked.

You can just wait to post something until there is more reporting, or it dies the quiet death of so many propaganda trial balloons.

[Kazinski]

I hate to break it to you, but everything in an open comments thread is half baked.

In fact isn't that the original purpose of blogs, A quick and easy way for people to throw ideas on the public wall and see if they stick? And blog comments are a step way below that.

I haven't read all of the 600+ comments on this thread but I've yet to see one fully baked.

[Nige]

'and he wrote an Email expressing surprise'

And that's it? That's all you've got? Because this is the third or fourth time (?) you've rolled it out as a big new shocking gotcha, and it's still just a guy expressing very mild surprise, which could mean anything including him missing a meeting or just dozing off during a meeting or being out of a loop in any number of ways and has nothing to do with BIDEN ALL BY HIMSELF FORCING THEM TO FIRE THE GUY.

[Malika the Maiz]

I typically find untrustworthy sources untrustworthy. That's not ad hominem by the way

[Mr. Bumble]

Then you don't believe anything coming out of the White House, right?

[Malika the Maiz]

I wouldn't take a lot of it at face value, yes.

[David Nieporent]

That does not in fact "indicates that Joe Biden had no basis to announce the withholding of 1b in loan guarantees to Ukraine if they didn’t fire Victor Shokin."

This story has been well well well covered. To wit: It was the policy of the entire western world, including the U.S. government, to insist on Shokin's firing for being a corrupt prosecutor who wasn't going after (among others) Zlochevsky. Biden did not make this policy, and of course as vice president had no ability to do so, or to implement it. Vice presidents don't have authority (other than tiebreaking). Biden was sent to Ukraine to deliver that message. Apparently on the plane ride over, he said, "I think we should link the firing to the loan guarantees." So he called the White House mid-flight and received authorization to do so. Whether Ciaramella knew about that in advance is not relevant to anything. Whether he was surprised is not relevant to anything.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You are bringing the guns and knives of facts and logic to Kazinski's thumb war of a political fight. It's egregious. Why can't he live safely ensconced in his fantasy world?

[Malika the Maiz]

Regarding the Supreme Court case about homeless people, can someone tell me what is supposed to be the justification for making sleeping in one's car illegal?

[Kazinski]

I don't think it should be illegal to sleep in ones car as I've done it a few times myself. Or throw out your sleeping bag and go to sleep where you can find a spot when you are traveling. But their can be drawbacks, my 3 worst experiences:

Waking up in Geyserville with sheets of ice on my sleeping bag (I was hitchhiking from Eureka down to the Bay Area)

Finding a place to sleep the rough at a golf course in Santa Barbara. I got woken up by a train going by 20' away at 3am, I didn't know the train tracks were there, I thought it was a plane wreck because it was pretty close to the airport.

Getting my backpack stolen when I was in Vancouver BC sleeping off BC ale and Weed, and least I had my clothes and wallet in my sleeping bag. (Next day I got picked up hitchhiking by four Canadian girls going to Birch Bay for a day trip, so I spent the rest of the day there.)

All of those were in the 70's though, I think my last car sleeping experience was 2020 in Midland when I found out my 100$ motel had bedbugs at 2am.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I laughed at the train track example.

I had the a similar experience, hitch-hiking through Nova Scotia in the 60s. Arrived just after sundown at a private campground, dog-tired. Looked around and saw everyone already there clustered toward one end of a little field. There was a tall, thick hedge bounding all of it.

Without reflection, I headed to the other end, and laid out my sleeping bag close to the hedge. Around 2 a.m. the express from Halifax went by at full speed, probably not even 20 feet from me. That remains a vivid memory.

[Dr. Ed 2]

100 feet I might believe, but not 20. Not for a high speed train.
There'd have been 20 feet of ditch (and place to push the snow to) off the side of the track, and then at least another 10' of the hedge itself.

If this was the main line through Nova Scotia, I'd be very surprised if the ROW wasn't wide enough for four tracks. Even if it only had two (or maybe even one) track, when they laid out railroads in the 19th Century, they acquired property wide enough to expand to four tracks with the intention of eventually doing that -- the inner two tracks express and the outer two local. Electric Block signaling in the 1940s and then newer variants eliminated much of the need to segregate express and local tracks, but they still had the land.

So you probably were a couple hundred feet away from the train.

[John F. Carr]

Neighbors don't like it. They hate cars belonging to nonresidents. They hate people who aren't residents. That is how suburbia works around here. One car, literally one car sometimes, parked on a block in the middle of the day results in a call to the city council demanding a parking ban. Residents may call the parked car a safety hazard. Eyesore or safety hazard doesn't make a legal difference unless the law requires heightened scrutiny of parking regulations.

A town somewhere around Sutton, Massachusetts (maybe a different town) evicted a family by declaring their van in violation of building codes for residences. Not enough square footage, not enough plumbing, and so on. So there's another excuse: the traditional power of government to regulate safety and sanitation. (The family took refuge in a church parking lot.)

I understand the Supreme Court case not to be about whether cities can regulate public spaces. They can. The homeless have to find an angle better than "that's a dumb law". They will shoot for "we can not obey this law."

[Bwaaah]

Maybe they only make it illegal in places where the problem isn't just people sleeping in their cars, but stacking their possessions in bags next to their vehicles, and urinating and defecating in adjacent properties?

Maybe the problem isn't a person sleeping in a car, but turning the space around the car into an ugly filthy stinky mess?

Maybe they make it illegal not just when people sleep in their cars, but when it starts becoming common for people to sleep, without permission, in other people's cars?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Or, they could enforce the existing laws which already prohibit all the rest of the stuff you mentioned. No?

[Bwaaah]

Yes, they could enforce those laws. But many of our elected officials, particularly in cities, discourage police from enforcing them. Since enforcement of those laws disproportionately affects very poor and otherwise disadvantaged people, many elected officials have abstractly cast the enforcement of those laws as a violation of the civil rights of the would-be offenders. They phrase it as a defense of a right to shelter, and silently ignore that they’re granting a right to unlawful use of public and private spaces, to the detriment of almost everybody in the community.

The elected officials refer to the people they are protecting as “vulnerable” populations. Granted, those populations are at elevated risk of bad things happening to them. But the people who live around those “vulnerable” populations, the people who the government has chosen to not protect, are rendered vulnerable as a result. (If it were just a mess around the cars, it wouldn’t be as bad as it is. In reality, there’s rampant theft and even assaults associated with those “vulnerable” populations.)

But the politicians don’t call the unprotected communities “vulnerable.” In the context of this debate, they call them “privileged.”

[Bwaaah]

I note my preference that government assure the availability of [safe] shelter for people without shelter. Though I don't recognize a right to shelter, I do recognize a need for shelter and the undesirable effects of people not having it.

[Kazinski]

Well yes.

But you, and I, don’t have to find John Solomon a trusted source because he links to the original source documents in his report.

But I should also mention this came up again because Eric Ciaramlla has been floated as a potential witness in Biden’s impeachment hearing. Then Eric himself can be asked what he meant in his email.

But I am interested in what you find untrustworthy: was the email forged? Was Ciaramilla not a CIA employee assigned to the Biden Whitehouse?

I think both of those asserted facts can probably be verified.

Edit: Well of course this should be in the thread above. Pretend it is.

[Malika the Maiz]

Of course, I'm sure he's suddenly about presenting things in the best context now!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Solomon_(political_commentator)

[Bwaaah]

Is there a particular assertion that you dispute?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I think Ciaramella is a Republican operative—he allowed Trump to release the transcript that exposed Biden’s wrongdoing. Remember, nothing Ciaramella exposed showed any wrongdoing by Trump, right??

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Amplifying paranoid delusions only works on those already suffering from paranoid delusions. But, nice try.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

It’s strange Republicans are so obsessed with a whistleblower that exposed nothing negative about Trump while exposing very negative stuff about Biden…almost like they believe the stuff about Trump was negative?? Such a head scratcher.

[Sarcastr0]

There are a ton of European and Obama WH sources that disagree, including people who worked closely with Biden on the issue.

Irish Times had

So yeah, you are falling for Trumpian BS. Yet again.

https://www.ft.com/content/e1454ace-e61b-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc is a good example of what actual investigative journalism looks like. Note the multiple sources.

Also of note is this Irish Times article from before Trumps allies tried to make this a thing: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/eu-hails-sacking-of-ukraine-s-prosecutor-viktor-shokin-1.2591190
Sure looks like this was not Biden off on his own.

Biden impeachment? For fuck’s sake Kaz.

[Armchair]

" Note the multiple sources."
Behind the paywall...

[Sarcastr0]

Not for me. And I do not subscribe.

[Armchair]

That says a lot about how often you read the FT...

[Sarcastr0]

Well I am owned.

[Armchair]

Hey, but look. You got to claim you had multiple sources in an article, and people can't check it. Don't bother replicating those sources.

[Sarcastr0]

You can’t check it.

So you are calling me a liar.

Because you kinda suck.

[Armchair]

Look at that, SRG linked to the article. Thanks SRG.

Who are these multiple sources?
"an EU diplomat"
"one former US Treasury official"
"former Obama administration official"
"Another senior Obama administration official"

That's a whole lot of unnamed sources. Must be nice, using all those anonymous sources.

So, to review, Sarcastr0 says "look multiple sources"..."uses article behind paywall." Won't actually cite relevant text...and when it's actually read, all we get are unnamed sources.

Nice...

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0 is just full of shit.

[grb]

You guys are such clowns! You know the Right’s Shokin shtick is the purest bullshit, yet you continue to push it. I guess supporting a lifelong criminal like Trump makes you desperate to believe fantasy corruption by Biden. A reminder:

1. Biden pressured Ukraine on Shokin’s per Obama’s orders.
2. It was official White House policy Shokin be fired.
3. It was official State Department policy he must go.
4. A bipartisan group of Senators wrote a letter demanding it.
5. The US Ambassador to Ukraine gave a speech demanding it.
6. The EU demanded it.
7. The World Bank demanded it.
8. The IMF demanded it.
9. The European Bank of Reconstruction & Development demanded it.
10. Every anti-corruption group in Ukraine demanded he go
11. There were street protests in Kyiv against Shokin alone.
12. After he was fired, the Kyiv Post said he was one of the most hated men in Ukraine

The Senators who wrote a letter included Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) In an interview, he described the letter thus: “The whole world, by the way, including the Ukranian caucus, which I signed the letter, the whole world felt that this that Sholkin wasn’t doing a [good] enough job. So we were saying hey you’ve … got to rid yourself of corruption.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/464302-gop-senator-says-he-doesnt-remember-signing-2016-letter-urging-reform-of/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Sarcastic is full if shit.

Commenter_XY is a right-wing bigot addled by childish superstition.

Why does this blog attract such a downscale audience?

[SRG2]

This link should get you to the article: https://on.ft.com/3vTh3Nn

[Kazinski]

"Biden impeachment? For fuck’s sake Kaz."

There is an impeachment inquiry going on, I thought you had heard. I promise, I'm not making it up.

But maybe they ought to end the impeachment inquiry on the same grounds Hur ended his classified documents inquiry.

[Nige]

'I’m not making it up.'

The Republicans are, so far.

'But maybe they ought to end the impeachment inquiry on the same grounds Hur ended his classified documents inquiry.'

No evidence of a crime? Sounds right.

[Commenter_XY]

VC Conspirators, Passover begins this evening. In a festival dedicated to the liberation of a people from captivity and slavery, at my Seder table tonight, we will remember there are Americans who are being held hostage right now, by Hamas.

https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-797950

Bring them home.

[Malika the Maiz]

"dedicated to the liberation of a people "

Maybe deserving of their own state too?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, deserving a state of metabolic difference.

[Don Nico]

"Maybe deserving of their own state too?"
1) When they stop trying to kill Jews.
2) we don't need another economic basket case in the world.
Look at the map. There is not space for 2 economically viable states between the river and the sea.

[Malika the Maiz]

Is your position that a people can't have their own state because you doubt their economic viability?

[Don Nico]

Yes that is my position, that they are better off as a part of a larger more viable country.
It is not what I think, it is what Hamas and the PLA have proved.
Do you really think that GAZA is a sustainable entity or a disjointed Gaza and the West Bank.?
Absent ethnic animus (That is a BIG if or when) there is room for 1 country between the river and the sea.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Sounds like Don Nico is a big “from the river to the sea” guy.

The usual suspects will give him a pass on that one.

Carry on, clingers.

[Martinned2]

One State Solution it is, then.

[Kazinski]

I think you know, and all the rest of us know those hostages are dead. Which of course is why Joe Biden didn't want Israel to raize Haifa to pretend to rescue them.

And for once I agree with Joe.

Not that that should rule out other possible targets like Haifa-Ray as it's know in an obscure Latin dialect.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Republicans wanted the hostages dead from day 1! They wanted Bibi to pull a George W Bush and kill more Israelis than Hamas killed. Bush killed 7000 American soldiers while AQ killed 3000 Americans on 9/11. W, the President!

[Krayt]

That's not how things work. That's a fantasy by people sitting safely well away.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, until death is confirmed, you must never give up hope = ...those hostages are dead

Nor can we forget them during their captivity.

[Don Nico]

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

And bring home the rape babies!! If those babies are aborted the women are monsters just like Hamas! How adorable!! Your son has your rapist’s eyes!! Will you raise him Muslim?? He will have a better chance of getting into an Ivy League school if you raise him Muslim!!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Kill the Moslems — and Muslims too…

There, I’ve said it.

Still don't really believe it though....

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

If the Israeli women kidnapped by Hamas abort their rape babies…they are no better than Hamas!! And they must raise the babies as Muslims as they are pagum!!

[Malika the Maiz]

What happened to you that made you want to be a troll?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

So rape babies must pay for the sins of the father?? I’m pretty sure the Bible has something to say about that!

[Sarcastr0]

You didn’t answer the question.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Would you like to join my knitting circle making sweaters for embryos in cryogenic storage?? They are so cold. 🙁

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

In many cases t seems to be the autism.

[Nige]

Edgy.

[Martinned2]

Later today the High Court will decide whether or not someone can be prosecuted for criminal contempt, because she stood outside court with a sign that said: “Jurors you have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience.”

I will reply here when the decision is published, but until then I'll flag this post by the barrister Matthew Scott, who explains the law on the right and power of juries to acquit: https://barristerblogger.com/2024/04/21/i-dont-stand-with-trudi-warner/

In addition to Bushel's case (1670), which I already mentioned last week, he also quotes Lord Mansfield in a 1784 case (Shipley (1784) 4 Douglas 73, 99 ER 774):

“…the jury who usurp the judicature of law, though they happen to be right, are themselves wrong, because they are right by chance only, and have not taken the constitutional way of deciding the question. It is the duty of the Judge, in all cases of general justice, to tell the jury how to do right, though they have it in their power to do wrong, which is a matter entirely between God and their own consciences.”

[Martinned2]

I gather from Twitter that the High Court has refused permission to prosecute. More information about the court's reasons to follow.

[Martinned2]

The judgment in HM Solicitor General v. Warner has now been published: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Warner-Judgment-22.4.24-KB.pdf

16. The principle of jury equity is well-established in our common law. It is also recognised across the common law world. I refer, for example, the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Krieger v The Queen (2006) SCR 501; the decision of the Supreme Court of New Zealand in L v The Queen [2006] NZSC 18; and, in the United States Supreme Court, to the decision in Sparf v United States 156 US 51 (1895), as followed in United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v United States 330 US 395 (1946). Its origins lie in Bushel’s Case (1670) 124 ER 1006, which arose out of the prosecution of two Quaker preachers for holding an unlawful assembly. The Recorder of London, presiding at the trial, directed the jury to convict. The jury refused. They were fined and imprisoned until payment. It was this imprisonment that the jurors successfully challenged by habeas corpus, on the basis that juries have a right to find facts and apply the law to those facts according to conscience and without reprisal.
(…)
19.Counsel agreed that participants in the trial process cannot lawfully invite a jury to apply the principle of jury equity or indeed to inform them of it. That prohibition is how the common law squares the jury equity and the oath that jurors are required to swear. I was referred to the description of how the tension operates in the United States in the judgment of Judge Leventhal of the United States’ Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in US v Dougherty 473 F2d 113. Judge Leventhal describes how in the United States the existence of an “unreviewable and unreversible power in the jury to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge, has for many years coexisted with legal practice and precedent upholding instructions to the jury that they are required to follow the instructions of the court on all matters of law” (at [1132]). This is also an accurate description of the position in our jurisdiction.

[John F. Carr]

The decision mentions the old meaning of a "directed verdict". The judge would direct jurors to return a certain verdict. In modern American practice any judgment that is required by law is granted by the judge without involving the jury.

[Martinned2]

For the record, I think that this is taking the concept of literalism several miles too far:

37. Second, the Placard did not present, as argued in the Claimant’s skeleton, an “instruction or encouragement” or constitute a “plain invitation” to passers-by to discharge their duties in a particular way. There is a distinction to be drawn between instructing/encouraging/inviting an individual to undertake a particular course, on the one hand, and informing them of a particular course that is arguably open to them, on the other.

[SRG2]

I agree with the judge. One may be undserstood as implying the other but they aren't the same.

All in all, a nicely-written opinion.

[Martinned2]

No, it's all sorts of wrong. One of the people I follow on Twitter gave the perfect analogy: A decision by the Supreme Court cannot be challenged in front of any court or other body. So in a sense the Supreme Court can do what it likes. But nobody would suggest that the Supreme Court doesn't have an obligation to faithfully follow the law. (Even if people disagree about what that means.)

I would imagine that the Solicitor General won't appeal this judgment, because that would be disproportionate towards the defendant. But this is definitely a judgment that is going to keep haunting us for years to come.

[Brett Bellmore]

Except that the established purpose of a court IS to apply the existing law, while an equally established purpose of the jury was, at the time this country adopted the jury system, to prevent convictions contrary to the public's understanding of justice.

Remember, the Quakers in Bushnell's case were unambiguously guilty. And yet the case is celebrated as a triumph of the jury system.

Similarly with the William Penn and Zengler cases here: Celebrated as triumphs of the jury system, and the defendants were guilty as could be of violating the law.

Nobody thinks juries are the most effective way to determine facts. The very notion is absurd. They're there to be the public's representative in the room to prevent convictions that shock the public's conception of justice.

[Martinned2]

Those statements about the purpose of the jury may or may not be an accurate description of the position in the 17th and 18th centuries, but I very much doubt that they are an accurate description of the position today, either in the UK or in the US.

[ducksalad]

"I very much doubt that they are an accurate description of the position of judges and prosecutors today".

[Martinned2]

Judges have the final say about what the law is. (Marbury v. Madison)

[ducksalad]

I’m fine with your model: Jurors “should” follow the law; however, their decision on whether or how to do that, in the case of an acquittal, is final, unreviewable, and with no recourse or penalty whatsoever for the judge. Not even if they tell the court they will obey instructions and then don’t obey instructions.

And I’m fine with teachers, protestors, guys in bars, people on the internet – everyone except judges – reminding them repeatedly, loudly, and stridently that their decision is final, unreviewable, and unpunishable, whether they obey the judge or not. Including right before they walk into the courthouse.

[Kazinski]

No they don't.

Look up up Employment Division v Smith and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Or Dred Scott and the 13th 14th and 15th amendments.

[Martinned2]

Employment Division v Smith and Dred Scott are court judgments, and all the others only have effect (or not) to the extent that they are adopted in court judgments. Which is how, for example, the 13th amendment came to forbid not only slavery but also lots of other things that are labelled by the courts as "badges and incidents of slavery", while in the 14th amendment the privileges and immunities clause and section 3 became dead letter. The law is what the court says it is.

[Kazinski]

No, I think it's a very accurate statement of how the public sees juries here in the US at least.

It's important part of the process that the public's understanding of the law is taken into account not just the authorities understanding. This comes into account most often in self defense cases.

But it also comes into account where the jury wants to send a message to the authorities. OJ's jury didn't acquit him because they thought he was innocent, they acquitted him because they were upset about the allegations of racism.

[Martinned2]

The public has many misunderstandings about the law. The fact that they might also misunderstand the legal purpose of juries is hardly surprising.

OJ’s jury didn’t acquit him because they thought he was innocent, they acquitted him because they were upset about the allegations of racism.

O wow, there's a statement I'd definitely want to see some evidence for!

[Noscitur a sociis]

This comes into account most often in self defense cases.

Self defense law explicitly includes an assessment of whether the use of force was reasonably necessary, so jurors are simply following the law by making that judgment. I don’t think anyone thinks they should acquit a defendant if they think the force used wasn’t justified.

But it also comes into account where the jury wants to send a message to the authorities. OJ’s jury didn’t acquit him because they thought he was innocent, they acquitted him because they were upset about the allegations of racism.

To the extent that’s true, I don’t think people consider that a good thing!

[ducksalad]

I’d say “upset about allegations of racism” isn’t the right way to put it.

The state’s responsibility is to provide evidence through the testimony of credible witnesses. One of their key witnesses was an officer with an alleged history of planting evidence and targeting black guys.

Disregarding evidence collected and handled by such a person is a very reasonable thing to do, if for no other reason than to deter future officers from planting evidence and to incentivize the LAPD to discipline officers who do it. You could think of it as the jury doing their own version of the exclusionary rule.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Letting someone literally get away with murder (twice!) because you don’t like one of the police officers is not, in fact reasonable, nor should we celebrate when jurors do it.

[SRG2]

The Ponting case is not ancient history.

[Martinned2]

Neither is the Colston Four trial, where the jury pretended to believe that the accused believed that they had permission from the people of Bristol to destroy the statue.

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

Why do you think I oppose jury trials? Because juries aren't required to give reasons for their decisions, and therefore can't be appealed no matter how flagrantly they break the law. And that works both ways. To quote Matthew Scott's blog post, which I linked above:

The distinction between a “right” and a “power” becomes even clearer if we imagine a jury that has taken a dislike to a defendant charged with a serious sexual assault on a young child. The medical evidence is conclusive: somebody is certainly guilty, but the child is too young to talk and the jurors cannot exclude the possibility that somebody else caused the injuries. Does the jury have a right to convict the defendant because the jurors think he probably did it? Certainly not, because the law demands a higher standard of proof. Does it have the power to convict, even though the jurors are not sure? Yes, but it is certainly not a power that they should use, tempted though they may be.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Because juries aren’t required to give reasons for their decisions, and therefore can’t be appealed no matter how flagrantly they break the law.

In the US, any verdict except an acquittal can be appealed. I thought that was true in England as well, but I could be mistaken.

[Martinned2]

Sure, but you can't argue on appeal that the jury made a hash of its task.

[David Nieporent]

Sure, but you can’t argue on appeal that the jury made a hash of its task.

You can in the U.S. It's a very high bar for a criminal defendant to meet, but he can argue that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You can argue the evidence didn't support the verdict. An uphill burden, but it's possible. You may not like it, but the jury system is actually built not to convict, but to acquit. To get a conviction of an actually innocent person, you have to have at minimum, the prosecutor, judge, and appellate courts to go along in addition to the jury. The jury is the bulwark against prosecutors and/or judges going too far. You seem to be worried about them going against the law to convict. That can be a failure, but if they did that, the prosecutor and judge are basically already in the tank by letting them make that decision anyway. Juries are the last best hope to avoid unfair convictions. The prosecutor and judge are always available. The reason we have juries is to have ordinary citizens not in the existing power structure be a check on authorities' power.

[Martinned2]

If any of you enjoy watching academics argue, this weekend things kicked off on Twitter, because two Israeli academics didn't enjoy the editing process around a blog post they published on the Opinio Juris blog. My sense is that OJ is only slightly left of centre for an international law blog, but that's judging against a field that is generally pretty lefty. Very few people go into international law because they think states should be able to do whatever they like.

https://twitter.com/kevinjonheller/status/1782118085081682208

(Kevin is an expert on international criminal law, and generally much more sensible than the Opinio Juris blog, as any reader will be able to confirm by going to that blog and reading his contributions, which are (in recent years) mostly rebuttals of the more nutty posts of others.)

[Davedave]

No surprise to see Martin desperately defending naked antisemitism.

[Martinned2]

I didn't take a view on this dispute at all. (And don't plan to. The whole thing seems pretty exhausting.)

[Davedave]

You described people objecting to naked antisemitism as two academics not enjoying the editing process. But sure, you didn't take a position...

I know you lie to yourself all the time, but there's no point lying to other people about your own words that are still on display a few lines above.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Davedave once again supports suppression of speech.

[Martinned2]

Actually, no, scrap that. If someone talked to me on social media like this: https://twitter.com/kevinjonheller/status/1782047112441516512

...I would never consider anything they wrote for publication anywhere I was an editor ever again.

[Davedave]

Seems par for the course. If someone points out your antisemitism, you'll treat it as a personal attack rather than considering whether you might in fact have said or done something antisemitic. Because 'everyone knows' those nasty Jews conspire, lie, cheat, and otherwise influence politics, rather than ever justly pointing out antisemitism when it is absurdly blatant.

It's also full-on primary-school-kid sour grapes to say to someone who has already made plain they wouldn't submit anything further to your antisemitic editing process that you wouldn't publish the things they already aren't going to send you any more.

[Armchair]

We all remember the interesting case against Konnech CEO Eugene Yu, in California. This was the company that was accused of leaking poll worker data to the Chinese Government, in violation of US Law.

What was interesting is, the case was brought in LA. Then, later, it was somewhat surprisingly dropped.

Now there are allegations from one of the lawyers who works on the case that the case was illegally dropped due to political reasons. Specifically, it "looked like it helped Trump"

https://thefederalist.com/2024/04/17/prosecutor-california-da-dropped-bombshell-election-data-case-because-it-might-help-trump/

[Sarcastr0]

Mere allegations that are being reported in the federalist don’t have a lot of hope to go anywhere, since mere stenography of anyone and everyone who says anything against Biden isn’t an actual story.

[Armchair]

But unlike you, my articles link to PRIMARY SOURCES. In this case, the court documents with the allegations.

And you can tell you didn't read anything, because this wasn't about Biden.

[Sarcastr0]

Journalistic practice is to try and confirm mere allegations, not yell “primary source!!!” and call it a day.

The federalist does not do journalism they do propaganda so they aren’t into that kind of hard work.

And you are their audience. Not too smart, eager to believe and not eager to be disabused of bullshit that kings with your priors.

[Armchair]

Primary sources are direct confirmations. The Federalist provided direct links to those primary sources, so people can check them for themselves.

[Sarcastr0]

al·le·ga·tion
/ˌaləˈɡāSH(ə)n/
noun
a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.

[Armchair]

Gosh, imagine if the news didn't report on just allegations...

[NOVA Lawyer]

Armchair,

I see you've admitted it's not so much primary sources as a disgruntled employee's allegations which he put in a complaint......

[bernard11]

Are you insane?

Your "primary sources" confirm nothing at all except that the allegations were made.

[Kazinski]

You and Bernard are nuts. It's very common journalistic practice to report on court filings without investigating the allegations.

If the US sues Google for anticompetitive behavior does the WSJ usually wait until they can verify the competitive behavior, or do the report the filing of the lawsuit and wait to see the results?

Here is what the Federalist reported:
"District Attorney George Gascon improperly — and for political reasons — dismissed the criminal charges against the CEO of election software services company Konnech, a governmental tort complaint filed Wednesday by the lead prosecutor on the case claims. That eight-page complaint against Gascon with the county Board of Supervisors further alleges the DA retaliated against his lead prosecutor for opposing the dismissal of the charges — and reveals many more previously unknown and troubling details about the entire case."

They report on the filing and the allegations and make it clear that that's what the prosecutor is alleging, not that it's been proven.

Same as any other news organization reporting on claims made in a lawsuit would do.

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz, you marinate in right wing fever swamps, so maybe this is normal to you.

But no, "Prosecutor: California DA Dropped Bombshell Election Data Case Because It Might Help Trump" is not regular journalism.

Conflating a trial blow-by-blow with this clickbait propaganda that uses alleges as a fig leaf is another tell.

[Kazinski]

First of all the person making the allegation is a prosecutor in the LA county prosecutors office, who was the prosecutor handling the case. So this is not an allegation from the right wing fever swamps.

Second you and Bernard seem to think the allegations should be unreported, even though its an allegation of improper political bias by a public official who is currently facing re-election, and fairly recently survived a recall election.

I can’t imagine in what world its not newsworthy.

Other than the fact that any news that reflects badly and might be of interest to conservatives should go unreported.

But I find it amusing that there are so many topics you spend so much time policing just in this thread because they shouldn’t be discussed:

-Anti-Semitism on ivy league.campuses
-A CIA analyst in the Whitehouse that says Biden’s audible on Shokin was not administration policy
-George Gascon tanked a prosecution for political reasons
- We shouldn't talk about people being arrested for being Jewish because it may be partisan
– I probably missed a few.

Go ahead agree or disagree, but as you point out above your shtick isn’t facts, its telling us the topics we shouldn’t talk about and the sources we shouldn’t be reading.

Good luck with that, not everyone only listens to NPR.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

True that. Some dumbasses listen to Alex Jones, Gateway Pundit, FreeRepublic, Stormfront, the Volokh Conspiracy, etc. . . .

[Armchair]

Of course they do. And if Christine Ford makes an "allegation"...its newsworthy.

But suddenly if a different allegation is made, it's not?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Your use of "allegation" is casting a wide net. Christine Ford was under oath when making her allegations before Congress. Lying in that circumstance is a crime. Making allegations to some guy from the Federalist is a very different animal.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Armchair, I'm not sure anyone said allegations weren't newsworthy. I think the general pushback has been that they are reporting allegations as fact. You initially accurately called it allegations, Sarcastro said he thought it was going nowhere, then you ran down the "primary sources" blind alley, forgetting that all you (and the Federalist) still had was one attorney's allegations.

[Noscitur a sociis]

But the PRIMARY SOURCE doesn’t actually provide any evidence to substantiate its claim. So I’m not sure that I find it very persuasive.

To be clear, Gascon is a truly odious person who bears personal responsibility for ruining two different American cities, and I have no trouble believing that he’d choose not to prosecute a case for political reasons. But I don’t think we have any more evidence that that’s what he did do than before this filing.

[Armchair]

We do have all the information before this filing however. Including the very odd situation that the case was dropped very suddenly and oddly.

This allegation gives a potential reason for that.

[David Nieporent]

The "very odd situation" is that the case was brought at all; even if the factual allegations were correct, they sounded more like breach of contract than a crime.

[Armchair]

And you base your opinion on what exactly? And you view your opinion as superior to that of the local LA career ADAs because of of what exactly? Because of what something "sounded like"?

[Armchair]

Is it now a crime to be openly Jewish in London?

A number of Jews leaving synagogue bumped into the Muslims’ weekly protest in London. The Police intercepted them. The police said that they were "openly Jewish" and would be escorted from the area. And if they refused to be escorted from the area, they'd be arrested for Disturbing the Peace.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/04/is-it-a-crime-to-be-openly-jewish.php

[Martinned2]

No. And you can tell because the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police might get sacked over that incident today.

[Armchair]

Let me know when he actually does get sacked...

[Martinned2]

If you think the Home Secretary is too woke, feel free to drop him an email.

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

[Mr. Bumble]

...anyone giving odds?

[Martinned2]

The Guardian says he is "likely to survive". But that isn't because antisemitic woke lefties are deciding his fate.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/21/met-police-chief-mark-rowley-faces-calls-quit-officer-openly-jewish-comment-protest

[Armchair]

Look at that... Maybe next time they can demand the Jews restrict themselves to just a certain area of the city... What's that called again?

[Sarcastr0]

I'm sure everyone is very grateful how your defense of Jews keeps manifesting as a partisan cudgel.

[Armchair]

I wasn't aware that defending Jews and their rights to freely walk down a street without being arrested by the cops in another country was "partisan"

But once again, you've come down on a side. And it's against the Jews. It's a trend. And you wonder why people call you an antisemite.

[ThePublius]

How did you get "partisan" out of that?

[Artifex]

Projection.

The first rule of being Sarcastro is "Get ahead of the game by accusing others of operating with the tactics you typically use".

[Sarcastr0]

I am a partisan, though not as much of a tool as Armchair.

I'm arguing that Armchair is attacking Columbia as a designated enemy of the right, not because he has any actual substantive issues.
My evidence for this is 1) asking for impossible and frankly authoritarian things; 2) changing his emphasis when what he brings doesn't serve his hostility, and 3) his long history of existing to attack the left above and beyond substantive discussion or truth seeking or policy problem solving.

[Bob from Ohio]

"not as much of a tool "

Don't sell yourself short.

[Artifex]

"I am a partisan, though not as much of a tool as Armchair."

Assumes facts not in evidence.

The second rule of being Sarcastro is "Don't engage with what the other side actually says. It is easier to win an argument when arguing with the crap that you project instead of what they actually say"

Armchair asks that Jews be allowed to freely walk down the street in London, somehow impossible and authoritarian things not even talked about in the thread are projected.

The third rule of being Sarcastro is "When giving your partisan projection of what you are arguing against, when they try to redirect the argument back to their original point, claim that they are losing the argument by changing emphasis or goalposts"

[Noscitur a sociis]

I’m arguing that Armchair is attacking Columbia as a designated enemy of the right, not because he has any actual substantive issues.

I thought this was about the police in London?

[Sarcastr0]

I did lose the thread, Noscitur, but same dif. That's the thing with tools - not a big variety.

“The UK has been taken over by the Muslims” has been a thing on the right since the Bush Admin.

[Armchair]

Just to review here...

The Police, in London, on camera, told a group of Jews to leave the area because they were "Openly Jewish"...and if the Jews chose not to, they would be arrested for disturbing the peace. Not because of any action on their party, but because they were "Openly Jewish" in a public area where it was undesirable.

Can you imagine the outrage if this happened to a Black person? If the Police in NYC went up to a group of black people, peacefully minding their own business and said "You need to leave the area because you're black. And if you don't leave, we'll arrest you"

But because they're Jews, Sarcastr0 is like...ehh, not a big deal.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"But because they’re Jews, Sarcastr0 is like…ehh, not a big deal."

He didn't say it wasn't a big deal. He called out your offensively stupid overhype of the situation asking if being Jewish in London is illegal.

The response was that the individual who made the stupid, offensive anti-Jewish decision was likely to be sacked. He didn't say he shouldn't be sacked. He was taking issue with your suggestion that this was a London problem rather than one stupid police commissioner and/or subordinates for whom he was responsible.

[Bob from Ohio]

I'm grateful for all people who defend Jews. Maybe you ought to start.

[Sarcastr0]

I have and will continue to do so.

Part of that is pointing out when partisans on the right arrogate actual important issues to their own ends of attacking everything not MAGA.
That does nothing more than assure any solution will be made in spite of their bomb throwing.

[Bob from Ohio]

"pointing out when partisans on the right"

You are just more interested in fighting your ideological [and personal] enemies here than advocating for Jews.

[Sarcastr0]

Attacking me as being indifferent to the actual suffering and fear Jews are experiencing is you being part of the problem.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Attacking me as being indifferent to the actual suffering and fear Jews are experiencing is you being part of the problem."

Not if its true.

[Sarcastr0]

And unless you're a long range telepath, you have no way of telling whether it's true.

[Kazinski]

I’ve been told a zillion times Trump and MAGA are anti-Semitic, so how is the issue pro MAGA?

And I wasn’t aware the Jewish students were wearing MAGA hats, I just kind of assumed they were 99% liberals like the rest of the ivy league campuses. Why are you claiming the pro-Hamas demonstrators as your own, and casting the Jewish students into the MAGA swamp?

I hope you aren’t saying that all those claims that MAGA = neo Nazis were bullshit, are you?

[Sarcastr0]

Why are you claiming the pro-Hamas demonstrators as your own, and casting the Jewish students into the MAGA swamp?
Where did I do any of this?

Using 'we must protect the Jews' to attack schools and politicians and Muslims and Democrats and just about every institution you can is.
You can see the ultraMAGA set on here treating it like any other wedge issue, right down to the 'It's like we're Gaza' hyperbole.

[Davedave]

There's a difference between actually defending Jews, and pretending you care about Jews when it suits your political ends.

[Nige]

They love the Jews so much they want them all to move to Israel in time for the Final Battle.

[Davedave]

Oh look, Nige said something ridiculously antisemitic - ridiculous, and insanely, openly antisemitic - again.

[Nige]

You... genuinely don't know what anti-semitism is, do you? Or recognise irony?

[Davedave]

I recognise antisemitism, but then it's not hard to see the antisemitism in your comment. It beggars belief you can't see how insanely antisemitic that little joke of yours was.

[Nige]

Of course it’s anti-semitism! It’s a belief on the religious right! Fueling support for the current conflict! Do you seriously think I *share* that belief? Or just repeating it ironically is sufficent? You who constantly writes comments putting appalling anti-semitic words and phrases in other peoples' mouths to justify your inane smears? You utter buffoon.

[Davedave]

You're doing your usual desperate attempt to pretend Jews complaining about obvious antisemitism are making it up for political reasons.

Your 'joke' was based on your antisemitism, which is what I pointed out. Obviously you don't believe the Jews need to be killed in a 'final battle'. You believe in a final solution to the Jewish problem, not a final battle.

[Nige]

'You believe in a final solution to the Jewish problem, not a final battle.'

Ah, right, so you admit the comment I made was about anti-semitism, not anti-semitic in itself, then you go on to put foul anti-semitic words in my mouth yet again.

I made no reference to what 'Jews' are doing. I only refer to what YOU are doing.

[Davedave]

No, Nige, I said that your joke was antisemitic. I really don't know how you can even pretend to struggle to understand this. You continually claim that there is no real antisemitism and Jews just make up antisemitism for political ends. You did it again with your 'joke'.

You've made it very clear, over and over again, that you are the furthest of the far right. You hate Jews, and what you probably call 'darkies' when you aren't pretending to be socially acceptable to further your vile ideology. You're a disingenuous, science-denying, genocidal, white-supremacist cunt. But you know that admitting as much makes even the nuts round here think you're beyond the pale, so you lie, and lie, and lie. You don't lie well, of course, but you lie about every little thing.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If I said in response, "all people should be defended", would you be offended?

[Kazinski]

Wouldn’t that imply it was policy not just a one off mistake by a low level patrolman.

You don’t sack a commissioner because a one grunt screws up.

[Nige]

You do if the publicity is bad enough and the country is being run by a right-wing government that was on its last legs two years ago.

[Armchair]

Challenge for the Pro-Biden lawyers here.

Trump is being charged in NY for business records fraud. Many people have written that people have been charged for this crime before, so it's not unusual.

What is unusual, in my opinion, is two things.
1) The charges, which are normally misdemeanor charges, have been upgraded to felony charges because the fraud has been used to further a second crime.
2) But second crime however, Trump hasn't been indicted for. Anywhere.

So, here's my challenge to you all Pro-Biden laywers. Are there "any" cases in NY history where this law has been used in such a way? Where it's been charged as a felony, to further a second crime, but that second crime the original person was never indicted for? Any cases like that? At all?

[Armchair]

After 42 minutes...nothing. Hmm...

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well this is one of the saddest things ever posted.

[Balisane]

Of course not. Alvin Bragg, the DA, and Leticia James, both have something in common. Take a guess what that is.

[Malika the Maiz]

Is this the GOP today? I don't see any of their sympathizers speaking out...

[Balisane]

They hate whites, so we should hate them back.

[not guilty]

I don't know about other New York prosecutions, but simple parsing of the statute which Donald Trump is accused of violating, NY Penal Law § 175.10, is important here. That statute provides:

§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.

The actus reus the falsification of business records in the second degree, which is defined by NY Penal Law § 175.05. The mens rea which elevates the offense to a felony is the offender's intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

The other crime need not have been actually committed. If it was committed, it need not have been committed by the same defendant as is charged under § 175.10. The identity of the actor committing the other crime is not an element of § 175.10. Intent to aid in another's commission of the subject crime will suffice. Actual concealment of the other crime need not have occurred -- the intent to conceal will suffice.

[Armchair]

"I don’t know about other New York prosecutions"

So, you don't know of ANY other prosecutions that meet that standard? Not a one? Interesting.

[not guilty]

I haven’t researched the question. Why should I do your homework for you?

But I do know a bit about what does or does not constitute essential elements of a crime. The question you posit seems to overlook that.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Does Armchair claim to be a lawyer?

I sometimes find it hard to remember which bigoted, disaffected, right-wing misfit is which at this blog.

[Armchair]

"I haven’t researched the question. Why should I do your homework for you?"

Well, I asked the question. I assumed when you answered, you actually answer the question. I guess not.

Personally, I haven't found any cases. I gave you the opportunity to. I can't prove a negative.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Gosh, what silly subsequent argument could you possibly be leading up to with this particular line of reasoning?

Don't keep us in suspense!

[Noscitur a sociis]

I’m skeptical of this prosecution, but this is a pretty silly argument. The statute covers falsifying records to conceal another crime: as with most obstruction offenses, there’s no requirement that the defendant committed that crime at all, much less that they were charged with it, so that part of the fact pattern seems pretty unremarkable. The first case I saw on westlaw is People v. Bloomfield, 844 N.E.2d 296 (N.Y. 2006), if that matters.

[Armchair]

"There’s no requirement that the defendant committed that crime at all, much less that they were charged with it"

Well...if you think about it, that's where this gets interesting. This is just one bit.

When this is charged as a felony, the state almost always also indicts the other crime (that make this one a felony). In this case...the state didn't do that.

Think what that implies. The state doesn't need to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that that second crime occurred. They can just say "Oh, there's this other crime. Trust us. This one's a felony now".

In this case they are apparently using some version of campaign finance fraud. Which..they apparently don't have to prove (it's notoriously difficult). They can just say "it happened, trust us".

Why limit it there though? Why not just say, whenever in the future there's a potential business fraud "Oh, there's also tax fraud. We're not going to take that to trial or prove it. But it happened. This business record fraud is now a felony"

It makes a mockery out of the original misdemeanor law if the state can just upgrade it to a felony based on a "second crime"...but doesn't ever have to prove the second crime.

[David Nieporent]

Think what that implies. The state doesn’t need to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that that second crime occurred. They can just say “Oh, there’s this other crime. Trust us. This one’s a felony now”

"Beyond a shadow of a doubt" is not the legal standard for a criminal trial, and it is correct that they do not need to prove that it occurred for 175.10 because that is not an element of the offense. Just like if one is charged with criminal solicitation, or conspiracy, or the like, one need not prove that the crime occurred. They must prove beyond a reasonable doubt (the actual standard) that the defendant had the appropriate intent when he falsified the business records, though.

[Armchair]

And that doesn't disturb you in the least? That they don't need to actually prove the second crime, in order for the first to be upgraded to a felony?

The prosecutors can just say "There was a tax fraud. Now this is a felony. We don't need to prove any tax fraud".

You're OK with all that?

[not guilty]

"And that doesn’t disturb you in the least? That they don’t need to actually prove the second crime, in order for the first to be upgraded to a felony?"

Again, the critical question is the accused's intent at the time of the falsification of business records. The intended crime need not have actually come to fruition. Likewise, if the accused intended to conceal another crime, the prosecution is not required to prove that it was actually concealed.

Take a hypothetical. Suppose I am charged with the felony offense of assault with intent to kill. The intended victim was seriously injured, but lived. Could I then be convicted only of misdemeanor assault?

[David Nieporent]

And that doesn’t disturb you in the least? That they don’t need to actually prove the second crime, in order for the first to be upgraded to a felony?

Again: no, because committing a "second crime" is not an element of the crime. (Prosecutors can't "just say" anything; what prosecutors "say" is not evidence. Prosecutors must present evidence to prove each element of the crime in question.)

[Sarcastr0]

As DMN noted incubate crimes don’t require proving the underlying crime.

You assume something not an element of the crime is, and then you are horrified it’s not acting like an element.

Discovering some long held operation of the law and declaring it unjust in service of defending Trump is such a common move now.

[not guilty]

Incubate crimes? Do you mean inchoate crimes?

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah. Incubate crimes sound awful.

[Noscitur a sociis]

This is not, in fact, where it gets interesting.

The prosecution does need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to conceal another crime, regardless of whether or not anyone is charged with committing another crime. And at any rate, Michael Cohen already was convicted of committing (one of) the target crimes here.

[Armchair]

"Michael Cohen already was convicted of committing (one of) the target crimes here."

That doesn't prove the crime actually occurred. In fact, Cohen would have pled guilty to near anything to be a cooperative witness, as he was already on the hook for far worse crimes.

[David Nieporent]

Again: whether the crime actually occurred is not an element of 175.10. But even if it were, Cohen's plea is legally sufficient to prove that.

[Ridgeway]

It may be sufficient if uncontroverted, but I don't know that it is conclusive. Back when John Edwards got indicted for something similar, there was a question of whether the alleged conduct was actually a campaign finance violation. IIRC, there was a hung jury and DOJ declined to re-try him, so the issue never got decided, at least at an appellate level.

Cohen's pleading guilty certainly is not helpful to Trump, but I don't think anyone raised the issue as to that charge, and it did not affect his deal. IOW, Cohen would have been even dumber to complain and queer his deal, and the judge probably didn't give the issue a lot of thought since nobody was raising it.

[Martinned2]

I'm always amused by the official procedural posture in England when decisions of the crown court or a technical tribunal get appealed/judicially reviewed in the High Court. Eg. just now we had the Competition and Markets Authority v. the Competition Appeal Tribunal. (The CAT had refused to give a search warrant in an antitrust case, and that decision has now been quashed by the High Court.)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6626383dd706f962eca7e541/CMA_v_CAT_Final_Judgment.pdf

In my continental European brain, it is bonkers to have a tribunal act as a defendant. I would have thought that "the interested parties", i.e. the companies against which the CMA sought a search warrant, would have done the heavy lifting, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

14. As is usually the case where the defendant to a judicial review is a Court or Tribunal, the CAT took no part in the proceedings. The Interested Parties also took no part. However, pursuant to the Order made by Swift J dated 15 January 2024, an Advocate to the Court was appointed by the Attorney-General to address whether the CAT had erred in law or acted in excess of jurisdiction as alleged in the Grounds. The Court had the benefit of helpful written and oral submissions from Ms Naina Patel as Advocate to the Court, for which we are grateful.

[Mr. Bumble]

As always, you are easily amused.

[Martinned2]

Anything to avoid talking about Trump

[John F. Carr]

In the USA there are differing approaches to such cases. In some court systems the lower court is the nominal defendant. In some of those the lower court is also a participant, filing a paper in defense of its position, and in others an observer. I am more accustomed to seeing cases captioned "In re (interested party)". For search warrants, "In re Sealed Case".

[Moderation4ever]

I caught this article last week in my local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal, reporting on the increasing mortality rate in rural America when compared to urban areas. Healthcare in the urban areas benefits from an economy of scale that works well for private providers. This is not the case in rural area. In Wisconsin's people are seeing rural hospitals close. I am a capitalist and believe that the private sector should always first choice for providing service. I also believe that government may have to step in if for some reason, economics in this case, if the private sector cannot provide.

https://madison.com/eedition/page-a1/page_bc94146c-42b8-500d-88b0-a611440102f8.html

[Moderation4ever]

The effects of climate change are not the dramatic effects seen in Hollywood movies, but rather a slow creep that will change the lives of people. This study reported in my local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal, talks about the increasing costs that climate change will bring.

https://madison.com/eedition/page-a16/page_9a2c0996-99e2-5c96-8d90-1c6a8bce34c3.html

[Mr. Bumble]

"...but rather a slow creep that will change the lives of people."
Just as it always has been.

[Nige]

'If it's hapening relatively slowly, we can ignore it!'

[Martinned2]

Not everywhere is like Wisconsin.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/storm-dumps-heaviest-rain-recorded-desert-nation-uae-109339177

[Mr. Bumble]

"Not everywhere is like Wisconsin."
Wisdom for the ages.

[Davedave]

Oh look, climate science denial from Martin. No reputable climate scientist will say any single weather event is caused by climate change, because that would be utterly unsupported by science.

The science actually says that we are just about starting to see the effects of climate change in an increase in extreme weather events.

[Martinned2]

An increase in extreme weather events like, say, the heaviest rain ever recorded in Qatar?

[Davedave]

Whut? Are you incapable of reading? I've literally just explained the answer to that.

Climate science isn't whatever you want it to be, it's what has been established through the work of scientists. The science says it is impossible to put any single extreme weather event down to climate change at this point. Climate science says that the warming at current levels makes it somewhat less likely that any single event is due to natural variation, but not overwhelmingly so by any means.

The statistical trend is still barely detectable, let alone being so strong that it can be said to be (highly likely to be) the cause of a specific event.

[Brett Bellmore]

Last I heard, the statistical trend was small enough to be essentially indistinguishable from zero.

[Davedave]

That is incorrect, too. At the moment, the world has not experienced very much warming over baseline levels - though more is locked in; we know it's coming. We are absolutely sure that more warming will lead to more extreme weather events, and we are just starting to see that at current levels of warming. But we can definitely see a trend that is statistically significant; what we can't see (yet) is a trend so strong that it is likely to be the major reason for single events.

[Mr. Bumble]

https://climatechangedispatch.com/antarctica-is-colder-icier-today-than-at-any-time-in-5000-years/

[Davedave]

Science denial of another flavour is still science denial, and you're a complete moron.

[Mr. Bumble]

What denial?

[Nige]

'The science says it is impossible to put any single extreme weather event down to climate change at this point.'

The science says climate change will have certain effects. An extreme weather event occurs consistent with this prediction. Connecting that weather event to climate change, given that we have passed one degree of warming so the climate is, effectively changed, is 'science denial.' You're kinda thick, aren't ya?

[Davedave]

Oh look, Nige is at it again, telling the IPCC they're wrong.

Just straightforward science denial. The science says that you cannot say a single weather event is due to climate change, but you don't like that science - it doesn't fit with your neo-fash aims - so you lie about it.

[Nige]

'The science says that you cannot say a single weather event is due to climate change'

The science says that heavy deluge rainfalls in places like Dubai will become more frequent. There was a heavy deluge rainfall in Dubai. We passed one degree of warming. Oh look! Here's an example of one of those more frequent heavy deluges in Dubai they predicted. 'Science denial' isn't a cudgel for you to use on people you don't like. Well, maybe it is for you, you like being stupid for the sake of cudgeling people.

[Davedave]

So, you're literally denying the scientific consensus on climate change in favour of making up nonsense that suits your political ends. Got it.

[Nige]

I haven't denied a single thing. You think there's some scientific law against noticing that the climate and weather are matching the predictions. That pointing out that weather events confirming the climate change hypothesis is 'science denialism.' You're cracked.

Here's some climate scientists engaged in climate change denial by noticing that weather events are related to climate change:

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/africa-s-sahel-can-expect-more-deadly-heat-waves-study-shows

“The burning of fossil fuels is playing a huge role” in the Sahel’s prolonged intense heat, said Dr Friederike Otto, a senior lecturer in climate science at Imperial College London, who contributed to the study. With continued global warming, events like these will become more common, she said.

[Davedave]

And there Nige goes again, persisting in the denial in the face of all the evidence, preferring cherry-picking from populist reporting to the actual scientific consensus that is so easily available, and pretending not to understand how statistics work. I wonder why...

[Nige]

Climate scientists linking weather events to climate change? A thing you claimed simply does not happen? Why are so many of the weirder things you yell about climate change, the IPCC and what climate scientists say and do so easily disproven?

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/what-caused-storm-that-brought-dubai-standstill-2024-04-17/

[Davedave]

You've already done that 'talking point', Nige. Remember, IPCC, scientific consensus, disagrees. Persisting in the cherry picking and science denial is proving my point, not arguing against it.

[Nige]

'The science says it is impossible to put any single extreme weather event down to climate change at this point'

You are aware that 'weather trends' are made up of individual weather events, right? And if climate scientists say climate change is going to make big dumps of rainfall like this more likely, and they do, then referring to this event in connection to climate change is to science denial what the lies you tell about what people say is to anti-semitism.

[Davedave]

Wow, you're really off on one today, aren't you? That's not how science, or statistics, work. It's how neo-fash propaganda works.

[Nige]

I'm not convinced you know how wind-up toys work.

[Mr. Bumble]

Since when?

[Dr. Ed 2]

First global cooling, then global warming, now extreme weather.
Wake me up when the rivers turn to blood...

[SRG2]

The uinfailing mark of a climate denialist is that they bring up global cooling as though it were a widely held and accepted hypothesis. There was never a time when it was true. There were a few papers in the 70s, an article in Newsweek, IIRC, and a couple of books, but not much more than that.

Or, for short, you're a fucking liar.

[Bob from Ohio]

"article in Newsweek"

If it made Newsweek in that era, it was conventional wisdom. Not exactly a niche publication.

[Sarcastr0]

Anyone who knows popular science reporting know that making Newsweek does not mean it was conventional wisdom.

[Artifex]

Anonymous commenter references Lathrop style journalist who talks about studies by researchers funded to reach exactly the conclusions they are paid to reach.

I for one am utterly convinced !

[SRG2]

Climate denialism contains within it the proposition that in a dispute between scientists and large corporations, only the scientists are in it for the money.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

When in fact, they're both in it for the money. The difference between them, perhaps, lies on the ethical side.

I just wish someone would produce research proving that there is anything at all we can do to stop it (not to mention reverse it) at this point. Then, at long last, we could move on to how to force uncooperative countries to do what's required (since, as history shows, they won't do it voluntarily). Just sanctions, or will it be war?

[Nige]

Of course we can stop it. We just need to change over from fossil fuels. Now that changeover should have started decades ago, the later we start properly the worse it's going to be before it starts getting better again, but we can start whenever we're ready. That's it. No mystery. Restoring as much natural habitat as possible will speed it along, too.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Ah, good! An "of course" reply is always welcome in these sorts of situations. For a minute there I was thinking reasonable certainty would require research, experimentation and other sciencey stuff!

[Nige]

What do you think scientists have been doing since they first realised what was going to happen? You think they were waiting for you to poke them so they'd wake up and suddenly say oh my god we better do some science about this stuff!

[Don Nico]

" how to force uncooperative countries "
That is called colonialism.
Do you really think that given the degree of present energy poverty in sub-Saharan Africa which has the highest birthrate on the globe that anything done in the US and Eu can make more than a 10% difference?
And who are the US and EU to tell people ion those countries to stay in their energy poverty?

[Nige]

Hundreds of people died in the Sahel in a heatwave earlier this month. The figure could end up being as high as thousands. More heatwaves are predicted. Why the fuck do people like you use this argument as if people in these vulnerable areas want to die in droves just so fossil fuel companies can get richer?

[Davedave]

Why do people like you deny the science and blame antisemitic conspiracies (using very flimsy codewords), in order to cause the deaths of more of the poor people you're claiming to want to save, as the scientific consensus says you are doing?

Well, we know why. You're a suit-Nazi, trying to get the cosplay-Nazis to shut up because they're blowing your gaff.

[Artifex]

"I just wish someone would produce research proving that there is anything at all we can do to stop it (not to mention reverse it) at this point."

Here you are probably just out of luck. Inexpensive energy goes hand in hand with a wealthy economy and expensive energy with poverty. As long as there are multiple governments in the game, there is just too much incentive to cheat. I hate to break it to you, but it is going to get warmer.

[Artifex]

Actually, my guess is it is less about the money and more about ideology and lifestyle. Rousseau did more damage to society than any money grubbing capitalist lusting for cash.

Second, these aren't "climate scientists", these are "climate economists". They like to call themselves scientists because it lends that air of respectability and it is better than calling yourself an activist as you can pretend a bit of credibility. Note that it's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and if you don't have the right politics, you are not getting through the door in the first place.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"Climate denialism contains within it the proposition that in a dispute between scientists and large corporations, only the scientists are in it for the money."

That is a beautiful comment. Full marks, sir!

[Martinned2]

Interesting. The Met has just announced that they have arrested two men for (simply put) spying for China.

https://news.met.police.uk/news/two-men-charged-with-official-secrets-act-offences-following-investigation-by-ct-command-482889

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, this is interesting:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13336023/Columbia-University-cancels-classes-pro-palestine-protests.html

[Dr. Ed 2]

They kinda had to.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Trump may have his moments, but AFAIK Biden’s the first president to literally offend cannibals. The Paupa New Guineans want us to know that their ancestors had standards, and “wouldn’t just eat any white men that fell from the sky.”

[TwelveInchPianist]

Meanwhile, Karine Jean-Pierre makes the most incorrect statement ever uttered from a White House podium:

"we should not make jokes about this"

[Martinned2]

Well, *she* should definitely not make jokes about that. Papua New Guinea is an important exporter of all sorts of things, so offending them doesn't seem prudent.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Oil and gas, last time I checked. Not the most socially responsible exports these days.

And betel nut (which is, perhaps, much worse).

[Martinned2]

Copper and gold as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Papua_New_Guinea#Trade_and_investment

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Please stop. There is nothing else in, of or concerning Papua New Guinea which is relevant to the rest of the world. (Unless you're Indonesia, in which case that is only debatable.)

[Malika the Maiz]

Biden is a regular fabulist, for decades.

[Don Nico]

Indeed, He is the Dr. Ed of American politics

[Sarcastr0]

I won't deny that he's got some stories he tells that just aren't true (though amusingly Corn Pop may be legit).

But calling him Dr. Ed is just too hyperbolic and you should take it back, sir!!

[Mr. Bumble]

"(though amusingly Corn Pop may be legit)."
Based on what?

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/16/corn-pop-joe-biden-story-what-happened-is-it-real-swimming-pool-confrontation

[Commenter_XY]

Corn Pop is as real as T-Bone. 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Was T Bone a nickname of John Barron? One of the Central Park Five? Or the code name used to get women up to Trump’s apartment while Melanie was caring for an infant (or watching the hired help care for the infant)?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Wow. Nice to see Sarcastro sticking up for Dr. Ed, for a change.

[ThePublius]

He wasn't, he was defending Biden.

[Noscitur a sociis]

TheJoke
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ThePublius

[Davedave]

It seems really daft to claim a man repeating what is obviously an old family story is lying or demented, rather than merely not fact-checking the dinner table stories he heard as a kid.

[ThePublius]

Well, he has a history, a reputation, for making things up! I doubt it's an "old family story," it's much more likely something he concocted. He has that personality - telling tall tales to embellish his stature or reputation. He's a lifelong fabulist and plagiarist. And you let him off the hook by saying he's not fact checking family dinner table tales? Puh-lease! What say you about Ambrose Finnegan being an All-American college football player, or that Joe was the first member of his family to attend college? Or that he was in the top half of his law school class? And on and on and on.

The only really daft ones are those who excuse or rationalize his B.S.

[Nige]

BIDEN gets left off the hook? BIDEN? Biden tells some stories you lot claim are false - that doesn't *automatically* mean they're not but none of the stories are especially consequential - you VOTED for a guy who wanted to nuke a hurricane, changed a storm chart to suit what was probably just a mis-statement and told people to take ineffective medicines!

FUUUCK OFFFF.

[Noscitur a sociis]

An old family story? Biden was alive when it happened!

[Davedave]

Eh? How old do you think he is? He was two years old when his uncle was killed.

[Don Nico]

Okay, S_0, equating Joe with Ed is over the top. I plead guilty.

[Sarcastr0]

I was more or less joking on Ed off of what I was pretty sure was hyperbole.

I think Biden will recover from this slight, given time.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Name one thing that I have made up.

[Absaroka]

Cormorants eat 70 pounds of fish a day.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Deleted

[Noscitur a sociis]

The one daily train to Amherst (MA) leaves DC’s Union Station before the city’s subway system starts running on weekends and I’ve had enough bad experiences with DC taxis to want to rely on one. And I inquired and was told that Union Station was open all night.

OK, so you show up at 1AM before the Metro stops running and wait for the 7 AM train — the same thing is common at ferry terminals, even post 9-11 although that involves waiting in your car in the parking lot. I had a book but apparently fell asleep and at 5 AM some cop is whacking me — not hard enough to injure me but definitely arrest able were I to do it to him.

This ain’t no hotel he says — I explain that I am waiting for the train and show him my ticket — he says that if I fall asleep again, he’ll rip up my ticket and throw me out on the street. His rational is that if he lets me sleep there, he has to let the homeless sleep there too — even though they don’t have tickets.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Oh, you also lied about the lie and pretended that the above story was about a ferry terminal and not a train station.

[Estragon]

“Embassies are sovereign territory”

[Estragon]

“Charlie Baker’s Covid closure orders put Christmas Tree Stores out of business”

[BrotherMovesOn]

You can see Old North Church from School Street. "There's a plaque at the Parker House."
No.
"Then there's a plaque in the sidewalk."
Again, no.

[ThePublius]

And, I might add, being a chronic, life-long fabulist is a mental disorder. I grew up with on such kid, in the neighborhood, who proved to be an embarrassment to his family for the crazy stories he would tell. However, neither Joe's family, nor his handlers, nor his party, seem to have the least bit of embarrassment over Joe's crazy stories, which is telling.

I recall that WaPo was chronicling Trump's supposed lies while he was in office. Why is it that no one is chronicling Joe's crazy stories and lies? They are much more voluminous than any collection of provable Trump lies, and much more entertaining.

And Joe persists in these stories, even now! Just last week he repeated the lie, which he himself has contradicted, that he was the first member of his family to attend college, a lie which I think started when he plagiarized Neil Kinnock's speech. I guess he forgot that he has said, repeatedly, that his grandfather was an All-American football player at college (Santa Clara, I think). And even that doesn't hold up! He's laughable.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I never liked Joe Biden for precisely that reason.

But in terms of veracity he's not even in the same league as Donald Trump. Trump is far and away the premier, major and serie a-league leader in bullshit.

[Bob from Ohio]

Correct, he's a minor league copy of Trump. A cheap dollar store knock off of the master.

[Nige]

Which is to say, he's honest and ethical by comparison, at a minimum.

[Bob from Ohio]

No, just a poor copy. Dumber lies.

My uncle was eaten.

[Nige]

Yeah, he doesn't lie well enough for you. Mind you if you think Trump lies *well* holy shit that explains a lot.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Sure, if you think lying is a virtue.

I was actually making the opposite point. I voted for Biden despite his fabulism.

[Sarcastr0]

I did find it amusing - 'Not gonna say we aren't cannables, but we have standards.'

[ThePublius]

You are culturally ignorant, perhaps intentionally so, to throw ridicule on this who criticize fabulist Joe.

The people of Papua New Guinea practice cannibalism out of respect for the dead, so that their corpses don't decompose.

Are you similarly amused by Jewish, or Christian, or Muslim rites and rituals?

"Post-mortuary cannibalism is not unique to the Fore people of Papua New Guinea. Amazon tribes have also been known for their cannibalistic practices and specifically for endocannibalism! This refers to cannibalism performed by members of the same community or family as the deceased.

Fore men ate the flesh of the deceased, while the women and children ate the brains. This practice of cannibalism was also a way of honoring the dead. Furthermore, the Fore believe that it is better to consume their dead, rather than let maggots do it. They also thought that women were more able to successfully contain the malevolent spirit of the dead. Because of that, they were the ones that had to eat the brain after cooking it with ferns.

By eating their dead, the Fore were honoring them."

https://myend.com/country/papua-new-guinea/

[Nige]

'We're solemnly criticising Biden in the name of cultural sensitivity' holy shit you guys.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

All religion is pure, silly bullshit.

Except for the religion that exalts reason and mocks superstition.

[Martinned2]

For the lawyers in the room, this is what a classic difference-in-difference methodology looks like. (On the effects of Dobbs on people's decisions to get a tubal ligation or a vasectomy.)

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/04/tying-the-knot.html

[Bob from Ohio]

Good, less lefty morons being born.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah. Only left-wingers believe in family planning and ideology is a heritable trait. That’s a totally smart and informed take. Christ you’re an asshole.

[Martinned2]

*fewer

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Perhaps he meant the morons being born were “less lefty”?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Unless I’m missing something, that is not, in fact, an example of difference-in-difference methodology.

[Malika the Maiz]

A lot of conservatives are backing bills talking about protecting women and girl's sports. It's in the context of barring trans women from competing. That actually makes eminent sense to me. My question is, though, are these conservatives now going to drop their criticisms of Title IX? Women's sports should get equal consideration and funding as men's even if their gate revenue isn't the same.

[Martinned2]

What's next? Special protection for short people basketball?

[Davedave]

You think you're being funny, but that is in fact what any sane person gets from this nonsense: splitting groups by gender (or sex) is a very broad brush, and not the only way of doing it by any means. (We also have age-group splits, for example.) It makes complete sense to set physical criteria for sporting categorisation, and then we don't need to have this stupid non-debate.

There is absolute no reason why basketball restricted to people under 6' (say) shouldn't be a sport, or that it shouldn't be eminently watchable - maybe even more watchable than unrestricted basketball. As should be fairly obvious, there's more skill involved in scoring when you can't just reach up and drop the ball into the net.

[ThePublius]

"drop the ball into the net basket." FIFY

[Davedave]

It's plainly a net, whatever you think it should be called. 😉

[ThePublius]

Well, the game is called basketball, not net ball. 🙂

And, it was originally played with a produce basket as the goal - no net involved.

[ThePublius]

That's funny. By the 6' criteria Caitlin Clark could probably qualify to play in the short people league. (She's 6'0". I am guessing that she, like many pro ball players, is exaggerating her height a bit.)

Oh, and while we're at it, why don't we insist that paraplegic hockey players get paid the same as NHL players?

[Davedave]

The idea that sports entertainers in different categories should get paid the same also goes away with this method.

I would also point out that sometimes there's a good argument for investing in something in order to make it better. Women's cycling is a case in point. No-one thinks they should be paid as much as men right now, but it clearly needs investment over and above what is currently being generated in order to grow and attract the fans it deserves. (And there's a history of the UCI suppressing women's professional cycling, which is why it's in this state.)

[ThePublius]

Who is to invest? Government? Taxpayers?

And what are the parameters of "deserves?" Sounds like that prog claptrap "fair share" to me.

[Davedave]

I would have thought that the people to invest would be those who want to make money out of it.

And 'deserves' means what it normally means. It's a popular sport which has had active (and purely sexist) opposition from the world governing body until recently that has held it back from where it would otherwise be. That deserves to be rectified.

[ThePublius]

"I would have thought that the people to invest would be those who want to make money out of it."

Well, then, it will take care of itself then, no?

"And ‘deserves’ means what it normally means. It’s a popular sport which has had active (and purely sexist) opposition from the world governing body until recently that has held it back from where it would otherwise be. That deserves to be rectified."

You throw that work "deserves" around such that it has no meaning. What do you mean "That deserves to be rectified?" What does that mean? Who or what "deserves," and why?

[Davedave]

People are investing in women's sports, and you're complaining about it for some reason.

And deserves means what it usually means. Do you need someone to buy you a dictionary?

[TwelveInchPianist]

But if you do have basketball restricted to people under 6', you shouldn't have exceptions for people who feel that they are a short person trapped in a tall person's body.

[Davedave]

Well done, you've completely missed the point. If it is based on simple, and directly relevant, physical criteria, there'd be no argument to make in favour of your imaginary problem.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You would think...

[Davedave]

I would, yes. Maybe you could, if you tried. But you won't try, and that's the problem here.

[Sonja T]

fwiw, In the mid 1970’s, the US womens olympic volleyball team was having an game against an ad hoc mens team from the north texas area. It was more of an exhibition/promotional match. The US womens team was not yet a world class team, still in the formative stages as was much of the volleyball world was at that time.

There were several “house” rules made to make the game competitive 1) no men over 5’10” and 2) no men hitting in from of the 10′ line. I was told that rule was relaxed during the game since hitting effectiveness from behind the 10' line was not nearly as effective in the 70's as is today.

[David Nieporent]

There is absolute no reason why basketball restricted to people under 6′ (say) shouldn’t be a sport, or that it shouldn’t be eminently watchable

You can decide by fiat what people can play, but you can't decide by fiat what people want to watch.

[John F. Carr]

"Short people got no reason to live." – Randy Newman

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Also Randy Newman: "Yeah, the song was meant as allegory, but it turns out I was right about those little fuckers."

[Don Nico]

Let's hope that they do drop them.

[Sonja T]

For the most part , most of the objections have ended, though their are some diehards that have not given up.

From my limited experience, there remains the issue of have sufficient number of participants for some of the womens sports teams. Several of the lesser womens sports have insufficient number of players to field a team, whereas the same sport on the mens side having too many players trying to make the team

fwiw - I am in favor of womens sports, even it means cutting back on the number of mens sports teams. ( with some limitations)

[ThePublius]

You know, you guys are both stupid.

First, unless I misunderstand you, Malika the Maiz, I think you are advocating for equal pay for male and female athletes, presumably playing the same sport, regardless of revenue; meaning, professional sports. If so, what you are proposing is ridiculous. Pro sports is a business, an entertainment business. Pay of performers is directly related to revenue, except in perhaps some communist or socialist system. You might as well be arguing that all vocal performers get the same pay, and so, Jason Mraz should get paid what Taylor Swift gets. See? It's just as ridiculous as mandating that ticket prices be the same for men's and women's sports. (That would REALLY empty the women's sports arenas.)

And Martinned2, mens and womens sports are divided precisely because of the large difference in athletic ability between the sexes. To allow "trans" athletes to compete in sports for sexes that they weren't born with is to do away with the distinction of sex in sports, and therefore wreck women's sports (note there's no problem with trans men competing in men's sports). It is not at all the same as your absurd analogy of short people basketball. Although if you want to go ahead and start a short people's basketball league, go ahead! But don't expect to tax regular basketball to augment your players' salaries. Now, midget basketball - maybe that would capture some gate revenue, but it would be horribly politically incorrect.

[Moderation4ever]

I question the wisdom of having the government dictate rules about the participation of trans-athletes in sports. I would suggest that it is better to allow the governing bodies for the sports do make the rules. I think those involved in the sport can better assess the impact of trans athletes on the sport. For some sports, swimming, running, tennis allowing trans-athletes puts women in a disadvantage that is unacceptable. For other sports I am not sure it makes a difference, roller derby, curling, billiards. Let the sport ruling bodies decide not the government.

[ThePublius]

The "government" is ultimately going to have to decide, as the trans-Nazis will sue any sports governing body that makes rules barring trans athletes in gender-separated sports. Plus, I confess I would stop watching women's billiards if they let trans players compete as women, as I'm not really interested in watching that. So, it will hurt that sport financially.

Having a law helps ALL of the sports governing bodies, and stops a proliferation of lawsuits.

[Martinned2]

Sure, but then we first have to decide why such a thing as women's sport even exists. Because if it's literally just about creating separate competitions for women because they're women, there's no reason to exclude some women because of their genetics, or other physical features.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Certainly true. Now, who gets to decide who counts as a woman?

[Martinned2]

I'm not fussed, as long as they don't discriminate against trans people.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why would you be? You're not a woman.

[ThePublius]

That's more absurdity from you. The reason there are male and female divisions in sports is because men's and women's natural athletic abilities are dramatically different. Women's sports exist so women can enjoy the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat in fair terms, i.e., competing against others with similar innate athletic abilities.

Why does this concept elude you? I mean, it's only been this way for centuries. The Olympics established such differences in 1900 in Paris.

If the distinction didn't exist there would be no women competing successfully in most sports, save, perhaps, shooting, equestrian, those kinds of things. But certainly not team sports, swimming, track and field, and on and on.

Why do you hate women?

[Davedave]

Lots of people's abilities vary dramatically, and there are much better ways to group them than by sex/gender.

The only reason the current split actually exists is Victorian and Edwardian prudishness and sexism.

[ThePublius]

That's baloney. It exists for the obvious - OBVIOUS - reason that men and women differ dramatically in innate physical and athletic ability. Period. It's not cultural, it's biological.

[Davedave]

Nope, you can't just make up your own facts. The split pre-dates any notion of fair competition. It started simply and solely because Victorians and Edwardians were prudes.

[ThePublius]

I'm not making up anything! You are ignoring obvious physical realities.

[Davedave]

I'm just telling you what the historical facts are. I'm not ignoring anything. The split pre-dates the idea of 'fair' sporting competitions in the sense you're thinking of. Women weren't allowed to play with men because sex-shock-horror nonsense, that's all.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Oh, that's "the only reason the current split actually exists"--despite the Victorian and Edwardian prudishness seemingly having vanished in every other aspect of life some time ago...

[Davedave]

It's where the split started. I doubt we'd ever have come up with the idea without it.

[David Nieporent]

It’s where the split started. I doubt we’d ever have come up with the idea without it.

I am quite certain that large numbers of people recognized the physical differences between men and women before 1837.

[Davedave]

What does that have to do with anything, David? The reason men and women started to compete separately is the issue at hand. That reason had nothing to do with 'fairness'. It was well before the idea of sporting competitions as a way to find the 'best man' or 'best woman' at a sport came along - that's arguably a post-amateur-era idea, but at the very least is ~100 years later than the creation of organised sports.

[Martinned2]

The reason there are male and female divisions in sports is because men’s and women’s natural athletic abilities are dramatically different.

Possibly. But it doesn't explain why we don't have basketball for short people, so that short people can experience the thrill of victory. They have lightweight rowing, so it's not like it's an idea I just came up with.

Why do you hate women?

I love all women. Why don't you?

[Bob from Ohio]

Men pretending to be women are not women.

[Martinned2]

True. Is anyone arguing otherwise?

[TwelveInchPianist]

You are.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

People claiming that childish fairy tales are nonfiction are not competent adults (they’re gullible dumbasses). Right-wing bigots are not people who deserve respect (they deserve scorn). But everyone has rights.

[Harvey Mosley]

Please start a new basketball league: NSBA (National Short Basketball Association). I'm sure it will be a financial success!

[not guilty]

There actually was a minor professional basketball league that ran from 1988 to 1992 which did not allow players over 6'5" to compete. Bob Cousy was one of the founders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Basketball_League

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Women’s sports exist so women can enjoy the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat in fair terms, i.e., competing against others with similar innate athletic abilities."

It's not even just that. It has to do with identity. Many people value being the best in a particular group. So if you're happy about being the fastest runner in Switzerland, and some Kenyan dude says, well, I've never been to Switzerland, but I've always considered myself Swiss at heart, so I guess I'm the fastest runner in Switzerland, you might not like it if people were coerced into proclaiming the other dude the fastest runner in Switzerland.

[Martinned2]

Fair enough, but that's an entirely different rationale, with potentially different policy implications for the participation of trans and intersex athletes.

[Nige]

Womens' sports has had more to worry about from lack of funding, publicity, training facilities, and societies that view sports as a predominantly male domain than they ever did from trans women.

[jb]

Okay, now explain why we need to worry about these distinctions in, e.g., elementary school or middle school sports where there's generally not a difference in physical capabilities.

(Or why the government should care about it when it comes to not-very-competitive contexts.)

[Mr. Bumble]

"...elementary school or middle school sports where there’s generally not a difference in physical capabilities."
What school did you go to girlyman?

[Absaroka]

Prior to puberty, there aren't big differences. My public elementary schools didn't segregate by sex. We only had the usual playground sports - dodgeball, tetherball, and generally chasing each other around, and the girls gave as good as they got.

They had separate gym classes from 7th grade on, and as puberty started happening the performance differences opened up.

[BrotherMovesOn]

My experience as well.
Bumble was probably home schooled, with no actual experience with, or aptitude for, sports.
Perhaps he was tormented by the 11 year old neighborhood girls.

[Nige]

'trans-Nazis'

Trans people were murdered by the Nazis in the Holocaust, so, good for you.

[Nige]

This is all dumb as shit hysterical trans panic. THEY'RE COMING FOR OUR SPORTS! They've been in sports for decades, they don't exactly dominate. None of you care about womens' sports, you just hate and revile trans people. Trying to work up a tiny minority of people into some massive unstoppable threat - always a good and moral road to go down.

[David Nieporent]

They’ve been in sports for decades, they don’t exactly dominate.

You keep making this obviously false claim. Biological men have not been in women's sports for decades.

[Nige]

Trans women have.

You keep saying this is 'obviously false.'

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

‘One of the earliest high-profile transgender athletes was tennis player Renée Richards. Already a promising tennis player in the men’s circuit, Richards underwent gender reassignment therapy in 1975 and started playing in women’s tournaments a year later.’

Was 1975 decades ago? Or is that one of those ‘no don’t make me feel old’ things?

[David Nieporent]

I am familiar with Renee Richards. Who is basically the only example from before ~5 years ago, and who initially wasn't allowed to compete in women's sports and then finally was in 'her' 40s for a few years.

And, ironically, Richards has later come to recant (if that's the right word) her position, arguing that biological men have too much of an advantage.

[not guilty]

I think Renee Richards was the only participant in the mixed singles category.

[Don Nico]

One of the aspects of O-sumo that I like is that there are no weight classes. Fans do like seeing "small" wrestlers defeat one that weigh 100 kg more.

[Sarcastr0]

My take is

1) These are not good faith bill, they are cultural signaling
2) These bills are premature until we know the science
3) These bills are dealing with a pretty marginal issue, at the moment.
4) If I had to pick a policy at this early date, I'd say the key performance corollary looks to be hormone levels and that should be the threshold in this case.

[ThePublius]

RE: Sarcastr0:

1. Disagree. Look at the disaster of swimming and track and field, with men competing as women;
2. What science? Ha, ha. Isn't it obvious?
3. It's not marginal, it's causing REAL HARM to women athletes who have worked for years on their sports.
4. That's a fallacy. The development of skeleton, muscle, pulmonary capacity, heart capacity, and so on, is done soon after puberty, and lingering differences in hormone levels, even when suppressed, make little difference to the difference in genetically male and female innate athletic ability.

[Sonja T]

1) Its cultural signaling from from whom?
2) we already know the science, Its the activists trying to distort the science
3 ) You are correct, the sports angle - ie men competing in womens sports is trivial. Very trivial compared to the much larger issues of the radical treatment for mental health issues.
4) hormone therapy ? purberty in young people is a very important stage in human physical and mental development. Its extremely dangerous to upset the normal human development process with very negative long term consequences.

[Nige]

1. You.
2. What science? Science shows trans women do worse than cis women in sports. They're not a threat to anyone.
3. I agree. Stay the fuck out of other peoples' health care. You don't even know what it is.
4. Leave it to the medical experts to decide when it's appropriate then, don't get outraged becuse a tiny group you hate is receiving the hea;th care they need.

[Sonja T]

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11930-023-00358-x

I certainly prefer actual medical experts over advocates.

that being said, the early pro-transgender treatment which was heavily dependent on advocacy biased science has come under attack as more and better information becomes known. Bottom line, the supposed benefits reported in the pro-transgender journals have proven to be very weak.

[Nige]

‘Bottom line, the supposed benefits reported in the pro-transgender journals have proven to be very weak.’

Not according to the vast majority of actual people who undergo the treatments, and not according to just about every study on the subject. Only according to weirdos who inserting themselves into other peoples’ health care and disrupting it and shutting it down out of bigotry.

[Sonja T]

Nige - you are relying on a lot of older poor and low quality studies by self proclaimed experts.

A lot of more credible studies have come out, showing how weak the analysis is supporting "gender Affirming care"

https://adc.bmj.com/pages/gender-identity-service-series

[Joe_dallas]

Nige 7 hours ago

Not according to the vast majority of actual people who undergo the treatments,

Nige - You mean the vast majority that respond to those surveys with less than 50% response rates.

[David Nieporent]

2. What science? Science shows trans women do worse than cis women in sports. They’re not a threat to anyone

This is again, false. Why do you keep saying this nonsense? Obviously there is some overlap at the true tail end of the distribution; the elitist of women's athletes are better than lousy male athletes. But it isn't lousy male athletes competing in competitive women's athletics.

4. Leave it to the medical experts to decide when it’s appropriate then, don’t get outraged becuse a tiny group you hate is receiving the hea;th care they need.

Which medical experts? The ones who say that the recent trends have no scientific basis?

[Nige]

'But it isn’t lousy male athletes competing in competitive women’s athletics.'

There are no male athletes at all. But if you mean trans women, they've somehow failed to dominate at any level for years.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2024/04/11/transgender-sportswomen-at-a-disadvantage-study-claims/

The actual experts, not the ones lying to support the right wing asault on trans people.

If there are actual criticisms of current treatments I’d prioritise those of the people who go through the treatment, the same as you would in any form of treatment that isn’t part of a culture war hysteria-campaign, before a bunch of people who explicitly hate trans people.

[Sarcastr0]

1. It's not a disaster; this is as I said a marginal issue. Taking anecdotes and generalizing is a great way to manufacture a crisis, nothing more.
2. Appeals to incredulity are useless in actual debate; it's just a sign you would prefer to declare victory and not engage.
3. The counter is that it causes REAL HARM to trans women and trans men. But the actual number nationwide on both sides of this issue are small; denying that is just more manufacturing of crisis.
4. You seem to be making some scientific claims. Claims I've seen contradicted regarding runners at least. (https://radiolab.org/podcast/dutee is a nice easy listen example)
Seems like we should both wait until something more conclusive comes in.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“1. It’s not a disaster; this is as I said a marginal issue. ”

I guess that depends on where you sit.

“Claims I’ve seen contradicted regarding runners at least.”

I’ve seen the claim that the earth is round contradicted. So what?

" The counter is that it causes REAL HARM to trans women and trans men. "

Evidence?

[ThePublius]

Sarcastr0, you are being ridiculous. You are ignoring the news, current events, and so forth on this issue. Are you not familiar with Riley Gaines and Lia Thomas? Do you think Riley was not harmed by this whole, ridiculous situation? Thomas clearly transitioned to win races, period. He was a mediocre male swimmer, and now is a champion female swimmer.

Regarding appeals to incredulity: what is "the science" to which you refer? You said "These bills are premature until we know the science." I asked "what science?" No answer.

If trans people feel harmed, why don't they just continue to compete alongside those with whom they share innate biological traits? Why not? And if it's not to win, win, win, why don't we see trans men competing and losing, losing, losing competing against real men?

"Wait until something conclusive comes in." Be serious. It's absolutely clear that people born male who have gone through puberty have advantages, physically, over women. Example 1: Lia Thompson.

You're such a progressive tribe member you can't even seem to think logically, clearly.

[Davedave]

You think someone transitioned just to win races? Really? Despite the high bar, that has to be one of the nuttiest beliefs ever expressed by any of the many nuts around here.

[Bob from Ohio]

Grow your hair a bit, wear a skirt, some lipstick maybe. Transitioned!

[Davedave]

Make some shit up, imagine something else, some false assumptions maybe. A talking point!

[ThePublius]

Likewise, I'm sure! I am certain it's the reason for many of these people. They are highly driven athletes. Winning is everything.

Look at the crazy stuff others do to excel at sports: steroids, blood transfusion, and so on. Is that crazy?

Should a trans woman be required to relinquish the penis? I don't think "Lia" has done any such thing, nothing except declare that he's now a woman.

[Nige]

Speculate, read minds, attribute motives. Nobody fucking transitions if they're not trans. Look at how you guys treat them. It's like painting a target on your back for some of the nastiest people in the world.

[David Nieporent]

One need not actually "transition" to be called trans, though. Social transitioning is enough.

And look at how you guys treat them. It's a source of support and pride.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Who, in your judgment, treats transgender people badly?

What do you think of this blog's transgender fetish?

[Nige]

Every trans person starts with social transitioning. The current stage of their transition does not affect the fact that they are trans. Why shouldn't it be a source of support and pride? It's a reaction to the mounting wave of bullying hate from the right. Battle hate with love.

[Absaroka]

"Seems like we should both wait until something more conclusive comes in"

When faced with inconclusive data, should we change things with long known tradeoffs, or boldly charge into unknown territory while we wait for data?

[Nige]

What unknown territory? You think trans people suddenly appeared overnight sometime since the pandemic?

[Sarcastr0]

There are recently realized tradeoffs to maintaining the status quo as well.

It remains a marginal issue in terms of total impact. While I certainly sympathize more with trans athletes and find the narrative that they dominate to be quite unsupported, I do think reasonable minds can differ on the right policy here.

That is not where we are nationally though.

[Absaroka]

"There are recently realized tradeoffs to maintaining the status quo as well"

Well, sure - no advocates for a policy change where they don't think there is some advantage to the new policy.

But your position is 'wait until we have more data'. What do you do in the meantime? Adopt the new policy, or wait until you have the data?

Hypothetically speaking, suppose an XY swimmer wishes to live as a woman. Do we have them continue to compete with other XY swimmers while we gain more data, or do we immediately change and let them compete with XX swimmers while the data accumulates about whether XY swimmers have an advantage over XX ones?

[Sarcastr0]

Conservatives aren’t here to make policy, they are attacking an outgroup via signaling bills they know won’t pass.

But what is the *optimal* policy? Probably federalism; let a bunch of ways bloom and see how it goes.

If *I* were a leader I’d 1) let student trans athletes compete as their chosen gender 2) Pro (and pro-like for college sports) athletes come up with a metric based on hormone levels or some other indirect corollary to function.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastr0, we can see the direction the wind is blowing , we hardly need to wait until your side wins, and only then fight to reverse your victories. No matter how convenient you'd find that.

[Nige]

No, it's more like you spotted a minority you can target, fostering as much panic, fear and loathing about them as you can, then claim people who defend them are being unreasonable for calling you bigots.

[Sarcastr0]

This is some will to power shit. Not the way to be.

It's also not necessarily correct; You still howl about the winds re: gay marriage.

I'm not arguing out of some tactical plan where I'm playing chess and Nige is playing checkers.
I'm calling them like I see them and I change my mind as I see different research and read compelling opinions in the area.
Your conspiracy brain is overthinking again.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, conservative blog
with a thin, receding academic veneer
has operated for no more than

ONE (1)
day without publishing at least
one racial slur; it has published
racial slurs on at least

TWENTY-TWO (22)

occasions (so far) during the
first three months of 2024
(that’s at least 22 exchanges
that have included a racial slur,
not just 22 racial slurs; many
Volokh Conspiracy discussions
feature multiple racial slurs.)

This blog is outpacing its
remarkable record 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 content, here is something better.

This one is good, too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's "one week from opening night" Rolling Stones pointers:

First, a song that has been rehearsed recently . . . apparently with Paul McCartney on bass guitar.

Next, another song rehearsed recently . . . with Lady Gaga (but no indications Steve Wonder -- who played on the released version -- rehearsed with the Stones).

Here is an informed list of the songs rehearsed in L.A.:

All Down The Line
Angie
Angry
Beast Of Burden
Before They Make Me Run
Bitch
Bite My Head Off
Can't You Hear Me Knocking
Dead Flowers
Depending On You
Dreamy Skies
Emotional Rescue
Far Away Eyes
Fool To Cry
Get Close
Get Off Of My Cloud
Gimme Shelter
Happy
Heartbreaker
Honky Tonk Women
It's Only Rock'n'Roll
Jumping Jack Flash
Let It Bleed
Like A Rolling Stone
Little T&A
Live With Me
Live By The Sword
Mess It Up
Midnight Rambler
Miss You
Monkey Man
Out Of Control
Out Of Time
Paint It Black
Rocks Off
Sad Sad Sad
Satisfaction
Shattered
She's A Rainbow
She's So Cold
Slipping Away
Start Me Up
Street Fighting Man
Sweet Sounds Of Heaven
Sweet Virginia
Sympathy For The Devil
Tell Me Straight
Tumbling Dice
Under My Thumb
Whole Wide World
Wild Horses
Worried About You
You Can't Always Get What You Want
You Got The Silver

Get those tickets now!

[tylertusta]

Quoteblocks still aren't working for me.

Even when I put them midway through a comment they still don't work. The tags get removed.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You could try placing a period (.) before the initial blockquote signal (I can't reproduce it precisely because it makes reason.com's system go haywire).

That period seems to work (sometimes).

Who expects a website produced by and for misfits to work properly?

[tylertusta]

Let me try:

.This should be in quoteblock.

This should not.

[ThePublius]

Where is the Biden administration regarding the violence, lawlessness, and support of terrorism and antisemitism on campuses across the country? Where's the FBI, the DoJ?

You can bet your ass that if these thugs were Christians, Catholics, the admin, the FBI, the DoJ would be all over them.

This is causing a great divide in this country.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This guy may be the perfect distillation of this white, male, right-wing blog's essence.

[ThePublius]

Rev., what have I said there that isn't so?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You figure Christians (along with, no doubt, white males) are the persecuted Americans?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

[Sarcastr0]

Counterfactual hypocrisy is always so pure.

You talked to Jews outside of VC lately?
This is causing angst, but no divide, at least not yet.

Right sure is trying. So far they've riled up their base is all.

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13334881/Rep-Ilhan-Omars-daughter-Isra-Hirsi-homeless-anti-Israel.html

Boo hoo.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

She has her uncle’s eyes! When she transitions to a male she will look handsome!

[Michael P]

Can you believe how heartless some parents are towards their wayward children?

Or how cruel a college is to refuse to feed students who got themselves kicked out?

[apedad]

Supreme Court justices yawn at ‘new evidence’ Kari Lake cited in urgent demand to ban Dominion voting machines, jettison her case without comment

In an orders list on Monday, SCOTUS jettisoned the case without comment — leaving the Ninth Circuit’s affirmation of the dismissal in the case undisturbed even though Lake insisted this was an urgent matter supported by persuasive “new evidence.”

https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/supreme-court-justices-yawn-at-new-evidence-kari-lake-cited-in-urgent-demand-to-ban-voting-dominion-voting-machines-jettison-her-case-without-comment/

Not even a squeak from SCOTUS about the "stolen" election.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Republicans in AZ are hellbent on turning it blue apparently.

[#FFFFFFPride]

They're trying to secure the election, dude, that's how you keep it Red.

[LawTalkingGuy]

AZ republicans are going to lose because, and this will shock you, people don't like weirdos. And AZ Republicans have been doubling down on weirdness since 2020.

[#FFFFFFPride]

What's more weirdo then you f'n Democrat freaks?

Are you kidding me?

[LawTalkingGuy]

You should take your posts and read them out loud to people. I’m sure you’d come off as very normal and not at all like a complete freak.

[#FFFFFFPride]

I could die my hair cotton candy purple, put on some obnoxious glasses and then try to trans your children at the local pre-K while acting like a flaming cross-dressing homosexual.

Would that make me more normal, I mean Democrat Normal?

[Sarcastr0]

Manbun up that hair and it’d make you hawt as fuck.

Ill try and keep your new twink lifestyle under wraps, but that kind of sex bomb cant be hidden under a bushel for long!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Again. Read this out loud to people. Let me know the results.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

If the Israelis abort the precious little rape babies…they are the true monsters!

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Not getting any funnier.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

That’s right, the female body has a way of not getting pregnant when the semen comes from a raper’s penis.

[Noscitur a sociis]

To be fair, this seems consistent with the strategy being rolled out nationally.

[ReaderY]

Question: can a shared price-evaluation software algorithm be an antitrust-law price-fixing conspiracy?

If software is speech, why can’t it be crime-facilitating speech?

https://www.businessinsider.com/apartment-rent-increases-landlords-antitrust-lawsuits-real-estate-software-realpage-2024-4

[Martinned2]

The question isn't whether the software talks, but whether the software talks/facilitates talking between competitors. If it does, such software can (and has been) used as a basis for antitrust liability.

[John F. Carr]

I know people who live near Denver. When they went to rent an apartment the agent talked freely as if she had no idea what she was doing was illegal. One bedroom, third floor, mountain view... this is the price the system gives me and an identical unit rented yesterday across town at exactly that price so it's right.

Maybe it wasn't illegal. It sounded illegal. Antitrust law takes a simple concept and makes it too complicated to understand.

They told me a lot of new units are under construction so prices should come down.

[Martinned2]

You'd be surprised how many people don't know that price fixing is illegal, even if they have jobs where they really ought to know.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Rolling Stones tour of America begins on Sunday.

Criminal defendant Donald Trump is in court, listening to the prosecution outline its case against him (at which most of the witnesses against him reportedly will be his former associates. (Why isn't Trump's wife by his side? Oh . . . forgot . . . some of those former associates were among his mistresses, including the one he was with while Melania was caring for an infant.)

Spring has sprung.

Alabama's conservative bigots, who have celebrated Jefferson Davis' birthday as a state holiday for years, may soon be forced to acknowledge Juneteenth as a holiday, too.

Is this a great country, or what?

[#FFFFFFPride]

Hey, did you see what those evil vile Jews did in Palestine the other day?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Nothing occurring in Israel, Gaza, or the West Bank reflects too poorly on America.

The United States has vividly expressed its opposition to the ugly conduct of Hamas and the ugly conduct of Israel. It defended Israel from projectiles. It has warned Israel to change its ways if wants to benefit from continued American support. It is being reported that the Biden administration is about to impose formal sanctions on some of the Israeli Defense Forces' most egregious war criminals. Americans are leading an international effort to help the victims of Israel's conduct in Gaza -- at least one American has been killed by Israelis while attempting to help Gazans.

What did you have in mind with respect to your comment?

[#FFFFFFPride]

Hey do you think the reason why America continues to support Israel is because there are so many immoral and vile Jews in leadership positions in American government?

> It is being reported that the Biden administration is about to impose formal sanctions on some of the Israeli Defense Forces’ most egregious war criminals.

Now come on, you know the immoral and vile Jews at the State Department, in Congress, and in the Cabinet aren't doing to allow any President to do that.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

America has traditionally supported Israel.

For some time, Israel deserved that support.

Then, Israel abused that support and became unworthy. Electing a government animated by superstitious bigots and right-wing belligerents didn't help.

So now Israel must pay for its misconduct.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Yes! You make them filthy Jews pay!!

Preach Brother!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I would welcome Israelis to emigrate in large number to the United States before pulling the plug on Israel's right-wing belligerents. Anyone who sustained damages after America stopped subsidizing Israel in that circumstance would have punched his own ticket and deserve the consequences.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Just when you think the GOP couldn't screw up worse:
https://freebeacon.com/politics/hundreds-of-conservative-job-seekers-personal-information-exposed-by-demints-conservative-partnership-institute-which-left-resumes-uploaded-to-job-bank-unprotected/

[Martinned2]

On the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the birth of Immanuel Kant, a nice blog post about his influence on the German Basic Law: https://verfassungsblog.de/immanuel-kants-300-geburtstag-und-das-grundgesetz/

[Davedave]

No surprise that Martin wants to memorialise one of the most notoriously antisemitic philosophers to have ever ranted about Jews.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/opinion/philosophy-anti-semitism.html

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable..."

[Balisane]

I'm having a sense of schadenfreude from leftist Jews realizing that the third worlders they imported hate them in spite of it. It's leftist Jews that are the loudest voices for "migrants" and "asylum seekers."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yeah, a real man like Jesus would have smote 'em.

[Balisane]

I'm not a Christian, so I'm not in the least bit interested in what Jesus would have done.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Same here. My Golden Rule is that it’s not gay if it’s in a 3 way.

[#FFFFFFPride]

It's gay if there is more than one dick present

[Sarcastr0]

I’ll notify all the cucks.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

What if the girl only does two at a time?? Would you pass on that ass???

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I love it when conservatives realize they have been fighting to make it impossible for Omar’s daughter to abort her baby she had with her brother…so America ends up with more descendants of Omar and her brother! Great job Justice Thomas! Duuuuuuuuuuuh

[Nige]

Which right wing weirdo was pretending to be ignorant about the right-wing Great Replacement theory and the role Jews are supposed to play in it? There you go.

[Balisane]

They are playing a role in the theory. They just didn't realize that these people hate whites more than they do.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That definitely answers Nige's question.

[Nige]

Nah, it was Riva, I remember now. Fluent in every other form of right-wing jargon and name-calling, ostentatiously ignorant about the foundational theory of modern conservatism.

[Sarcastr0]

Know how I know you don't know any leftist Jews?

[apedad]

Why we won’t see Donald Trump’s hush-money trial on television

New York does not permit cameras in the courtroom. If you want to document what is going on you better bring a sketch artist.

According to The Associated Press, regulations limiting media coverage in New York courtrooms dates back nearly a century. After the trial of Bruno Hauptmann for the kidnapping and murder of Charles Lindbergh’s young son, photographers were banned from New York courtrooms. The ban extended to film and ultimately to television cameras.

The two federal courtrooms where special counsel Jack Smith will try Trump for allegedly promoting insurrection and mishandling secret documents will also be dark.

Fulton County (GA) Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee has said he will make all hearings and trials in that case available for broadcast.

https://lawandcrime.com/analysis/why-we-wont-see-donald-trumps-hush-money-trial-on-television/

Just FYI...

[#FFFFFFPride]

That corrupt Jew Judge in the hush money fake trial is shutting down court early so a Democrat juror can make a dentist appointment.

This same Jew Judge refused a request to let Trump see his son graduate.

Whatever Jew Hell looks like, I hope this corrupt Democrat Jew (BIRM) finds out firsthand.

[Balisane]

He's not a Jew. He's a Mestizo.

[SRG2]

The Volokh site is largely run and contributed to by Jewish lawyers. You should fuck off, therefore. I'm sure Stormfront would value your contribution.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You seem to disregard the slimming distinction between Stormfront fans and Volokh Conspiracy fans.

Spoiler: It's the right-wing nuttery than inclines many to disregard their differences and focus on the broader bigoted, conservative cause.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Hey Brother,

Can you believe what those vile Jews did to that food drop the other day??

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I rest my case.

Any clingers want to try to defend the Volokh Conspiracy or Stormfront?

[hobie]

Leftist Jews. Jew judges. The pro-Jew party is in full bloom today

[Sarcastr0]

Michael P, and Bob, and Ed, and all the others super concerned about Jews being targeted with hate don't seem to engage here.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Clingers gonna cling.

Until replacement.

[LawTalkingGuy]

They call that move a “Bernstein”

[LawTalkingGuy]

More seriously however, I wouldn’t be surprised if the three of them sympathize with the idea that “Democratic/liberal/left Jews aren’t really Jews.”

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

You definitely shouldn't be surprised, since they have written exactly that here on numerous occasions.

[Michael P]

Link or BS. You and your sad sack lying pals are aimply embarrassed that the campus cancel culture that you supported for years has finally reached the result that we warned you about. You don't want to admit it, so you make up things to accuse us of having said.

[Michael P]

Link or BS. You and your sad sack lying pals are simply embarrassed that the campus cancel culture that you supported for years has finally reached the result that we warned you about. You don't want to admit it, so you make up things to accuse us of having said.

[Nige]

Anti-war protests on a college campus? What an odd development!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Did you mean to reply this to me? Because I didn’t accuse you of saying anything. I said I wouldn’t be surprised if you had those views. It’s good that you don’t.

“campus cancel culture that you supported for years“

Link or BS

[Michael P]

Hey, where is your “engagement” with left wing antisemites here?

Oh, right, you’re an out and proud hypocrite when it comes to criticizing people on your side of the aisle.

And mostly, I am concerned with sticks and stones rather than words. I think we can judge for ourselves when someone mouths off.

[Sarcastr0]

I've called out Aunt Teefa and mydisplayname.

You still haven't called out WhitePride.

I am concerned with sticks and stones rather than words
Nonsense. You yell at people about their evil words on the VC all the time.

No, it's pretty clear what you are and it's exactly what I said - this is all another partisan wedge issue to you and nothing more.

[David Nieporent]

I’ve called out Aunt Teefa and mydisplayname

Actually, Mydisplayname is also a right winger.

[Sarcastr0]

Amazing this keeps happening.

[Michael P]

I think it’s telling that the rest of us are addressing the merits (or lack thereof) of the protests and the university responses directly, whereas you are laser-focused on alleging partisan bias and who is engaged in unhinged, antisemitic rants.

[Sarcastr0]

the rest of us are addressing the merits

You are transparently not in it to talk about how the protests are bad, because no one disagrees on that front.

What you’re doing is lying about the timeline so you can attack Columbia for having a weak response, and attacking liberals consistently.

The only discussion of solutions I’ve seen from you are knee jerk and unconstitutionally overbroad. Because policy or problem solving is not what you’re here for. It’s attack attack attack.

And you STILL haven't called out WhitePride.

[Davedave]

"no one disagrees on that front."

Have you read the rest of the thread?! All the usual suspects have claimed it isn't bad, or isn't happening. Rev, Nige, Martin, etc. Rev refuses to see the evidence because he doesn't want to believe it. Nige and Martin are lying because admitting what they've alluded to so many times - that they believe Jews should be gassed - doesn't suit their nefarious purposes; they're here to herd the cosplay-Nazis, which is their role in the neo-Nazi hierarchy.

[Sarcastr0]

I briefly unmuted you out of a perverse desire to see what got other people so riled up.

I see why I blocked you so fast; you do nothing more than make insane accusations.

Go back to mute.

[Davedave]

Can you not just read the thread and admit you're wrong, and that people here have indeed denied that Jews are being physically prevented from attending classes at the university in question, or that there is anything antisemitic about that?

If you can't even admit that Nige, who has repeated genocidal far-right 'talking points' and overtly antisemitic conspiracy theories at every opportunity, is clearly a white supremacist, then there's no hope for you. You're just another far right nut lying to yourself about what you believe, like almost everyone else here.

[David Nieporent]

You are — to use a clinical term — fucking insane. I have my disagreements with Nige on many points, but the notion that he is a "white supremacist" is Marjorie Taylor Green-caliber batshit crazy.

[David Nieporent]

This same Jew Judge refused a request to let Trump see his son graduate.

As always, it's hard to tell whether bigots are stupid or liars or stupid liars. Merchan (not Jewish) did no such thing.

[Frank Drackman]

Has Caitlin Clark been checked for Marfan's Syndrome? Remember Flo Hyman?

Frank

[Estragon]

Hey my sister has Marfan’s

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The discussion of Marian’s by this blog’s ample autistic contingent should be entertaining

[dwb68]

Free speech, and why I support it:

The campus protests and the bridge protests are having the opposite of intended of effect, not persuading people, rather demonstrating the rampant antisemitism that has been allowed to fester on the left.

Amount of sympathy for students who are spending 250k of their parents trust fund, or an endowment, to attend Columbia, or Yale, or anywhere else only to be blocked from campus and forced into virtual class: Zero.

As someone who worked hard with two graduate degrees, today's college is a sham and a waste of money. You don't need to spend 250k at an Ivy league to learn python, or linear algrebra, or how to solve differential equations.

[Sarcastr0]

STEMLord 'learn to code.' As though 1) the labor market is that easy these days, and 2) the only thing that's important in life is $$.

The stats on college say you're wrong about college being a good investment as well.

I don't think college is for everyone, and we absolutely need more on-ramps to all sorts of profession via apprenticeships and community colleges and professional schools.

But your reductive ambition for a grey world of high productivity code monkeys as far as the eye can see? That's bad, actually.

[LawTalkingGuy]

People with this attitude tend to be pretty dim despite their mathematical skills.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I don’t think college is for everyone, and we absolutely need more on-ramps to all sorts of profession via apprenticeships and community colleges and professional schools."

You mean, without spending 250k at an Ivy league? Sounds like you guys are violently agreeing.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Spending whatever at an Ivy league is fine for some people. And student loans to get into Ivy league is fine for other people. I'm not the one cutting down on choices here.

2. dwb68 is going against college generally.

3. I do not believe learning to code and do PDEs in your spare time is a replacement for college; dwb68 argues it is. Even as he didn't go that rout himself.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Education-disdaining wingnuts are among my favorite culture war casualties -- and a core element of the target audience of a white, male, disaffected, on-the-spectrum, right-wing blog.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Someone who doesn't think people should spend $250k at an Ivy league is an education-disdaining wingnut? You're telling on yourself, Arthur.

[Estragon]

Full freight is well more than 250 at this point

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Trump reportedly fell asleep again in court today.

Is that a surprise from someone who is up all night ranting pointlessly on social media (whether a fat old man polishing a KFC bucket or a Baja-Blasted teenager)?

As someone asked on television the other night, though, how many crimes do you need to do to get to the point where your criminal trial is so boring you take a daily nap in the courtroom?

Any speculation concerning the jurors' reaction to Trump's courtroom dozing?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Robert Kraft announced he would no longer spend his money at Columbia University.

Sad day for Columbia University.

Great day for strip mall massage parlor workers, though!

[Estragon]

“Strip mall massage parlor workers”

Oh jeez I am still trying to forget about that. That fuckin Jabba the Hut lookin guy getting a happy ending for $65 bucks… really a horrendous mental picture. I guarantee you that Kraft guy farts more during a massage than Don during an afternoon voir dire session after a trump tower taco bowl for lunch.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Dick Scaife was a regular at a $35 motel, as I remember it. He wanted to be dominated by a low-cost sex worker. On the regular. Cost him plenty in the divorce, which was fine, because it meant less money for Scaife’s wingnut and “family values”causes.

[Estragon]

It’s stunning to me that you huckleberries are wasting your time here rather than joining the dozens of brave patriots in Manhattan. This nice lady has some choice words for Ed, Armchair, Bellmore, Drackman and the rest:

“One of Mr. Trump’s most dedicated supporters, the right-wing activist Laura Loomer, flew to New York from Florida and protested outside the courthouse every day last week. She had to return to Florida this week to take care of her two dogs, she said in an interview.

Ms. Loomer, who has traveled with Mr. Trump on his private plane and met with him at his private clubs, said that some Trump supporters had been talking a big game but had been “lazy,” made excuses and failed to show up for the former president.

“They say Laura Loomer is obsessed with President Trump,” she said on Monday. “Well, everybody should be obsessed with making America great again and obsessed with taking their country back. And sometimes you have to put your personal life on hold and go out and organize for President Trump.

“That’s what I do,” she added. “You think I have a social life? You think I have a dating life? You think I’m married? You think I have kids? Do you think I go out and do fun things? No. Because I’m always putting every extra bit of time that I have into supporting President Trump.”

What a bunch of pathetic and really low energy commenters we have here. Do better, and get someone to watch your dogs— the trial is gonna last weeks!

[Estragon]

UAW wins in Chattanooga! Next up, the Mercedes plant in Alabama next month. GOP governors universally opposed, Biden supportive. Is this the beginning of labor success across the South?

[Moderation4ever]

What I find amazing is that there is more opposition from Republican politicians than from the car companies. These are foreign owned companies that deal with unions all the time in their own country and have little or no problem dealing with American unions.

[Estragon]

Well, that’s certainly true of VW, they have come out and said as much. I am not aware of Mercedes’ position on unionization but I’m fairly certain the European workforce is unionized. It’s interesting how UAW is approaching this— European car companies first— I presume the Japanese are next?

[Martinned2]

The Mercedes-Benz Group, like all German companies that size, has a supervisory board that is 50/50 shareholder elected and employee elected.

https://group.mercedes-benz.com/company/corporate-governance/supervisory-board/

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The big difference is our asinine health insurance system. If we didn’t have employer provided health insurance unions would have never stopped growing in America which is ironic because the UAW helped develop our employer provided health insurance system.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is there anything worthwhile about southern Republicans?

Spoiler: no.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

IG Metal promoted diesel passenger cars in Europe along with VW and Merkel. It’s not 100% UAW’s fault but a big reason union membership declined was because of employer provided health insurance that they helped develop as it made financial sense to pay more overtime over hiring additional workers coming out of the early 1980s recession. Employer provided health insurance is the dumbest thing ever.

[Armchair]

Some further thoughts on how odd this trial against Trump is.

This whole bit relies on the fact that Trump got an NDA, which he paid Cohen for. It was ~$130,000 for the NDA itself, and $50,000 for Cohen's fee. There were add ons, and it all got wrapped up into a single payment set, and spread over several payments.

So, in Trump's books, he records it as a legal service....there's $50,000 clearly worth of legal services there + what the legal services were for. Apparently that's a fraud...

What if Trump instead recorded it as an "NDA payment"? Of course, that means it wouldn't be recording the payment to Cohen for legal services. Once again, it's a apparently a fraud... According to this NY standard.

It's kinda nuts how broad this law is being applied. If you pay a contractor $180,000 for work on your house, he uses $130,000 of it for materials, and you write the check "For work on house"...have you now committed Fraud in NY? Maybe, according to the State of NY. Because Mr. Bragg has a broad understanding. Can't use shorthand to describe what the check was for.

Every month I write a check for the mortgage. I write "for mortgage". Technically that's not true though, it goes into an escrow account which also includes property tax payments. Looks like I'm committing fraud too, by writing "For mortgage" on my mortgage check because I don't include the words "and taxes" on it.

That's how extreme this position is.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a catch 22, really. The supposed underlying crime, (Which Bragg insists doesn't actually have to be specified, remarkably.) is apparently campaign finance fraud: Concealing a campaign expenditure as a legal expense. (You know, like Hillary recorded paying for the Steele dossier as a legal expense? Only more legitimately an actual legal expense.)

But, suppose that it HAD been reported as a campaign expense, instead? They'd just have flipped and said that it wasn't a legitimate campaign expense, that he was just protecting his private reputation, so, again, fraud.

Of course, conveniently Cohen pled guilty to the fraud, in order to avoid being nailed on some much more serious charges they had him dead to rights on. This is becoming something of a standard tactic: You find somebody dirty near your actual target, identify some serious crime they can be convicted of that's unrelated to your target.

Then you offer to not go after them on that charge, if they plead guilty some lesser offense that implicates your target. And you don't have to prove this lesser offense, because your guy is pleading guilty to it. But you now have a court saying it actually did happen, to use against said target.

I'm seeing this tactic used more and more often in recent years. Is it just because I started noticing it?

[Sarcastr0]

Counterfactual persecution! Can Trump find no respite even in fantasy???

[tylertusta]

Then you offer to not go after them on that charge, if they plead guilty some lesser offense that implicates your target. And you don’t have to prove this lesser offense, because your guy is pleading guilty to it. But you now have a court saying it actually did happen, to use against said target.

Not quite correct.

In Trump’s trial, the prosecution wanted to use Cohen’s guilty plea for campaign finance charges to implicate Trump, and Judge Merchan rightly ruled that the guilty plea is excluded for all of the reasons why you’re upset about it. Cohen’s plea is not a factual determination that Trump did something else.

That doesn’t mean that the prosecution can’t put Cohen on the stand and have him testify about a notional campaign finance violation. That would give the defense a chance to cross examine Cohen and to rebut Cohen’s testimony.

The prosecution plans on doing just that, but Trump has a chance to counter it, unlike admitting a guilty plea as proof of a campaign finance charge.

No, the real problem here is that prosecutors are violating ethical rules in furtherance of a political objective. Getting Cohen to plea guilty to a crime that SDNY know didn't happen and wouldn't stand up on appeal if they ever got a conviction is just one example in a long string of bad decisions.

[David Nieporent]

That’s how extreme this position is.

No, it isn't. You've been told repeatedly why your "explanation" is wrong. There was no retainer, and no monthly services being paid for, which is what was recorded in the Trump Org's records. (Despite the fact that this wasn't a Trump Org. expense in the first place.)

[Voize]

Bragg's statement of facts disagrees with your story. He claims:
- The $130K and $50K were both reimbursements for payments Cohen had made.
- Because recording them as payments on retainer instead of reimbursements made them taxable, Alan Weisselberg doubled the amount to ensure Cohen would net 180K after taxes.
- He then added $60K more for a total of $420K, to be paid in monthly installments

He isn't describing an innocent misfiling. Trump allegedly paid double in order to hide the true nature of the payments, and for someone with his reputation for stiffing creditors that is significant. And unless Melania was in the habit of auditing the books it wasn't her he wanted to hide it from.

[Absaroka]

Interesting AI+legal case.

tl;dr - Air Canada chatbot gives man erroneous fare info, costing him $$. When he objects Air Canada humans say they aren't liable for errors their chatbot makes. Regulators disagree.

[John F. Carr]

New York City has government chatbot giving bad advice. So far I have seen no reports of anybody getting in legal trouble and therefore no opportunity to argue justifiable mistake of law.

[Martinned2]

Thanks to Lina Khan I've just discovered that there's a town called Nevada, Iowa. That's just ridiculous.

https://twitter.com/linakhanFTC/status/1782771732778016880

[John F. Carr]

I have been to Florida, Massachusetts. A friend used to launch her kayak there. There are several towns named Peru in the United States.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Apparently, there are quite a few of these:

Alabama, New York

Montana, Wisconsin

Alaska, New Mexico

New Mexico, Maryland

Texas, New York and New York, Texas

Of course Texas likes to go big. The state not only owns Houston and Dallas and the aforementioned “little” New York, it also has a Los Angeles and a San Diego. Anyway, next time I’m rolling through the dairyland of Montana (Wisconsin) and the dusty desert of Alaska (New Mexico), I’ll be the first to let you know!

https://weekendroady.com/2012/02/13/places-named-after-states/