Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

This has not been a good week for those of us who want to see Donald Trump held accountable for his criminal conduct. Judge Loose Cannon has continued the Florida trial indefinitely -- no surprise there. The Georgia Court of Appeals has granted an application for interlocutory appeal of Judge Scott McAfee's order declining to disqualify Fani Willis from prosecuting the case.

One bright spot is that the Court of Appeals has not ordered a stay of proceedings in the trial court, and Judge McAfee has previously ruled that pretrial proceedings there will continue notwithstanding an appeal. Only nine of the Defendants sought interlocutory review. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24524408/trump-appeal-fulton-county.pdf One possibility now is that the State can seek severance of the remaining Defendants for a separate trial to begin sooner than the trial of the appealing Defendants.

[Kazinski]

Seems strange in RICO case to try to go ahead when they can't coordinate their defense with their alleged co conspirators, and can't realistically get their testimony, when it might be available in a.joint trial.

But it was never about them anyway.

[not guilty]

A separate trial of the non-appealing Defendants would cover the gamut of the RICO conspiracy, as to which all Defendants are charged. That would have the effect of publicly venting Donald Trump's criminal conduct, without Trump having the ability to controvert the State's evidence.

Trump may have unwittingly thrown the prosecutors into the briar patch.

[Kazinski]

Damn Fani (Ms Willis to you), maybe a lot smarter than I thought.

But I doubt Judge McAfee is going to have much of an appetite for it. Willis might also decide she doesn't need to risk any more L's before her re-election campaign wraps up.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, The Smasher is not out of the woods yet. There is a GA Senate investigation into her departments budget and spending. The Smasher has some spending items to answer for.....

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

"Oh, Fani...you got some 'splainin' to do!"

[Malika the Maiz]

Racist much?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Racist much?

LOL....wut?

[Frank Drackman]

Stupid much?

[Scooter]

Yes. Yes it is.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I appreciate the weirdly identical “innocent explanations” offered above

The stupidity and disingenuous nature of that characterization cannot be overstated.

Ricky Ricardo never actually said the line in that way

Yeah, it’s a commonly-used paraphrase of something he often said in different ways. Not all that dissimilar to the common “Badges! We don’t need no stinking badges!!” minor misquote from Treasure of the Sierra Madre. OMG! That makes them racist!!!

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

What’s the basis for the claim that the Ricky Riccardo character is a “Latino caricature”?

The, "When you have nothing even remotely substantive or intelligent to say, cry 'racism'!" basis.

[Malika the Maiz]

If you can't see how mocking a black woman in an Ebonics style comment is racist you may want to get out more.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It was Ricki Riccardo's catch phrase in I Love Lucy.

"Lucy, you've got some 'splainin' to do..."

[Rossami]

That wasn't ebonics, stupid. That was a Lucille Ball reference.

More specifically, it was a common line used by her husband (both on-screen and real), Desi Arnaz.

[Sarcastr0]

Oldsters: ethnic dialects from the 1960s will all look alike to a lot of younger people.

You can correct someone for not knowing the Lucille Ball show without pretending like they're an idiot for not being ancient.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If you can’t see how mocking a black woman in an Ebonics style comment is racist you may want to get out more.

If you thought that was "Ebonics style" you might want to try pulling your head out of your ass. Then again, it seems like you’re pretty comfortable with it lodged there.

[Malika the Maiz]

So the defense is it was a sixty year old Latino caricature?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Anyone want to take bets on “Malika the Maiz” and Sarcatr_0 sharing a network router?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

So the defense is it was a sixty year old Latino caricature?

No, shit-for-brains. It was a reference to a famous line by a sitcom character. Or are you under the impression that being married to redheads who routinely get themselves into trouble is some sort of Latino stereotype?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I appreciate the weirdly identical "innocent explanations" offered above, but according to highly credible Internet source, "MeTV", Ricky Ricardo never actually said the line in that way.

https://www.metv.com/lists/9-famous-tv-catchphrases-that-were-never-actually-said-on-their-shows

[TwelveInchPianist]

What's the basis for the claim that the Ricky Riccardo character is a "Latino caricature"?

[David Nieporent]

I appreciate the weirdly identical “innocent explanations” offered above, but according to highly credible Internet source, “MeTV”, Ricky Ricardo never actually said the line in that way.

Yeah, and "Beam me up, Scotty" was never said in ST, and "Play it again, Sam" isn't in Casablanca. But those phrases are still obvious references to the show/movie, respectively.

[Malika the Maiz]

It was a reference to a famous line by a sitcom character…that was a Latino caricature? The broken English, the temper, etc.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm no expert, and certainly minority performers back then did resort to minstrelsy of their own race plenty of times.

But IIRC Desi Arnaz was conscious of not slipping into that kind of trap. His accent was real, not leaned into.

Beyond that, though, I cannot be sure.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Broken English? You mean the Cuban-American actor speaking with a Cuban accent? And I don't remember him being portrayed as having a particularly strong temper. Unlike non-Latino characters such as Ralph Kramden.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Broken English? You mean the Cuban-American actor speaking with a Cuban accent? And I don’t remember him being portrayed as having a particularly strong temper. Unlike non-Latino characters such as Ralph Kramden.

He was generally portrayed as a fairly suave, sophisticated successful entrepreneur who was also a talented performer as well as a loving husband and father and just generally good guy. The horror.

[Harvey Mosley]

"You can correct someone for not knowing the Lucille Ball show without pretending like they’re an idiot for not being ancient."

When the uninformed assume racism without all the information pretending they're an idiot is the least they deserve.

[Kazinski]

There could not be racism involved, because both the character, and the actor who portrayed him were "White Hispanics" descended from Cuban Nobility.

[Malika the Maiz]

"Broken English?"

"‘splainin’"

[David Nieporent]

Are you referring to the latest Ann Coulter Special: "I like what Vivek stands for, but I can't vote for him because he's Indian."

To be fair, she's consistent; she also attacked Nikki Haley in 2015 for being Indian.
​
​
(N.B. Neither Vivek nor Haley are Indian; as evidenced by the fact that they ran for president, they're both natural born American citizens.)

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Coulter's comments were stupid, but no more stupid than yours:

(N.B. Neither Vivek nor Haley are Indian; as evidenced by the fact that they ran for president, they’re both natural born American citizens.)

She was clearly referring to their ancestral heritage, not their nations of birth. You know, like when people sometimes refer to Biden's Irish heritage, or Guiliani's Italian origins...or uses the term "African-American". She simply failed to use the hyphenated form, which appears to be enough to confuse you.

[Malika the Maiz]

Clearly!

[Nige]

Or, to put it another way, you're adding something that wasn't there to change the nature of the statements.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Clearly!

I'm still waiting for an explanation (preferably a non-insane one) of how a paraphrased quote from I Love Lucy is "racist".

[Sarcastr0]

Wuz trying to change the subject back because he's sure he had a banger.

[Malika the Maiz]

"Or, to put it another way, you’re adding something that wasn’t there to change the nature of the statements."

No, it's clearly there...if you have the Conservative Edgy Comment Decoder Ring, only 9.99, available at the same places where Trump Shoes are sold!

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

No, it’s clearly there…if you have the Conservative Edgy Comment Decoder Ring, only 9.99, available at the same places where Trump Shoes are sold!

This from the moron who thinks, "you got some `splainin' to do" is an example of Ebonics.

[David Nieporent]

Or, to put it another way, you’re adding something that wasn’t there to change the nature of the statements.

The worst part of Wuz's kibbitzing is that it even if it were valid it doesn't change the nature of the statements! Editing Coulter's statements to describe them as (say) of Indian "ancestral heritage" or Indian-American or any other formulation that would be accurate wouldn't make the statements even one iota less racist!

Indeed, if anything Wuz's version would be far more racist. In that edited version Coulter wouldn't be trying to claim that these people were objectionable because they grew up in a different culture or anything like that; she'd be saying that purely because of their skin color they're not Americans.

But in any case, Wuz's version is wrong. In 2015, Coulter said, that Haley "is an immigrant and does not understand America’s history." In 2023, Coulter said of Haley, "Why don’t you go back to your own country? This is my country."

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The worst part of Wuz’s kibbitzing is that it even if it were valid it doesn’t change the nature of the statements!

Nor did I claim it did (which is why I labeled her comments as "stupid").

But do keep on with your Sarcastr-0 level bullshit.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That said, I was unfamiliar with the Coulter quotes in question (you weren't specific in your original post) and was thinking of other things I thought I recalled her saying.

[Malika the Maiz]

Wow, gave up on that Decoder Ring pretty quickly!

[bernard11]

She was clearly referring to their ancestral heritage, not their nations of birth.

Which, in the context of whether she would vote for them, is not only idiotic, but also bigoted as hell.

It is, after all, logically no different than refusing to vote for a candidate because his grandparents, say, were Jewish, or English, (or both) for that matter.

Serious RW intellectual you've got there in Ms. Coulter. Deep thinker.

[Brett Bellmore]

I haven't paid any attention to Ann Coulter in ages.

I liked what Vivek said he stood for, but was concerned that he might be lying about what he believed. (I had the same concerns about Trump in '16, but given who his opponent was, stifled them.) Looking up his donation record somewhat relieved those concerns.

[bernard11]

I haven’t paid any attention to Ann Coulter in ages.

Too big an asshole even for you? Or is this another chapter of "I don't watch Fox, etc."

Wonder who it is that pays attention to these people, since so many deny it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, since I in fact don't watch Fox, etc, I suppose so.

[not guilty]

I think the stronger indicator of racism is not the "you got some ‘splainin’ to do!” line, but the reference to Fani Willis by her first name alone. Calling an adult black person by the first name while addressing whites as Mr., Mrs. or Miss is traditionally regarded as a sign of disrespect, especially in the South.

[mulched]

This is seriously fucking hilarious! Fucking racist NG calling out someone for disrespecting a black political figure.

[not guilty]

It's no secret that I despise Clarence Thomas, and I frequently call him out for being a toady and an cynical opportunist. He made his bones as a highly visible black Republican critic of affirmative action, except when it advanced his own career. I surmise that he regards affirmative action as a really crappy idea for anyone whose first name is not Clarence or whose last name is not Thomas. In the same vein, he is quick to lambaste every substantive due process decision of SCOTUS -- except Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

That having been said, to extrapolate from my disdain for an individual black man's lack of character to a generalized accusation of racism on my part is beyond the pale of intellectual honesty. Flinging the epithet "racist" is an attempt to shut down discussion rather than to facilitate it.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, Justice Thomas will have an impact on SCOTUS for decades to come. I think you would acknowledge that. Is that what you are really angry about? I do not believe that any sitting Justice on SCOTUS is a toady, or a cynical opportunist. Not one. I admire all of them. Justice Thomas, in particular, is an amazing American success story; it is unfortunate we do not celebrate anyone overcoming truly horrific early circumstance. I would also say in the same breath, he is a person with flaws (as we all have flaws).

BTW, you're right about calling an adult black person by first name (without expressly being invited to do so) being regarded as a sign of disrespect. In days past, it was a sign of disrespect to do that. This is a custom I am familiar with.

[bernard11]

Justice Thomas will have an impact on SCOTUS for decades to come.

No doubt.

Whether that is a good thing or not is a different matter.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"That having been said, to extrapolate from my disdain for an individual black man’s lack of character to a generalized accusation of racism on my part is beyond the pale of intellectual honesty."

Maybe so, but you omitting your frequent references to him as "Uncle Thomas" from the reasons that people accuse you of racism is much further beyond the pale of intellectual honesty.

[not guilty]

My first negative impression of Clarence Thomas was when he trashed his sister for receiving public assistance in order to curry favor with conservatives. A gentleman does not exploit his family business in public -- never mind that the veracity of his story has been challenged. https://www.chicagotribune.com/1991/07/24/thomas-sisters-life-gives-lie-to-his-welfare-fable/

Thomas worked his way up the ladder in Republican circles by exploiting his status as a conservative black man. The Washington Post wrote in 1980:

You've heard about Clarence Thomas, but not by name. He is one of the black people now on center stage in American politics: he is a Republican, a long-time supporter of Ronald Reagan, opposed to the minimum wage law, rent control, busing and affirmative action. How a black man can say no to those policies is a mystery to most black people.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/12/16/black-conservatives-center-stage/c5b44552-ad84-4a40-9b3c-3e88fdfa3589/

When then-Judge Thomas's Supreme Court nomination was imperiled, however, he played the hell out of the race card:

And from my standpoint as a black American, as far as I'm concerned, [this proceeding] is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks that in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to the old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the United States Senate rather than hung from a tree.

Comparing the prospect of losing a SCOTUS nomination fight to the horror of lynching is an unabashed outrage. When Judge Clement Haynsworth's nomination was rejected in 1969, he went on to serve another twenty years on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals -- nice work if you can get it. When Robert Bork's nomination was rejected in 1987, he remained a life tenured judge on the D.C. Circuit -- as Thomas would have had his SCOTUS nomination failed.

[mulched]

I call you a racist when you act like one. You stopped using “Uncle Tom” for a bit, which is damn good of you.

To come back and say someone else is disrespectful to a black person for using a first name is pretty rich.

To be fair, your post above isn’t racist, just hypocritical.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"BTW, you’re right about calling an adult black person by first name (without expressly being invited to do so) being regarded as a sign of disrespect. In days past, it was a sign of disrespect to do that. This is a custom I am familiar with."

Calling Fani Willis "The Smasher" whenever you bother to mention her is totally respectful though, and not at all the cries of a blatant misogynist.

[Commenter_XY]

Jason, there is an article before Smasher, and I am not using her first name without permission. 😛

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm not sure what short-bus education you received to where you believe an indefinite article in front of slut-shaming someone changes your remarks from misogynistic to acceptable.

You're a bigot. You always have been.

[David Nieporent]

I’m not sure what short-bus education you received to where you believe an indefinite article in front of slut-shaming someone changes your remarks from misogynistic to acceptable.

Ooh! I get to nitpick! "The" is a definite article, not an indefinite one.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I think the stronger indicator of racism is not the “you got some ‘splainin’ to do!” line, but the reference to Fani Willis by her first name alone. Calling an adult black person by the first name while addressing whites as Mr., Mrs. or Miss is traditionally regarded as a sign of disrespect, especially in the South.

My days of not taking you seriously are definitely coming to a middle.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It is plain that anyone who doesn't publish racial slurs as habitually as the Volokh Conspirators is the real racist . . . right, clinger?

I sense UCLA did not share your opinion.

But who needs UCLA, when you guys have have Bob Jones, Wheaton, Liberty, Hillsdale, Franciscan, Ouachita Baptist, and the other nonsense-based schools?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Hey Arthur, I've noticed that you are constantly harping on Prof V. for quoting racial slurs in court opinions and such, but you've never said anything about NG's directly racially offensive use of "Uncle Tom". What gives?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How do you suggest I handle those two contexts, clinger?

[Bwaaah]

Like a name-caller?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Calling an adult black person by the first name while addressing whites as Mr., Mrs. or Miss is traditionally regarded as a sign of disrespect, especially in the South."

And calling them Uncle was generally a way to avoid calling them Mr. as well. Of course, your preferred phrase, "Uncle Tom" is just a flat-out racial slur.

[Malika the Maiz]

How is, say, a Black person calling someone an “Uncle Tom” different than a Norwegian calling someone a “Quisling?” And if not, are both bigoted?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I would think you would be worry about how Israel is going to survive without American skirts to hide behind rather than worrying about hurling transgender slurs, wishing ill on Ms. Willis, or anything else.

Maybe Israel is just a partisan political pawn to you.

[Malika the Maiz]

Israel is pretty well-off, militarily or economically, sans any US aid.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I hope no one in Israel is dumb enough to choose to test that theory, but that's their call to make . . . It's their funeral.

[Frank Drackman]

Thats what started all of this, Revolting Arthur, 1,300+ Israeli Funerals. How many did we have on 9-11? 3,000+? didn't keep us from killing millions of A-rabs, Israelis are just better at doing it.

Frank

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I would think you would be worry about how Israel is going to survive without American skirts to hide behind..."

Well, the last time Jews were unable to defend themselves they were loaded into boxcars, taken to camps and gassed. You certainly seem to be looking forward to a repeat of something like this.

Scratch a progressive, uncover a Nazi.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I want Israel to stop its bigoted, violent, right-wing belligerence and ditch its bigoted, violent, superstition-driven right-wing government. If it does not, I want my country to stop being complicit in Israel's indefensible right-wing misconduct.

In current circumstances, I hope every decent person in Israel emigrates (and the United States should accept them) before Israel attempts to operate without American military, financial, and political cover.

Israel -- especially not the Israel of Netanyahu, Ben Givr, Smotrich and similar superstitious bigots and violent right-wingers -- is not entitled to and has established that it does not currently deserve American support. It has made grave mistakes in the United States (aligning with the losing side of the American culture war and making support for its disgusting conservative conduct a left-right divider in American politics), in the West Bank, and in Gaza. It should be held to account for all of it.

[Frank Drackman]

Shit in one hand and want in the other and see which gets filled up first.
Used to hate it when my Dad would say that, now I'm saying it.
Funny how much more reasonable my Dads got over the years.

Frank

[Bwaaah]

If my father had ever heard that line, I would surely have known it well by the time I graduated elementary school.

It occurs to me that pretty much every occasion I had to negotiate with him, that's all I ever had: shit in one hand, and want in the other. I learned early on to avoid doing anything that might put me in a position of having to negotiate with him. I now see that I was just trying to avoid that feeling of having shit in one hand and want in the other. It's worse than having nothing at all. At that point, you're pretty much "owned," as they say.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So you only want the Jews you don't like to be murdered, and want the good Jews ethnically cleansed?

As bad as you think the current Israeli government is, do you think that whatever government is likely to replace it if it is defeated will be better? Look at how Hamas treats its own people. You really want them to take over all of Israel?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I thought you guys were clinging to the claim that it isn't murder if people (including four-year-olds) are killed during wars.

Let's hope a better government replaces Israel's current right-wing assholes. Until then, let's hope America ends its complicity in bigoted, superstition-driven, immoral right-wing violence, in the West Bank, in Gaza, and anywhere else.

[TwelveInchPianist]

If you thought that you’re stupider than I thought you were.

It’s established that collateral damage during wartime isn’t murder under normal conditions and is generally the fault of the people who are putting military targets among civilians.

Raping and murdering women and children (including four-year-olds) as happened on 10/7 is murder. Putting babies in ovens is murder. Shooting rockets indiscriminately into population centers is murder.

These things were done by the people who would likely replace the Israeli government under your preferred policy.

You want the Jews that you agree with to be ethnically cleansed, and you want the Jews that you disagree with to be slaughtered.

You’re actively supporting a second Holocaust, Arthur.

[Nige]

'It’s established that collateral damage during wartime isn’t murder'

This seems like a get-out clause for the ethically challenged.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"This seems like a get-out clause for the ethically challenged."

How so? Imagine you've got an enemy bombing your cities and sending V1's and V2's over, killing your civilians. You think someone who accidentally kills a civilian while trying to destroy that capacity should be guilty of murder? How is a country supposed to defend itself?

Especially when an unscrupulous enemy might use human shields to protect its own forces, as we see with Hamas.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If you considered ethnic cleansing bad, you wouldn't be supporting the right-wing assholes engaged in just that in the West Bank.

You're just another conservative bigot who is enthusiastically lathered by the prospect of calling someone else a bigot for once, with plausible deniability.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Oh ffs. Some of us can oppose some of what happens in the West Bank, and also oppose a policy that would result in the death or displacement of every Jew in Israel.

You have made clear that you relish the idea of every Jew in Israel being killed or displaced. Because you're a Nazi.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

My position on Israel would change promptly if it (1) ditched its repulsive, bigoted, superstitious right-wing government and (2) stopped acting like a monster.

[Nige]

‘How so? Imagine you’ve got an enemy bombing your cities and sending V1’s and V2’s over, killing your civilians.’

Imagine a completely different war that’s been over for eighty years.

‘Especially when an unscrupulous enemy might use human shields to protect its own forces,’

‘They’re not civilian causalties, they’re human shields’ is a fantastic get-out clause for the ethically challenged.

‘You have made clear that you relish the idea of every Jew in Israel being killed or displaced. Because you’re a Nazi.’

No, you’ve made it clear that you can only defend being pro-war and pro-the killing of tens of thousands of civilians on these terms. Nazis are not, on the whole, known for their opposition to tens of thousands of non-white people being slaughtered.

[bernard11]

Israel can be fine, but they really do need to dump Netanyahu, get the settlers under control, and stop treating the Haredim as some sort of uniquely privileged class, or they won't be.

[Frank Drackman]

come back after 5,000 years of surviving the entire world trying to exterminate you and maybe we'll listen to your bullshit

[Bob from Ohio]

"Trump may have unwittingly thrown the prosecutors into the briar patch."

Keep hope alive!

[Scooter]

"The Walls Are Closing In!"

"Tick Tock"

"Any Day Now!"

"24 Business Hours!"

ROFLMFALO.

[Sarcastr0]

'You hopeful fools! Trump is above the law!' is not the own you think it is.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Trump doesn't seem to think things are going well these days. Why is he a muttering, profane, agitated, disheveled, glaring mess?

[Frank Drackman]

You just described Sleepy Joe to a "T", but left out the creepy remarks to young girls.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...Donald Trump held accountable for his criminal conduct."

Assumes TDS.

[tylertusta]

Proves, not assumes.

[Krychek_2]

Some Trump supporters apparently believe that the magic words "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is an incantation that makes all of Trump's ethical violations disappear. Well, it doesn't; it's just magical thinking. You could equally as well say hocus pocus or abra cadabra. Nope, he's still the criminal he was before you said those words.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It's not an incantation, it's an observation of and label for deranged lunatics who've been bathed in stress hormones, fear, and hate messaging for years now.

[Krychek_2]

But that describes Trump supporters.

[kb]

Yes, the human condition is implicated all around.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Things you believe(d):

Humanity is threatened with extinction due to global warming.
Donald Trump is going to become a dictator and enslave us all.
COVID is going to wipe out humanity.
White Supremacists are causing civil unrest all over America.
Transgenders are being erased! Literal existence being erased!

Day in, day out, you get constant messaging of FEAR FEAR FEAR.

That's why you believe everything they tell you to. Slavi Ukraini! Get Boosted! White Supremacists! Global Warming! Sacred Democracy!

What message they transmit you amplify.

[David Nieporent]

"There's an invasion of illegals! They're trying to replace you!"
"They're communists!"
"They're grooming your children!"
"CRT!"
"DEI!"
"Vaccines are killing you!"
"They're stealing elections!"

[Kazinski]

“Vaccines are killing you!”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-withdraw-blood-clots-b2541291.html

I actually got that one, not that it killed me.

[Malika the Maiz]

According to the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, “very rare” side effects are those reported in less than 1 in 10,000 cases.

“In countries with ongoing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, the benefit of vaccination in protecting against COVID-19 far outweighs the risks,” the WHO added.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-blood-clots-b2536898.html

[David Nieporent]

I actually got that one, not that it killed me.

I thought you lived in a shack in Montana or something. AstraZeneca was never approved in the U.S., not even under an EUA, so how did you get that one?

[Kazinski]

Easy, I got my first two shots in the US with Moderna. Then in 2021 being snowed out, and before I bought a winter home in Arizona, I was traveling in Southern Europe and Asia for the winter.

So I was in Cambodia, ready to fly to Greece in about a week, when Greece announced travelers with a 3rd vaccine didn't need PCR tests within 24 hours of travel. So I got my Astra Zeneca in Cambodia. I could have gotten one of the Chinese vaccines there as an alternative, but I would have submitted to the PCR test before I would have done that.

I had gotten covid in Turkey about 2 months before that, so its not like I needed a booster for anything other than for bureaucratic reasons.

[Malika the Maiz]

Are you Adam from Northern Exposure?

[Nige]

It's a weird succession of denial - global warming is real, Trump's an authoritarian who tried to overturn an election and has promised to round up millions of people and put them in camps, covid killed seven million so far no need to exaggerate how bad it was and is, white supremacists are actually invested in preserving or even reversing to an earlier form of the staus quo, so their threats and posturing are mostly bluster to try to keep the undesireables in their place, and Republicans are passing laws against transgender people. Your denials and distortions suggests you're either more scared of those things than anyone brave enough to acknoweldge their reality, or you're complicit.

[Drewski]

In your opinion, are the deranged lunatics the ones who don't have usernames like "JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes?"

[loki13]

It's my assumption that you start running out of user names when people keep muting the accounts you use.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

ASS
U
ME

Good one loki13.

[Nige]

Apparently you have discovered the amazing phenomenon of a politician being disliked. Congratulations! Wait'll you hear what they say about Biden.

[Riva]

You seem qualified enough to be on a NY or DC jury.

[bernard11]

You know, this shit about the purity and innocence and unfair persecution of Trump marks you, and anyone else who repeats it, as a gullible fool, an ignoramus, and a blind brainless cultist.

It's destructive to the country and completely dishonest.

[Frank Drackman]

Only shit is the 34 or whatever the fuck it is bullshit charges, Stormy's losing it on the stand today, can't remember which story is which, she was probably fucking Al Franken.

[bernard11]

So maybe there should only be 26 charges or something, but that's not the argument. It really is that he has never done anything wrong, or if he has some Democrat somewhere once did worse, or even if did something blatantly criminal the prosecutor is out after him, so he really should never be prosecuted for anything.

Fifth avenue cultists.

[Bob from Ohio]

"It’s destructive to the country"

Its not the political motivated prosecutions that are bad but people noticing it!

[Sarcastr0]

You regularly say that your side winning is the only principle worth sticking to, so you are not even gullible, you're just a pure party before country tool.

[Bob from Ohio]

What's good for the country is good for the GOP, and vice versa.

[Sarcastr0]

This is not the first time you've stumbled into being spot on Milo Minderbinder.

Way to literally be a tragicomic parody but in real life.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Milo Minderbinder."

Its a Secy of Defense Charles Wilson reference.

[Nige]

L'etat, c'est Trump.

[Riva]

President Trump is not the one abusing state powers to target and prosecute political opponents.

[Malika the Maiz]

so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it…

[Nige]

He tried, and next time he plans to do it better.

[Riva]

No, no he didn't. But whatever your fantasies about President Trump are, the fact remains that it is that repulsive snake Biden who is actually abusing his power by prosecuting political oppoents and you cheer it on, which shows that you are not really opposed to political prosecutions at all. So I don't understand your attacks on President Tump.

[Malika the Maiz]

so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it…

which shows that you are not really opposed to political prosecutions at all.

[Nige]

'No, no he didn’t.'

Yes, yes he did.

If it emerged that Biden personally ordered the Trump prosecutions, I would join you in your condemnation.

[bernard11]

As I said, to the Bob-level cultists Trump is pure as driven snow.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump is entitled to a presumption of innocence in the criminal proceedings against him. That does not require me or anyone else to overlook the criminal nature of his conduct on a blog comment thread.

[Krayt]

One possibility now is that the State can seek severance of the remaining Defendants for a separate trial to begin sooner than the trial of the appealing Defendants.

Because it's important to git im! before the election, in our disinterested concern for rule of law way.

Otherwise what's the point?

[Kazinski]

What was important is cameras and a huge gaggle of press for Fani's big show trial.

Alas, no Trump, then the cameras and press will be cut drastically. And Ms Willis will be cheated of her glory.

[not guilty]

Louis Brandeis, writing in a 1913 Harper’s Weekly article, observed that “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” Exposing the full extent of Donald Trump's criminality to the light of day prior to the election is in the public interest.

As Richard Nixon famously said, "People have gotta know whether or not their President's a crook." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cEdoiBbAQE

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Now do that with government conduct.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The point is due process for both parties, not special judicial favors for one of them. But you knew that.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Due process is the penultimate defense remaining to a joint popular sovereign under attack. If attackers have seized control of the courts, and thus wield power to deny due process to defenders of American constitutionalism, it is a grim augury for the peace of the nation.

Should due process fail the American People, but one test of their sovereignty remains to them. That is trial by brute force. It is thus imperative that all the energy and focus left in the executive branch be brought to bear now, to restore the People's power to command the due process owed them by their courts. However out of character that may seem for the hapless Biden administration, an option to muddle and hope seems no longer left to it.

Classical political theory counts rival sovereigns as a theoretical contradiction. A challenge to sovereignty too long tolerated, or too effective to suppress, may thus fatally vitiate the sovereignty under attack.

That may happen willy-nilly, without need for the rival to prevail itself. It may take all parties by surprise. If it does, what follows may be chaos, a new sovereignty under a tyrant, or a long-shot chance at improvement—in short, the ancient Chinese condition of, "interesting times," which no one should want to experience.

These are prospects which ought to trouble the sleep of anyone paying attention.

[Don Nico]

"That is trial by brute force."
That is what the nutjobs have been talking about Stephen, Civil War.

The state of the nation is poor, but there ain't gonna be no war.

[Kazinski]

So you are an insurrectionist now too?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Anti-insurrectionist, actually. Like most people who call for due process.

[Kazinski]

If you believe in popular sovereignty, then you should be ok with an election settling the issue.

But it seems that's the last thing you want.

[Nige]

You want to have elections to decide guilt or innocence in matters of law? For everyone or just politicians you like?

[Riva]

Uh, why not just direct the same lawfare against democrats? They have the virtue of not just being sleazy, but generally guilty of real crimes anyway. Take the Big Guy for example. How about another state pass a law allowing a felony prosecution for unnamed crimes. At some point in the trial, the prosecutor could suggest 3 or 4 possible crimes, or maybe just leave it to the imagination of the jury to convict for whatever reason they want.

[kb]

No, better to be on the high ground when the waters of justice rise.

[David Nieporent]

How about another state pass a law allowing a felony prosecution for unnamed crimes. At some point in the trial, the prosecutor could suggest 3 or 4 possible crimes, or maybe just leave it to the imagination of the jury to convict for whatever reason they want.

Still lying about this, I see. But that's all you do.

[Riva]

You're giving even gaslighting a bad name. This is the sick process you approve.

[David Nieporent]

You don't know what the word gaslighting means. You just think it sounds more sophisticated than "liar." Which it doesn't, but also it means something different.

Also, neither applies here (to my comment — it does to yours) since there are no "unnamed crimes" and the prosecutor did not suggest anything "at some point in the trial," and nothing is left to the imagination of the jury.

[Riva]

Your attacks against me are yet more gaslighting, presenting false information with the intent of trying to make people doubt their own understanding of the facts. You have approved of this gross abuse of law and process occurring in the Biden orchestated NY farce in other comments. Then deny you ever made any such comments and/or deny that these abuses are occurring. You’re dishonest enough to work for Bragg or that reptile Biden. You should apply.

[David Nieporent]

It's amazing how snowflaky Trumpkins are.

[Riva]

Yeah, I guess supporters of President Trump are disgusted at the republic ending lawfare abuses of Biden et al. You would be too if you had any respect for this country and the constitution.

[Sarcastr0]

Riva, DMN just wrecked you in the Monday thread. You came back and posted the same shit again.

Melodrama won't hide you obvious ignorance.

[Riva]

Yeah, same old stupid constitutional due process shit.

[Sarcastr0]

stupid constitutional due process shit.

OK, this is gold.

[Riva]

No, you witless clown, it's sarcasm.

[not guilty]

"At some point in the trial, the prosecutor could suggest 3 or 4 possible crimes, or maybe just leave it to the imagination of the jury to convict for whatever reason they want."

That is simply untrue. In pretrial proceedings, the prosecution identified four possible object offenses which Trump intended to aid or conceal. Judge Merchan in an order dated February 13, 2024 allowed argument on three such offenses and disallowed argument of the fourth. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24432832/2024-02-15-order-denying-motion-to-dismiss-people-v-donaldtrump-2-15-24decision-1.pdf

As John Adams stated, facts are stubborn things. Trump supporters, however, seem to prefer Ronald Reagan's paraphrase: facts are stupid things.

[Drewski]

"Classical political theory counts rival sovereigns as a theoretical contradiction. "

Yes, and classical disease theory is that it is transmitted by bad smells. Luckily, we aren't constrained by 16th-century theories.

[Riva]

Too bad we can’t say the same thing about 19th theories, like Marxism, and 20th century developments, like fascism. At least among democrat circles, although they also seem to enjoy some good old fashioned 18th century French revolutionary fervor.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Drewski, then or now, an exception is a contradiction in terms. But of course to know that, you have to understand the terms.

[Drewski]

Nobody really understands sovereignty as a defined word. It's elicited almost infinite debate on its meaning and contours. Just about the only thing people agree on is that the "classical" definition is wrong, was never right, and doesn't even work conceptually without a divine right to rule. So it's pretty funny that it's your working definition.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Oakeshott understood sovereignty as a defined word. But he would ask you to read history, not in present context but in historical context—which is a pretty heavy demand for anyone not professionally trained. But start by reading Oakeshott's, On History, to get a glimpse of what professional training can add.

Or just take a shortcut, and start winnowing out stuff you've heard which makes nonsense of American constitutionalism. Like the notion of rights which pre-exist government. Or a government at once the principal danger to rights, but with government power the means to vindicate rights. Start trying to notice contradictions like those, and see what's left after you eliminate them.

Of course the simplistic interpretation of a divine right to rule is the opposite of the American notion of sovereignty. It is also the opposite of my advocacy. I'm surprised you did not pick up on that.

You sound like you might have read Leviathan. What did you think it was about?

Also? Take a look at Edmund Morgan's, Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America.

Invention of joint popular sovereignty as a practical political system was an American novelty. It changed government practices world-wide. For insight into how that came about, read, Jack N. Rakove, Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution.

Also, as usual, pay attention to the American Founders. Pay particularly close attention to James Wilson. For its power to shock some folks out of complacent notions about due process and its relation to American constitutionalism, I cite this from Wilson pretty often:

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

It's not that folks can't understand this stuff. It's mainly that most of the important thinking about it happened a few hundred years ago, and hasn't had much mention recently. So you hear all sorts of stuff made up recently, often by folks who have no idea what they are talking about. Then you end up mumbling stuff like, "Nobody really understands sovereignty as a defined word. It’s elicited almost infinite debate on its meaning and contours."

For an easy take-away you can count on, here is this: under American constitutionalism, government was never meant to be sovereign. If you think otherwise, you are doing it wrong. The first 3 words of the Constitution should tip you off.

[Riva]

Some day, you may understand that employing republic ending tactics to target political opponents was probably not the wisest course of action. If you're as ignorant as the Hamas terrorist supporting refuse at certain universities (as your comment suggests), you may never understand.

[Malika the Maiz]

"target political opponents"

Do you feel any tension, irony or hypocrisy in saying this in defense of a politician who ran in 2016 on "locking up" his political opponent, as President pushed to condition aid on foreign prosecution of his political opponent, etc.?

[Bob from Ohio]

Campaign rhetoric is a tiny bit different than actually starting the prosecutions.

[Malika the Maiz]

Trump's Ukraine aid conditioning on Ukrainian prosecution was not campaign rhetoric.

[Bob from Ohio]

"who ran in 2016 on “locking up” his political opponent"

[Sarcastr0]

And repeatedly tried to do it.

His own appointees at the DoJ did not find sufficient factual predicate.

By contrast, trump's crimeing is so open he's got multiple jurisdictions going after him.

[Riva]

The fact of a political prosecution justifies it? But the really joke is that you probably think you made a profound point. Probably enough to convince the idiotic Hamas supporting protesters.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump's bad at hiding his crimes. You are really bad at insults.

A 2 sentence windeup for that? Pathetic.

[Malika the Maiz]

Biden was Trump's leading 2020 political opponent when Trump pressured Ukraine to initiate a prosecution of him. But I'm happy to see you concede Trump is happy to go beyond mere political campaign rhetoric.

[Nige]

He actually tried, though. And now he's promising to replace officials with personal loyalists who will carry out his orders. He also sued her, and lost. Funny we don’t hear more about that.

[Riva]

You have a poor understanding of the facts but that’s beside the point. If you’re against political prosecutions you should be against what Biden is doing, regardless of what you believe President Trump wanted to do.

[Kazinski]

As you might have heard the Georgia court of Appeals has announced they will hear Trump's Appeal of Judge McAfee's decision allowing Fani Willis to remain as the prosecutor in Trumps Georgia RICO case. This will almost certainly not allow Trump to go to trial on that case until next year:

“There’s no way this case gets to trial this year,” said Atlanta defense attorney Andrew Fleischman, who is closing following the case. “I would expect the appeals court to issue its opinion some time next year.”

https://www.ajc.com/politics/court-of-appeals-agrees-to-consider-da-removal-in-trump-election-case/HKUMTFNJ7VFNDDXKSJVAEBFP64/

With the decision in Florida to indefinitely postpone that case, and the DC case still held up at SCOTUS, and at least a possibility of a remand to the Court of Appeals or district court this might clear Trumps legal calendar for the duration of the campaign, with the exception of the NY case, which is looking weaker by the day.

[Krayt]

I know nothing about this Fani Willis thing, as I don’t follow the technical arguments of the various trials, as it seems like arguing angels dancing on the head of a pin, in a larger context of gross abuse of power against a political opponent, and I choose not to participate in that. I don't defend Trump, so won't scurry about looking at details to exonerate, but rather squeak the whole system is out of order to deaf ears playing their little roles the power brokers want.

So I know little, other than, apparently, her name is pronounced fah-nee, which is immeasurably disappointing.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

it seems like arguing angels dancing on the head of a pin

I'd argue that what appears to be corrupt activities by the prosecutor pursuing an historic case against a former president amounts to more than that.

[Longtobefree]

Yeah, there are no angels involved in this.

[SRG2]

this might clear Trumps legal calendar for the duration of the campaign,

Which of course was the Trump/Republican judges strategy from the beginning.

[Mr. Bumble]

Which Trump/Republican judges are they?

[SRG2]

Do you live under a rock?

Cannon, for one.

[Frank Drackman]

Ah Gee, I thought the Colombian born Biden Donor Judge was a Repubic-clown.....

[Mr. Bumble]

You said "judges" (plural) and named one: keep going.

[SRG2]

Do you concede that I am right about Cannon?

Then I will mention others.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I, for one, will concede that she was nominated by Trump.

Now keep going.

[Sarcastr0]

Bumble admitting SRG2 is right to try and win Internet debate points about misuse of the plural.

[Bob from Ohio]

"misuse of the plural"

The Chief Nitpicker comments.

You police plural and word choice al the time.

[Sarcastr0]

Sometimes it's material to the thesis. Sometimes it isn't.

The point here is less the plural aspect and more that the quick pivot to that as the only point of contention amusingly concedes quite a bit.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Says the guy who tries to defend his nonstandard use of the word "legitimate" by conceding that forming a human chain around polling places to prevent black people from voting is a legitimate way to advance policy goals.

All bumble conceded was that Cannon was nominated by Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

I have told you your characterization of my position is bullshit multiple times, including my explanation of why.

You still bring it up in random unreleated threads.

Stop lying about me, asshole.

[TwelveInchPianist]

On the contrary, when I posed the hypo you claimed it was legitimate even if the ends were immoral.

And I bring it into other threads because you deserve to be roundly mocked for saying something that stupid.

[Sarcastr0]

I said the method is legitimate independent of if the ends are illegitimate. The converse of the ends don’t justify the means.

And here you are taking that and misreading it so you can accuse me over and over of something I do not believe,

Now quit stalking me you creepy fucker.

[TwelveInchPianist]

No, you make a blanket comment that civil disobedience is a legitimate way to pursue policy goals, and responded to my hypo with a comment that a legitimate means to bring about an immoral end still sucked.

You couldn't have said that the ends were illegitimate because you were trying to ratfuck the definition of legitimate to come to an otherwise unsupportable outcome.

[Sarcastr0]

civil disobedience is a legitimate way to pursue policy goals

Way means method. It says nothing about the goals.

"the method is legitimate independent of if the ends are illegitimate"
is the same as saying "a legitimate means to bring about an immoral end still sucks"

I said it; you misinterpreted it; I've corrected you 4 times now.

That you're to fucking thick to realize you got it wrong doesn't give you an excuse to stalk me from thread to thread putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.

Quit it. I'm asking you to quit it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I said it; you misinterpreted it; I’ve corrected you 4 times now."

Yeah, but your problem is that I didn't misinterpret it. You bullshat yourself into a corner when you misinterpreted Brett's comment and insisted that civil disobedience for an unjust cause was still civil disobedience, and thus legitimate.

I didn't force you to spew that bullshit, you could have just taken the L.

So we're left with your claim that forming a human chain around polling places for the purpose of preventing black people from voting is a legitimate was of advancing policy goals.

And I have to say that I'm shocked (shocked!) that people like yourself still feel that way in this day and age.

[Sarcastr0]

I think you're wrong. About what *I was meaning when I wrote the thing*.

But lets say I did get it wrong. At this point I've made it abundantly clear the intent here. Even if I misspoke, at this point you should back off.

[Bwaaah]

“But lets say I did get it wrong. At this point I’ve made it abundantly clear the intent here. Even if I misspoke, at this point you should back off.”

Sarc meant well. So STFU. It’s not about being right; it’s about being righteous. Don’t count the dead; count how many you wish had lived.

[Sarcastr0]

Following me around to nonrelevant threads and not even quoting me but just writing something I didn't say?

Fuck you if you think that's on me, Bwaaah.

[Mr. Bumble]

Douche speaks.

[Krayt]

Is it unethical to try to delay until after the election, trials being pushed for completion before the election, to hurt a political opponent?

Facetious claims they are not pushed are silly, as a number of postings this morning amply demonstrate.

[Nige]

If he's cleared it exonerates him and can only help him. Also Trump supporters value his criminality so even a guilty finding helps him. People get to vote knowing one way or the other.

[tylertusta]

Come on, look on the bright side.

If Trump is somehow not convicted in New York, then Merchan will be free to re-try Trump starting on October 1st.

[not guilty]

"If Trump is somehow not convicted in New York, then Merchan will be free to re-try Trump starting on October 1st."

How so? That doesn't make sense. (Unless there is a mistrial declared in the instant proceeding.)

[santamonica811]

(I think, in his hypo, there has been a hung jury. Which, of course, would allow for a retrial.)

[tylertusta]

I don't see any way that Trump gets acquitted.

Any non-conviction will be because of a mistrial.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes. The testimony this week was highly charged. POTUS Trump will be found guilty of something, that is almost a certainty now.

[Kazinski]

Not that I'm keeping score but two months ago, I was assured there were no grounds for appeal and the chances the appeals court would hear it were slim and none:

"There is not any realistic possibility that the appellate court will find that Judge McAfee abused his discretion. To reiterate the authorities I cited above, the Court of Appeals applies an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to disqualify a prosecuting attorney."

"It is well nigh impossible to get an appellate court to reverse a trial court’s fact-bound ruling where abuse of discretion is the applicable standard of review. Where, as here, the order relies upon credibility determinations, an appellant’s burden is insurmountable."

Here is the top of the thread:
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/03/21/thursday-open-thread-182/?comments=true#comment-10492496

To be sure the appeals court hasn't found anything yet, and it only takes one judge of the three judge panel to hear it.

But they are going to hear it.

[tylertusta]

The way things work in Georgia is that a panel of three random judges decides whether to grant an interlocutory appeal, and it only takes one judge to grant the appeal. The case is then later assigned to a different panel of random judges to actually hear the appeal.

So it is possible that initially one appellate judge thought that McAfee got it wrong, but the randomly assigned judges think that McAfee got it right.

On the whole, I like Georgia's procedure here. It disincentivizes appellate judges from shepherding pet projects and pushing their thumbs on the scale for a particular outcome... something that some Federal appellate judges can't seem to resist in other contexts (looking at you, Judge Easterbrook).

[tylertusta]

Not that I’m keeping score but two months ago, I was assured there were no grounds for appeal and the chances the appeals court would hear it were slim and none:

It’s almost as if some of our friends here aren’t trying to explain the legal issues in an even-handed manner to us non-lawyers. Rather, it certainly feels like our friends here are LARPing as prosecutors: they only present one interpretation of the facts, the relevant laws, and the associated precedent.

However, in an adversaries legal system like we have, the other side gets to make arguments, too, and they sometimes make damned good ones. Our friends seem to ignore that.

This one-sided way of presenting an issue happens a lot on places like Twitter, and to a lesser extent here (if only because this site receives much less traffic). Lawyers are trading on their names and reputations to provide a slanted view of what is happening in these cases and what the legal issues are, and when it comes out different from what they predict, they look like fools.

It’s my observation that law professors are the absolute worst. The joke that “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.” is prophetic when it comes to Trump’s legal woes. Legal journalists are nearly as bad.

People need to spend less time listening to the likes of Lawrence Tribe and places like Lawfare, go outside, and touch some grass.

[Kazinski]

Well no doubt we are still wrong, and for the reasons they've explained, and will keep explaining, and the judges are wrong for hearing the case too.

I can live with that, even if I'm consistently wrong about matters in which I'm not a expert like the law, it is gratifying to be wrong the same way the judges who are experts are wrong.

[tylertusta]

Imagine all of the things you were told you were wrong about where the judge later (and wrongly) agreed with you.

What is your favorite?

[Brett Bellmore]

My personal favorite was when people were telling me I was an idiot to say that the Supreme court would rule that the federal insurrection law was enabling legislation for Section 3, and occupied the field until such time as Congress enacted other enabling legislation.

I got roundly mocked for that.

[tylertusta]

I feel ya. I made a similar argument and the acrimony was palpable.

[David Nieporent]

I got roundly mocked for that.

Well, because it was dumb. Imagine Brett Bellmore of all people suddenly deciding that if the Supreme Court says something, it's necessarily correct.

(Am I doing the same thing here? No. Unlike Brett, I can think the Court should have ruled a different way without thinking that the Court's decision is corrupt and not actually controlling.)

[tylertusta]

David, I’m sure you’ll add Trump v Anderson to a list of decisions you’ve disagreed with. I, too, have my own small pile of cases that I think were wrongly decided.

However, the next time you cast a legal argument as frivolous, you had better hope that the Supreme Court doesn’t embrace it. In that case, the outcome you derided turned out to be unanimous (at least when it comes to the President).

Turns out it’s not so frivolous after all.

[Noscitur a sociis]

However, the next time you cast a legal argument as frivolous, you had better hope that the Supreme Court doesn’t embrace it.

I don't recall anyone saying it was frivolous. I do recall them saying it was wrong. Which it plainly is.

[Commenter_XY]

All 9 Justices got it wrong in Trump v Anderson, Nas. That is what you are saying?

[Brett Bellmore]

“Imagine Brett Bellmore of all people suddenly deciding that if the Supreme Court says something, it’s necessarily correct.”

Imagine Brett Bellmore of all people deciding something was correct, and later the Supreme court agrees with him in a unanimous decision, you mean? Because I was predicting how the Court would likely rule, not reacting to the ruling.

I should say, though, that I didn't predict the Court would rule that way on the basis of it being correct, but only on the basis of their not wanting pretextual Section 3 actions to become a common tactic.

[Voize]

They unanimously held that federalism doesn't permit the states to disqualify federal candidates based on section 3.

Five of them also signed onto dicta about federal enabling legislation.

[tylertusta]

Five of them also signed onto dicta about federal enabling legislation.

If a majority of the Justices agree on something, it's not dicta.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If a majority of the Justices agree on something, it’s not dicta.

1. That is not, in fact, what does or doesn't make something dicta.

2. A proposition joined by only five justices is not "a unanimous decision", which was Brett Bellmore's claim.

Other than that, great comment!

[Voize]

No tyler, dicta is statements in an opinion that are not essential to the decision. They are not part of the holding of the case and not binding precedent, although lower courts may find them persuasive and choose to use them as guidance.

[Bob from Ohio]

dicta is a statement in an opinion that the speaker does not agree with or otherwise like

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Er, since when?

[tylertusta]

Noscitur:

That is not, in fact, what does or doesn’t make something dicta.

The context of my reply was a majority saying that federal enabling legislation is necessary.

Are you suggesting that the majority opinion was dicta?

A proposition joined by only five justices is not “a unanimous decision”, which was Brett Bellmore’s claim.

And my name is not Brett Bellmore.

Voize:

Broad decisions are not dicta. What matters is the holding.

What did the Court hold in Trump v Anderson? Hint: It’s on the first page.

Bob:

Evidently, that’s how a lot of people in the VC comments views it!

[BrotherMovesOn]

I had previously been on the fence as to you whether you were an attorney or not.
“Could be …" , I thought.
Thanks for clarifying.

[Kazinski]

Heller will always be my favorite.

[tylertusta]

Was that here at the VC blog or elsewhere?

(At that point in time the VC blog was independently hosted, and I wasn't in the comment sections back then)

[Kazinski]

I go back to the years before Volokh even had comments.

[David Nieporent]

Not that I’m keeping score but two months ago, I was assured there were no grounds for appeal and the chances the appeals court would hear it were slim and none:

I assume that you're quoting commenter "not guilty." Sometimes he overconfidently makes predictions (something we're all guilty of, of course), but nothing in that quote says what you said. That quote says that there's no realistic chance that they'll overturn the decision, not that they won't hear it.

[Kazinski]

Yeah and I have to admit you didn't follow him out on that limb, but read the thread, he was dismissive of any grounds for an appeal.

And yes, I'm guilty of overconfidence too, but I don't routinely demand people supply authority for disagreeing with me.

[not guilty]

I routinely furnish legal authority for claims that I make and link to original source materials where I can. I do that out of respect for readers, who can fact check me in real time.

My habit of asking whether other commenters have contrary authorities comes from litigating hundreds of appeals, both criminal and civil. When a judge asks, "Do you have any authority for that proposition?", it is bad form for an advocate to ignore the question. If the question is novel, acknowledge that it is one of first impression, but don't ignore the inquiry.

I know this comment thread is not a court, but intellectual honesty should preclude making shit up in the manner that too many commenters here do. You can take a litigator out of the courtroom, but you can't take the courtroom out of a litigator.

[Scooter]

I never expected McAfee to DQ Willis. If he had, he would have been primaried out in the next election. This way, he gets to make a stupid ruling, let the Appellate Court do the heavy lifting and point to them like Donald Sutherland in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers".

[not guilty]

Judge Scott McAfee is running for election in a nonpartisan contest.

[Harvey Mosley]

Judge Scott McAfee is running for election in a nonpartisan contest.

In which partisans will be voting.

(Not that I agree or disagree with Scooter but "non partisan" elections are never really non partisan.

[David Nieporent]

You missed his point, which is that you can't "primary" someone in a non-partisan election.

[not guilty]

Exactly.

[darkknight9]

#teamcashew

NHL playoffs round 2. May Basho starts this weekend. Son turned 23 and he's takin me out for breakfast in a few hours.

Other than the upcoming apocalyptic "summer before an election" and what's probably going to be a wretchedly hot summer, the next couple of weeks aren't looking too shabby.

Anybody bust out the grill yet? I'm thinking of getting one of those water smoker indirect thingies for a webber kettle and trying out a little smoking at the park this summer.

[Kazinski]

Wretchedly hot summer?

I don't know, about that, my cabin in the Sierras just got 12-18" of snow, so I'm stuck here in AZ for another few weeks, doesn't seem so bad.

[darkknight9]

When I die, I want you to remember me as I am right now. Filled with jealousy due to my complete lack of snow. 🙁

[Brett Bellmore]

I never bust the grill in. Never did even when I lived in Michigan. Just brushed the snow off it and kept grilling.

My grill has one of those sidebox manual smokers, a real pain to keep going for long times. I've thought about getting a more automated one, but this one DOES get it done. Turns out pretty good smoked trout, actually.

[Kazinski]

I did some smoked trout, about two weeks ago.

Before that I had just gotten a new meat grinder, so I turned a whole brisket into hamburger and two different kinds of smoked sausage. Turned out well, untrimmed brisket has enough fat, and much more flavor than most other cuts.

[BrotherMovesOn]

What is the difference between what you have and an automated one? Novice here.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, the automated ones typically feed pellets, and regulate air flow, to maintain a consistent temperature and smoke production without any manual intervention.

With a manual one you have to keep an eye on the temperature and adjust the air flow and fuel load manually to keep it in the zone.

I don't want to exaggerate how hard that is: I typically wrap chunked cherry wood in foil packets with a hole poked in them ahead of doing the smoking. Then I start a small charcoal fire in the smoke box, and put a pan of water under the grill in the main compartment. When the grill has reached temperature, I drop a foil packet on the charcoal fire, and the wood starts smoking without access to air. Then the food goes on.

You keep the temperature down by adjusting the air vent into the smoke box. When the smoke dwindles, you take the foil packet, tear it open, and dump the charcoal inside onto the fire, and add a new packet.

Once it's going you only have to glance at it every half hour or so while doing other stuff.

OTOH, my brother has one of the automated units that's electrically powered, and once his is set up, he can just walk away, and it texts his phone when the food is done. Which is convenient, but I'm more of a hands on guy. (And I'm cheap!)

[Kazinski]

I had a nice Brinkman offset grill with heavy rolled steel for many years but I left it behind when I retired. It did a great job of retaining heat, smoking and slow cooking, and in the northwest there are good hardwoods like alder and maple, and fruit woods like cherry and apple for smoking.

Now I got a.cheapo, that doesn't retain the heat that well, and its hard to slow smoke things properly. But I find I still get pretty good results throwing it in the smoker 2 or 3 hours, and then finishing whatever it is in the oven, and have the control I need to get it to the right temperature in the right amount of time. And it does make it easier to deal with issues like a brisket stall, where your pulling your hair out on a smoker.

[Brett Bellmore]

I bought mine on clearance from Tractor Supply, and have no complaints, except that the ash pan in the main chamber is kind of flimsy, and seriously needs replacing at this point.

[Scooter]

I've got a pellet grill and a gravity fed charcoal smoker (deep discount from a friend of a friend); both have digital controls and work well. I personally don't have the patience to babysit a firebox; but respect those who do.

[BrotherMovesOn]

BB Thanks. Gotcha.

[bernard11]

I hate appliances that have apps. They never work right, often lose the connection, and crowd your phone with one more icon.

If you are going to smoke something, do it yourself, monitor the process, watch the heat and the smoke, etc.

If you want a computer to do it just go eat out.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose if I were routinely smoking food, I'd want to automate it. As I only do it a few times a year, it's hardly worth the expense.

[bernard11]

I used to have a thing called a "Mr. Meat" smoker. Don't know if they are still sold, but it worked great.

It's just a vertical metal cylinder, with a couple of levels inside, which can hold charcoal and a water pan, plus of course the food at a choice of levels.

It was a little too small, but big enough for most occasions, and cheap.

[Sarcastr0]

Hot take: propane grills are just an outdoor stove. For the real grill flavor gotta do wood or charcoal.

[Brett Bellmore]

See, we can agree about things!

Also, propane doesn't get nearly as hot as charcoal or wood, so it's harder to get a decent sear on your steak. Natural gas burns hotter than propane, it's less of an issue if you have a natural gas grill.

[Mr. Bumble]

I think you have that backward.

[Moderation4ever]

Propane and methane actually burn about the same temperature you get more heat of combustion from propane. This makes sense as propane has three time the carbon as methane.

[Brett Bellmore]

All the literature I've looked up agrees with you, but that wasn't my experience.

Mind, this comes from using appliances designed for use with natural gas, and adapted to use propane, so maybe the adaptation wasn't well done?

[Kazinski]

Yep, but its not a huge difference. But it may be due to not adjusting your jets for the pressure difference. Natural gas standard pressure is 7" water column (yeah that's a rather strange unit of measure), and standard propane regulator is 14" water column. So Propane uses smaller jets to restrict the flow. I when I got my gas stove at my cabin I had to switch the jets to use propane and they are obviously smaller in diameter. I'm not sure whether molecule size is a factor either, but methane is also a much smaller molecule than propane.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Water column was an easy & accurate way to measure pressure 150 years ago. We still measure blood pressure in column of mercury, and old gauges actually had a mercury column.

Propane is C3H8, Methane is CH4 — Propane is heavier than air, Methane is lighter. When they converted from Manufactured (Coal) Gas to Methane in the 1950s, they had to drill holes in all of the existing stove burners because the methane flames were floating off the burners.

Propane per volume has twice the heat of Methane which is why you have smaller jets — you’d have too much heat otherwise. Another fun fact — propane boils at about -30 so if the liquid in the tank gets to that temperature (and it can even if it is warmer outside because of evaporation being a cooling process) you don’t have gas.

I doubt molecule size makes a difference.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, one winter in Michigan my propane delivery was late, and I was about to run out of heating fuel. So I cannibalized my gas grill to run my home heating system off grill tanks. (Home propane and grills run at the same pressure.)

It only barely worked because the draw rate was so high that the tank froze over and got so cold your fingers would stick to it. Had to shut off my water heater as it was, because if it and the furnace kicked in at the same time, the tank would treat it as an open valve condition and shut the emergency cutoff.

[Frank Drackman]

“Dr” Ed, don’t quit your Day job, Mercury Sphygmomanometers (pronounced “Spig-O-Momano-Meter”) haven’t been used for decades, last one I saw was in the Navy 1997, when we accidently broke one, and one of the Corpsemen gave another doc a heart attack by swallowing up the collected Mercury (No, he didn’t die, Elemental Mercury, as used in S-meters, is non toxic)
Except for direct BP measuring in an Arterial Line, all BPs are done with the “Oscillometric” method, sensor detects the vibration in the artery, which is maximum at the Mean Arterial Pressure, Propietary Algorhythms calculate the Systolic/Diastolic Pressures (thank NASA, technique was first used on Apollo Capsules) Conditions with irregular heart beats can confuse the machines, but nobody uses an old fashioned Mercury one (Felony to own one in California) we just use the Oscillometric one to pump up and then listen for the “Korotkoff Sounds” over the Brachial Artery (ask a new Med School Grad if he/she/they have heard of either, they haven’t)

Frank

OK, you did say only that BP is still measured in mm of Mercury (New England Journal of Medicine used to report BP in "Pascals" just to be different, they went back to mm Mercury because it sounds ridiculous to report a normal BP of 16,000/10,600

[Krayt]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foWcjWz7pxU

[ThePublius]

"While both propane and natural gas burn at the same temperature—3,560˚ Fahrenheit—what you get when they burn is where the differentiation is greatly noticed. And those differences show why propane is the superior choice. We’ll explain.

PROPANE GETS YOU MORE VALUE
Unit-for-unit, propane delivers much more heat than you get from natural gas. One cubic foot of propane generates approximately 2,520 BTUs (British Thermal Units) of heat. One cubic foot of natural gas generates a paltry 1,012 BTUs (British Thermal Units) of heat."

https://www.blueflamedelivers.com/hotter-burning-fuel/#:~:text=Unit%2Dfor%2Dunit%2C%20propane,British%20Thermal%20Units)%20of%20heat.

[Kazinski]

Right because Natural gas is stored and transported at a much lower pressure and density.

Propane is so compressible it turns to a liquid, Natural gas has to be frozen to liquify it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Freezing" is + 32 F.

Propane is a liquid at about -40 F and Methane about -260 F.
And even if you compress Propane, you still have to remove the heat generated.

[Davy C]

> gas has to be frozen to liquify it.

I'm just going to chuckle to myself a while about that one.

[Voize]

That sounds like someone trying to sell propane.

According to the Energy Information Administration website the national average residential price for propane in February was $2.61 per gallon.
A gallon yields 91,452 BTU, so that works out to $28.54 per million BTU.

Meanwhile elsewhere on the site the national average residential price for natural gas in the same month was $13.25 per million BTU.

[Absaroka]

Indeed. There is a reason people who can hook up to the natural gas network don't have propane tanks in their yard.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And why there are Methane=fueled outdoor grills.

[Mr. Bumble]

I think it's more a factor of convenience rather than cost.
No tanks to lug around and no running out of fuel in the middle of your cook out.

[Kazinski]

They put a natural gas hookup in my backyard when they built the house, eventually ill put a grill or stove their to go with the natural smoker.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Also, propane doesn’t get nearly as hot as charcoal or wood, so it’s harder to get a decent sear on your steak.

I sous vide steaks and then sear them with a weed torch (seriously, the results are excellent and it only takes about 15 seconds total time...and I get to do the Tim Allen triumphant cave man grunt the whole time because...fire.) Before I got the weed torch my searing solution was an old cast iron skillet that had no seasoning layer, heated to just over 700°F on my propane grill. That did a very good job as well, just not as good as the torch.

[ThePublius]

S70,
It's just so tempting to argue with you! 🙂
Actually, a propane grill is an outdoor grill, just as one can have a grill indoors, as with some of those fancy gas ranges, like Jenn Air. You're exposing the meat directly to the flame. But, I agree, it doesn't impart any really interesting flavor, as does a wood or charcoal grill.

I would love to have one of those egg things, but they're expensive.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Actually, a propane grill is an outdoor grill, just as one can have a grill indoors, as with some of those fancy gas ranges, like Jenn Air. You’re exposing the meat directly to the flame. But, I agree, it doesn’t impart any really interesting flavor, as does a wood or charcoal grill.

The solution to that: https://www.acehardware.com/departments/outdoor-living/grills-and-smokers/grilling-utensils-and-tools/8592248

[Mr. Bumble]

Is withholding Congressionally approved aid to Israel and impeachable offensive?

[BrotherMovesOn]

I'll reply in the stead of DMN.
No.
This has been another snappy answer to stupid questions.

[Mr. Bumble]

So DJT was wrongly impeached?

[not guilty]

Uh, when was Donald Trump impeached for withholding Congressionally approved aid to Israel?

[Armchair]

He's clearly referring to Ukraine and the aid holdup there.

"Playing dumb" is the sign of a weak argument and weak mind.

[Sarcastr0]

That was not what he was impeached for.

1. Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.

2. President Trump directed Executive Branch agencies, offices, and officials not to comply with...subpoenas

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>1. Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.

Right, had the DOJ been filled with Republicans instead of Democrats, and Republican AG's and DA's been as corrupt as Democrat ones, he could've kept the election interference in-house.

>President Trump directed Executive Branch agencies, offices, and officials not to comply with…subpoenas

Like how the current DOJ is not complying with ... subpoenas?

[David Nieporent]

He’s clearly referring to Ukraine and the aid holdup there.

“Playing dumb” is the sign of a weak argument and weak mind.

Conservatives seem to have a lot of trouble lately understanding the concept that a corrupt intent can be the difference between a legitimate and illegitimate act.

Biden is trying to put pressure on Israel to not invade Rafah, in order to head off a possible human rights situation. Maybe that’s a terrible idea, but it’s a foreign policy objective, and one that he’s constitutionally/statutorily entitled to make.

Trump was trying to extort the Ukrainian government to announce a fake investigation of Biden to hurt Biden’s campaign. Which was both illegal and illegitimate.

And one obvious illustration of the difference is that Biden's act is public and Trump's was covert. (Indeed, Trump went around official channels just to make it harder for people to find out about it.)

[Bob from Ohio]

""in order to head off a possible human rights situation. "

Only gullible fools believe that.

Its to placate his far left and help him in Michigan.

[LawTalkingGuy]

This might surprise someone who is a Pinochet animal rape apologist, but lots of humans do care about humans rights as a value.

[Bob from Ohio]

The people Biden is playing to do not, however. They just hate Jews.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Some surely do. But not all. Again, I wouldn’t expect a Pinochet defender steeped in his own prejudices to understand this.

[Bob from Ohio]

"But not all."

Yes, all.

[Nige]

I'm beginning to think consevatives currently just hate all human life on Earth that isn't them.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well Bob,

If you actually believe that maybe you should just go to Dearborn and do something about it. Maybe Ben Gvir can put your picture on his sitting room wall next to Baruch Goldstein's.

[Nige]

He has so far shown not the slightest inclination to care about his 'far left,' ie, anti-war liberals, on this issue.

[Armchair]

Well, at least you're not playing dumb about what Bumble was referring to.

But first, we need to you to answer a question.

If Congress has approved foreign aid to a country, can the President withhold that aid for any reason (corrupt or non-corrupt) that Congress has not already approved of? Does the President have that authority to say "Well...even though Congress approved the aid, I'm going to withhold it because of these policy reasons"

What's your response there?

[bernard11]

What's your question?

I don't mean the vague, trollish, badly framed, hypothetical, and incomplete question in your comment. I mean your real question.

[tylertusta]

The actual answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House says is an impeachable offense.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I say introduce it and force the dems to vote against Israel.

[Commenter_XY]

That is the correct answer

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

What does the Constitution say about that?

[tylertusta]

A helpful article on this topic:

The common method for interpreting the Constitution’s impeachment provisions stands in some contrast to that of other constitutional provisions. Whereas judicial precedent drives the prevailing understanding of many provisions of the Constitution, impeachment is essentially a political process that is largely unreviewable by the judicial branch. As such, the historical practice of impeachment proceedings, rather than judicial decisions, informs our understanding of the Constitution’s meaning in this area. In this vein, the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is informed not by judicial decisions, but by the history of congressional impeachments.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachable-offenses-overview

[Moderation4ever]

President Biden is only holding up offensive weapons. Did the Congress approved aid specify what type of aid had to be sent? I am guessing it did not. Did President Biden set a condition on the aid such as Netanyahu must investigate Donald Trump to get the aid? No. Comparing the two Presidents action on aid is like comparing apples and wrenches.

[Don Nico]

The voters from Dearborn MI have a lot of influence.

[bernard11]

True, Don, but that doesn't make Biden's action an impeachable offense, or any other kind of offense.

[Commenter_XY]

The only thing that separates POTUS Biden from impeachment is a larger majority in the House for Team R. The House majority decides what is impeachable, and that is a political decision.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Well good thing you guessed the answer that supports your belief!

Whew! I love it when I get to guess things that support my arguments!

[SimonP]

Trump held up military aid in order to extort Ukraine into doing him a favor to help in his re-election.

Biden is holding up military aid in order to pressure Israel to stop killing Palestinian civilians.

But, sure, same thing, whatever.

If you weren't a moron, you'd understand that the actually impeachable offense here is not withholding the aid, but in providing it, since the law does not permit sending military aid to parties that are using American weapons to engage in violations of human rights. Biden has been slow-walking a conclusion on whether Israel has been engaged in war crimes in Gaza precisely because he doesn't want the correct conclusion in that review to trigger an express legal obligation he'd prefer not to have imposed upon him.

[Bob from Ohio]

"pressure Israel "

Biden is holding up military aid in order to placate the far left of his party and the Arabs in Michigan.

[Frank Drackman]

You ever notice how Sleepy's always facing Mecca?

[SimonP]

Weird way to spell “constituents who are opposed to war crimes – particularly those directly impacting their friends and family – and think the president should follow the law” but okay.

Were Trump’s actions vis-a-vis Ukraine even attempting to pander to what his voters wanted? Or was it just about himself, like everything else he does?

[Sarcastr0]

Biden is holding up military aid in order to placate the far left of his party and the Arabs in Michigan.

‘Biden is doing a policy thing only to get votes!!’

'Also there are MUSLIMS IN MICHIGAN'

[bernard11]

Haven't we had a ton of posts and comments in recent years explaining that politicians often have multiple motives for what they do and say, that things that advance their political careers may also be in the public interest.

[ducksalad]

Here is what really happened. In 75 years when they release the WH phone transcripts I'll be proved right.

JB: Bibi, hey, it's me Joe. Been a golistic...logistic hangup on the shipment...supply chain you know...working it day and night...
BN: I'm losing patience. Get your act together.
JB: Come on man, some of those tents....camps....cleared 'em right right out...
BN: I said ALL the tents needed to go.
JB: Gotcha, on it. There's this....need....need a favor Bibi.
BN: A favor?
JB: Until those goli...losigtic...supply stuff clears up, can I pretend I held it up on purpose?
BN: [silence]
JB: Come on, man. Michigan, vote so close...I'm dying here...just for like a day or so...bombs not ready anyway..
BN: Say whatever you like. But don't expect me to back you up.
JB: Thank you thank you I owe you...
BN: Yes you do. Now focus, Joe. Get the stuff on the plane. Get the tents off the quad. [click].

[Frank Drackman]

The "Worm" that ate RFK Jr.'s Brain was the Pork Tapeworm, a condition called Cysticercosis, it's a real thing, and may be the origin of Jews avoiding Pork (but Bacon tastes good....Pork Chops taste good...). What's Parkinsonian Joe's Excuse?? (OK, he was pretty good the other day talking about Israel, would feel better if he wasn't reading a Teleprompter)

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

I always thought it was Trichinosis.

[bernard11]

Dubious theory.

[Frank Drackman]

Like I've said, don't quit your day job.

[bernard11]

Teleprompter. BFD.

[Frank Drackman]

you left out the "Pause, Look Concerned, try not to make inappropriate remark to 12 year old girl"

[Estragon]

“You remind me of my daughter”

[tylertusta]

I'm looking forward to watching SCO Smith tying himself in knots to justify keeping Trump's 1512 counts alive.

I suspect that Smith is going to run aground on the ECA sooner or later. It might take a trip up on appeal since Chutkan will lap up whatever drivel he feeds her.

[apedad]

Supreme Court Achieves Historic Unanimity but Tougher Cases Loom

The US Supreme Court’s unanimity in early decisions will be hard to maintain as the justices decide controversial questions on presidential immunity, abortion, and the so-called administrative state.

The court has issued 18 opinions in argued cases so far this term, 15 of which have been unanimous.

The more than 80% figure represents the most harmony at the beginning of a term in the court’s modern era, according to Adam Feldman, the creator of the blog Empirical SCOTUS.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-unanimity-is-fleeting-with-tougher-cases-looming-37

Gotta love the unanimous cases but we'll see how things go on these cases which had heavy ideological overtones:

Trump v. United States (whether the former president is immune from criminal prosecution)
Fischer v. United States (breadth of criminal prosecutions for alleged Jan. 6 rioters)
Moyle v. United States (Idaho’s abortion ban)
Loper Bright v. Raimondo (whether to overturn administrative law precedent of Chevron deference)

[Commenter_XY]

CJ Roberts is delivering exactly what he promised the American people during his confirmation hearing.

[bernard11]

I don’t remember him promising a pro-Republican court.

Calling balls and strikes is no great virtue. All umpires call balls and strikes. The question is whether they call them accurately or not.

[not guilty]

I suspect that when John Roberts spoke of calling balls and strikes, he had in mind Bill Klem, who famously stated, "It ain't nothin' till I call it."

[Commenter_XY]

CJ Roberts explicitly promised to work toward consensus, and he has done exactly that. The data are clear; the decisions are 9-0 or they are not. CJ Roberts forges unanimous decisions at a higher rate than any of his predecessors of the last century.

I remember him talking about this during his confirmation hearing, and thinking to myself, "We'll see". It was something I remembered. Well, the verdict is in; CJ Roberts did what he said he would do. 🙂

[The Margrave of Azilia]

[duplicate post]

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"First they came for the minor-party candidates and their ballot access, but I didn't give a *&^%, I was in a major party and I was OK.

"Then a legislature of the other major party tried to take me off the ballot."

https://www.theintelligencer.com/news/article/jay-keeven-ballot-status-illinois-election-2024-19442145.php

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The silence of the Democracy Defenders that Die in Darkness is Deafening.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It's not the silence of anyone, you're apparently just deaf. A comment like this roughly one hour after the original comment is asinine.

[tylertusta]

The idea the previous comment by was referring to Democrats only in this comment section is asinine.

He's referring to the wider national media, where Democrats have been screeching about OUr DEmoCraCY and EveRY vOTe ShOUlD COUnT nonstop.

Their silence here is indeed deafening. But hey, it's just Illlinois Democrats entrenching their hold on the state government, so let's give them a wink and a nod.

Besides, the national press has more important things to complain about, like NC's milquetoast voter ID law.

Because only Republicans do bad things, apparently.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The idea the previous comment by was referring to Democrats only in this comment section is asinine.

He did use a play on the Washington Post timeline. Yours is a fair point. lol.

As for anyone being kept off the ballot, no decisions have been made. That makes it significantly less newsworthy. And there are multiple stories in Illinois, where the change in the law (which requires major party candidates for the Illinois legislature to win a primary rather than be "slated") is more relevant. But, given most incumbents in Illinois are Democrats and this does tend to help Democrats in Illinois. I suspect it won't be given retroactive effect, nor should it. Candidates make their choices based on the rules in effect during the election cycle. Changing them midway would be unfair.

[Brett Bellmore]

“Pritzker signs election bill that would favor Democrats in November” (The author, needless to say, (It's ELB, after all!) is a Democrat.)

"While I typically prefer to share stories without a lot of editorializing, I want to take a moment to offer one small observation. I waited for a couple of day to see how other media outlets would cover the story. After all, we are in an era where there is an explosion in journalists who identify as covering the “democracy beat” or looking for a “democracy angle” in stories. I wondered how the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Associated Press, or CNN might cover these stories. After all, they are quite attuned to what local county officials in Nevada or Arizona are doing with respect to counting ballots, or every twist and turn of an election bill in Georgia. How about this? As far as I can tell, there hasn’t been any coverage in these or many other major media outlets of America’s sixth-largest state changing the rules of an election in the middle of the campaign to deprive hundreds of thousands of voters of the opportunity to choose a candidate of their preference, and as a number of candidates who behaved in a way relying on existing laws have lost their opportunity to seek office. But there is still time for coverage, of course, particularly as I imagine litigation is coming."

[tylertusta]

I remember how the national press put the 2021 gerrymandered Illinois maps in a favorable light. The Democratic Party had to destroy democracy to save it, apparently.

Check out this map:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Illinois#/media/File:2022_Ilinois_United_States_House_of_Representatives_election_by_Congressional_District.svg

And this was the less extreme one they contemplated using.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"a number of candidates who behaved in a way relying on existing laws have lost their opportunity to seek office"

I don't think that's accurate. The State Board of Elections hasn't made a decision yet. And any adverse decision will be challenged in court and, I suspect, will lose in court.

The examples he uses aren't all the same. This change doesn't effect national elections. How local officials count ballots in Nevada and Arizona obviously does affect the presidential race and other national offices.

As for going forward, the change is so that candidates for major parties have to win primaries, they can't just be slated. In other words, it actually requires candidates to win votes rather than be selected by the party elite. I would assume most of you actually agree with this aspect. The timing is the issue and I expect that'll be sorted out appropriately.

[Brett Bellmore]

They have, in principle, lost their opportunity to seek office. The State Board of Elections is actually publicly violating this new law, in an effort to moderate the impact, and perhaps in anticipation of it failing a court challenge.

[NOVA Lawyer]

They have, in principle, lost their opportunity to seek office.

Which is just an admission that they have not, in fact, lost their opportunity to seek office.

The State Board of Elections is actually publicly violating this new law, in an effort to moderate the impact

Or, interpreting it in a way that it isn't unconstitutional? Probably a court will decide.

[Roberta]

What is the democracy interest in a candidate's "winning" an uncontested primary, just to be listed as that party's nominee for the general election?

[Roberta]

As I read the story, "at the last minute" means the slating occurred after a primary for which no candidate filed. So the complaint is that if nobody filed for their primary, the party should accept as the will of the voters that they run nobody?

[Commenter_XY]

That's (D)ifferent, you see.

[bernard11]

Oh stop.

[Commenter_XY]

I see the arrow struck home. 🙂

[NOVA Lawyer]

“But in recent years, party insiders across Illinois have dramatically increased their use of a backroom process of appointing candidates to the ballot at the last minute, circumventing the primary process and giving voters less opportunity to make informed decisions."

Do you support this guy's sentiment? Or the other side of this argument? It's not clear to me.

It looks to me like a mess in Illinois. I think the candidates who complied with the law prior to the deadline should be on the ballot as major party candidates. But I'm not opposed to the idea that major parties should have primaries where the people vote on their candidates rather than being told who the party would put forward. I don't have a strong opinion on that at the moment.

But the timing of this change does seem like gamesmanship and, based on this one story, I think the gamesmanship should be condemned. I suspect the candidate who is proposed to be kept off the ballot will prevail in court.

[SimonP]

I agree with this. I think having a good primary process is healthy for democracy. But changing the rules midstream to keep competitors off the ballot - for all of a single election cycle - is gross. Doesn't matter to me whether Republicans or Democrats do it.

[Roberta]

Maybe a good primary process is healthful for democracy. But unless things have changed since I lived there, Illinois is a "crossover" state, wherein voters are equally entitled to vote in any party's primary. Is having your party's nomination held hostage to voters from outside the party healthy democracy?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Let's not miss the forest for the trees...they wanted to remove a competitor who challenged one of their party's candidates, so they came up with an excuse. If they wanted to have all nominations by primary in the future they could have said so with a law having prospective effect only, without trying to pull existing candidates off the ballot.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Based on that one article focusing on that one candidate, your comment makes sense. As other articles point out, and common sense suggests, this affects prospective Democratic candidates too.

https://www.wsiltv.com/news/politics/illinois-election-law-causing-controversy-after-being-introduced-and-passed-within-hours/article_cde18c7e-09aa-11ef-901e-ffa73fd5210f.html

I agree, however, that it should have explicitly been prospective and that it should be interpreted as prospective only, given this happened in the middle of an election cycle after the primaries were over (so that was no longer an option for those who intended to run, but planned to be slated instead).

And, yes, given the Democrats did this and Republicans upset, the net effect this cycle probably is negative for Republicans. Whether through the Board of Elections or the courts, this should (and I predict will) be set right, i.e., the elimination of slating will operate prospectively only. That’s my very partisan (Margrave!) view.

Also, they weren't "trying to pull existing candidates off the ballot." Do you understand the sequence of events and how this happened? At best, assuming the worst, they were trying to prevent people intending to be candidates from getting on the ballot. The people who feel they've been aggrieved were not, in fact, on any ballot nor had they been approved to be on any future ballot at the time the bill was proposed, at the time the bill passed, or when the bill was signed into law. If you have to make up stuff, it makes your point look weaker, Margrave.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

No, you autistic chickenfucker, the article I linked specifically says -

"Keeven filed his nominating petitions as a slated candidate before Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker signed a bill eliminating slating for Illinois General Assembly seats."

There was no indication, none whatsoever, that there was any defect with Keeven's petition until Pritzker, after the filing, signed the law.

Why must you practice to deceive?

[NOVA Lawyer]

"“Keeven filed his nominating petitions as a slated candidate before Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker signed a bill eliminating slating for Illinois General Assembly seats.”

You clearly don't understand what "on the ballot" means.

No one had reviewed his petition yet. The time for filing objections hadn't passed yet. And review of any such objections had not happened yet. He wasn't on the ballot, so he couldn't be taken off what he wasn't on.

[NOVA Lawyer]

“But in recent years, party insiders across Illinois have dramatically increased their use of a backroom process of appointing candidates to the ballot at the last minute, circumventing the primary process and giving voters less opportunity to make informed decisions.”

Do you support this guy’s sentiment? Or the other side of this argument? It’s not clear to me.

You still haven't answered.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I’m not answering any more questions from you.

You’re drawing fine and meaningless distinctions, like the distinction you drew between your registration with the Democratic Party and your self-proclaimed status as an independent. Which is like saying you fuck chickens without being a chickenfucker.

The guy qualified for the ballot. If he hadn’t, they wouldn’t have tried to remove him from it. You mention challenges, but without of course citing any evidence that, prior to Pritzker signing the retroactive law, there would have been any basis for a challenge, a curious omission on your part.

You couldn’t recognize, or at least you profess that you couldn’t recognize, the truth if it sank its fangs into your ass.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I’m not answering any more questions from you.

You’ve answered the only question that matters.

like the distinction you drew between your registration with the Democratic Party and your self-proclaimed status as an independent

Anyone with half a brain knows why independents in closed primary states register with one of the major parties. You pretend not to, though you aren’t that dumb, which leaves only your character to blame. Pity that.

The guy qualified for the ballot. If he hadn’t, they wouldn’t have tried to remove him from it.

You're dim. They started the process, unquestionably, before he had the signatures or submitted the petition. He certainly had not qualified from the ballot. You can't give as reasons for their actions something that happened after they acted. Causation doesn't work like that. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you are that dumb. My mistake.

This is rhetorical, no need to answer, but why do you think this was about one person? Because one article focused on that person (but mentioned others)? The change in Illinois law affects (or, properly, has the potential to affect if, in fact, it is used to disallow the slating method this cycle) more than one person in more than one race. Yet, you appear to think the state legislature was concerned about only one person. I say again, maybe you actually are that dumb. If so, my apologies for ever thinking otherwise. If not, maybe stop saying stupid things.

[NOVA Lawyer]

*for the ballot, not from the ballot. Typo.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Once again, you don’t even mention any possible objection to the candidacy other than a law passed *after* he filed the needed papers. Here’s your last chance – what besides the retroactive law would have been the “objections” you referenced in an earlier comment?

By all means defend the Illinois Legislature against charges of partisanship, you two Democratic entities deserve each other.

Thank you for explaining your *motive* for joining the Democratic Party.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Here’s your last chance

Oh no! My last chance offered by the one who only asks.

By all means defend the Illinois Legislature against charges of partisanship, you two Democratic entities deserve each other.

You dishonest hack (https://reason.com/volokh/2024/05/09/thursday-open-thread-190/?comments=true#comment-10553357):

I think the candidates who complied with the law prior to the deadline should be on the ballot as major party candidates….[T]he timing of this change does seem like gamesmanship and, based on this one story, I think the gamesmanship should be condemned. I suspect the candidate who is proposed to be kept off the ballot will prevail in court.

I'll add that I think any candidate that complies with the original deadline and otherwise has their petition in order should also be on the November Illinois ballot. But it shouldn't even be, and I don't think will be, a question that the guy who got his petition in before the law was signed will be on the November ballot as a Republican as he should be.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

But then you said:

“you appear to think the state legislature was concerned about only one person”

So shove it up your fundamental orifice, you Democrat.

I take it you are actually aware that the candidate was ballot-qualified at the time he filed, and that your discussion of objections to that filing (based at the law at the time of filing) was mere bullshit.

[NOVA Lawyer]

But then you said:

“you appear to think the state legislature was concerned about only one person”

You really are that fucking stupid. You think that, in any way, contradicts anything I said before? LOL

This accurate statement of what you think (with no real support) does not negate, in any way, that I had already condemned the Illinois Democrats for apparent gamesmanship. Whatever their motivation was (they claim cleaning up the law, it certainly looks like some gamesmanship mid-cycle), there is no indication that it was about one guy. But you read one article that spends a lot of time talking about the effect this might have on one guy (and never saying it was only about him) and you think it is about one guy. Moronic doesn't even begin to describe your level of analysis.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I take it you are actually aware that the candidate was ballot-qualified at the time he filed

I don’t know what you mean by that. The State Board of Elections accepts objections until something like June 3 and doesn’t give any approvals until after that. So I don’t think ballot-qualified means what you think it does. And, if he was “ballot-qualified” under whatever meaning you propose, he still wasn’t on the ballot and couldn’t be taken off it.

(Like a driver, who has met all the requirements for a drivers’ license and needs one to be on a racing team, and we know can ace the driving and any written/eye tests the day of, but the legislature changes the law the day before his 16th birthday (in a state where that is the age you get your driver’s license) so that he has to meet some new requirement (because a rival has powerful friends and doesn’t want him on the racing team) that he can’t complete (for whatever reason). In this situation, no one took away his driver’s license. They gamed the system to keep him from getting a driver’s license, but they didn’t take it away because he never had one. It’s not that hard.)

So you have no valid point. It’s unimportant whether there would or would not be valid objections at some time in the future. The time for the objections hasn’t even occurred and, more importantly, the time for qualifying him for the ballot hasn’t come yet, so he was never on the ballot. Why you said otherwise will remain a mystery, though the leading candidate is stupidity combined with laziness combined with post hoc rationalizations (“ballot-qualified!!!”) to avoid admitting you were wrong.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“In this situation, no one took away his driver’s license. They gamed the system to keep him from getting a driver’s license, but they didn’t take it away because he never had one.”

Another example of your fucking-chickens-without-being-a-chickenfucker approach.

And apropos of that,

“In a closed primary, only people registered with the party can vote in a party’s primary election. For example, if you’re a Democrat, you can only vote in a Democratic primary. If you’re a Republican, you can only vote in a Republican primary….

“Allegiance to a Political Party Is Key

“Voter registration is critical in a closed primary. These elections call for loyalty to a political party. Unaffiliated voters cannot take part.”

https://www.findlaw.com/voting/how-u-s–elections-work/what-is-a-closed-primary-.html

You're dimmer than the used-up lightbulb you're too dumb to know how to change.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Or, in other words, you admit you were wrong.

Also, notice how you keep trying to change the subject to something irrelevant to this conversation.

Let’s think about this more, though:

You: By all means defend the Illinois Legislature against charges of partisanship, you two Democratic entities deserve each other.

The devastating response you ignore:

You dishonest hack (https://reason.com/volokh/2024/05/09/thursday-open-thread-190/?comments=true#comment-10553357):

I think the candidates who complied with the law prior to the deadline should be on the ballot as major party candidates….[T]he timing of this change does seem like gamesmanship and, based on this one story, I think the gamesmanship should be condemned.

You were dead wrong that I was defending the Illinois Democratic Party. But you won’t admit it, because you have no character.

Engage in all the chickenfucking you want, and clearly you want to, it doesn’t change the fact that you have insufficient integrity to admit when you were wrong.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You are so consistently wrong, and brazenly so, and without correcting any of your "mistakes" (charitably so described) that I'm surprised you even considered bringing up character.

Even if you're merely a duopolist stooge, and if you remain loyal to the Republican side of the duopoly even if it involves keeping your fellow Democrats in Illinois at a distance, the fact is that you've made innumerable "mistakes" of your own which don't reflect well on your character.

You assert, without evidence, that I want no restrictions on ballot access, that there are some kinds of "objections" which could be made against the Republican's candidacy even apart from the retroactive law, that you can be a registered Democrat without being a Democrat. And of course you repeatedly project your dishonesty onto me over matters of election procedure where (in the interpretation most charitable to you) you merely have an alternative definition of some commonsense terminology I used.

So, no, if I unfairly tarred you with the Illinois Democratic brush I don't feel too guilty, since your actual behavior is far worse than that.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You assert, without evidence, that I want no restrictions on ballot access

I didn’t assert, I explicitly stated I assumed, given your statements, that you wanted no other restrictions and accepted your correction, such as it was (favoring ballot access fees, as I recall). You can continue to lie that I ever “asserted” anything about your beliefs, but it doesn’t change the fact that I explicitly noted I was making an assumption based on context.

Lies by you: 1
Lies by me: 0

You assert…that there are some kinds of “objections” which could be made against the Republican’s candidacy even apart from the retroactive law

I said the time for objections hadn’t passed. Obviously neither I nor you have any idea what objections might be made, even if we have both assumed in this thread that they would likely be unsuccessful. Again, you can claim I said something other than I did, but that’s your lie, not mine.

Your lies: 2
My lies: 0

You assert…that you can be a registered Democrat without being a Democrat.

I told you the facts: I am currently registered as a Democrat in a closed primary state. I consider myself politically independent. You can disagree with me that it is possible to be independent despite registering with a party, but a lie necessarily involves deception. Obviously, having shared all the facts, I didn't lie.

I’ll give you a pass on this one, though falsely accusing someone of a lie is...well...... I truthfully disclosed all the facts. Your quibble with our competing interpretation of those facts doesn’t transmogrify a true statement of facts into a lie nor can an opinion be a lie.

Your lies: 2
My lies: 0

And of course you repeatedly project your dishonesty onto me over matters of election procedure where (in the interpretation most charitable to you) you merely have an alternative definition of some commonsense terminology I used.

No. You said they “trying to pull existing candidates off the ballot”. The candidates at issue were not on the ballot, hence could not be pulled off the ballot. What I said was true. What you said was false. You essentially admitted this when you made another factual misstatement by asserting as fact something you can only assume, but cannot possibly actually know to be true (namely, that he was "qualified" to be on the ballot). This lie is yours.

Your lies: 3
My lies: 0

You said “they wouldn’t have tried to remove him[, Keeven,] from it.” I pointed out that (a) Keeven was never on the ballot, so couldn’t be removed, and (b) there is no indication that the Democratic legislature or the Democratic governor had Keeven in mind. This was just repeating the lie about “removing” Keeven from something he was never on. The other was assuming facts about the specific motives of the Illinois Democratic Party which were not alleged, much less proven and which members of the Democratic Party disputed. We’ll file that under opinion, though you asserted it as fact.

You ignored my points and pivoted to the lie which, in your dishonesty, you still can’t quite bring yourself to concede: “if I unfairly tarred you with the Illinois Democratic brush I don’t feel too guilty.” There’s no if. It was a lie.

Your lies: 4
My lies: 0

You then claim, with all your examples demonstrated as bogus, that my “actual behavior is far worse than [your lie about me defending the legislation put into law by the Democrats in Illinois]”. Obviously, given you cited no lie by me and committed four of your own, that’s another lie.

Your lies: 5
My lies: 0

You’re a loser, in every sense of the word. Grow up and take accountability. Be smarter such that, when you find yourself in a hole, you stop digging.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“I didn’t lie”

Your worst lie of all.

Why did you need to bring up “objections” to the candidacy, when you could cite no obstacle whatever to the candidacy except this later-passed law? You made insinuations unsupported by the record about someone’s qualifications for ballot access. Your insinuations lack the boldness, courage and moral character of a direct statement, but you intend to profit by them by misleading people.

Your assertion about my opposing any ballot access restrictions was – what else? – a lie, and you just lied by omitting my remark that a party or candidate should have a treasurer. Your true objection to what I said is that I want to lift the fascist ballot-access restrictions you’re so in love with.

Pulling Trumpian rhetoric like “loser” out of the recesses of your anus won’t help.

I showed from findlaw that in registering Democratic in a closed primary you became a Democrat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdyu6ncYen0

Your persistence in asserting your “independent” status is simply jackass-like braying.

But credit where it’s due – you polish the knobs of the Republican wing of the duopoly in your jack-booted fascist attempt to limit political choices to your two favorite parties.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Your worst lie of all.

I haven't lied about anything. You can say it all you want, but it remains untrue as demonstrated by your pathetic attempts to "prove" anything I said was a lie.

Why did you need to bring up “objections” to the candidacy, when you could cite no obstacle whatever to the candidacy except this later-passed law? You made insinuations unsupported by the record about someone’s qualifications for ballot access.

Because the law specifically allows for objections and because no candidate is qualified for the ballot until the deadline for objections passes and any such objections are ruled on. It's also worth noting that an article about the situation indicated the opposing candidate wouldn't say whether they would object. I didn't make any insertions, I merely noted that a person isn't qualified, in any legal sense, until the State Board of Elections determines that they are qualified. You can be sure until the cows come home that a person will meet all the qualifications, that any objections will be found meritless, and you can be right about that, but the person still isn't qualified until the relevant legal authority says they are qualified to be on the ballot.

Your assertion about my opposing any ballot access restrictions was – what else? – a lie, and you just lied by omitting my remark that a party or candidate should have a treasurer.

I explicitly said, in the original comment you claim was a lie, that I was assuming your views. As I have pointed out, with quotes, many times. That you keep beating this dead, dishonest horse says nothing good about you or your character.

A lie by omitting other things you said? lol. Do you realize how pathetic that is? I've never denied that you, weirdly, opposed the requirement of signed petitions, but favor requiring a candidate to have a treasurer. And claim the former is fascist. Your views as well as your attempts to defend them are comical.

Your true objection to what I said is that I want to lift the fascist ballot-access restrictions you’re so in love with.

A perfect demonstration of your defective character. You just make things up about other people's opinions and motives. You're pathetic. (Oh no, Margrave says requiring candidates to get signed petitions to be on the ballot is fascist! What powerful rhetoric. You are a joke.)

I showed from findlaw that in registering Democratic in a closed primary you became a Democrat.

Good for you. Quote where I said anything other than: (1) I am registered as a Democrat in a closed primary state, (2) I consider myself politically independent. And, to be clear, I only ever said those two things in conjunction.

You can interpret those facts however you want, but they remain facts. You don't address the fact that (a) stating true things is not a lie and (b) disagreeing with whether that makes me a Democrat versus an independent registered as a Democrat is a matter of opinion and, so, isn't a lie (no deception, no inaccurate statement of fact).

You're a loser, Margrave.

[Krychek_2]

We have come full circle. In 1998 the Republicans could not understand how Democrats could stand by Bill Clinton after it became apparent that he committed perjury to cover up an affair with an intern. Today, Democrats cannot understand how the GOP can stick with Trump and his 91 indictments. The strategies are the same: Attack the prosecutors and claim it's a witch hunt.

So how did that strategy work out for the Democrats? Not well. An incumbent President Gore almost certainly would have defeated George Bush, for starters. Twenty years out it's crystal clear that the politically savvy thing to do would have been to force Clinton out of office, as galling as some Democrats would have found it.

It's not going to work out any better for Republicans. The massive damage they are doing to the GOP will take years to undo. (Yes, I know, the polls show a dead heat; well, if that were the standard Hillary Clinton would have been elected in 2016.) If they had any political smarts they'd drop him.

[ThePublius]

"Yes, I know, the polls show a dead heat...."

What polls are those? The ones I see have Trump well in the lead.

[Krychek_2]

You consider one or two points to be well in the lead? And in May 2016, how far in the lead was Hillary Clinton?

[Kazinski]

Its not a dead heat, Trump is well out in front.

Nationally its nearly a dead heat, Trump.with a very slight edge, but its down to at most a 7 state race, and Trump is ahead in 4 of them ranging between 3.8 and 5.4.

To be sure those states only get Trump 268, and Trump only leads WI, MI, and PA by .05 to 1.8. So if Joe sweeps those three he will probably win.

Except there is another path to victory for Trump, even if he loses those 3 states. If Trump takes NE2, which he won in 2016 and lost in 2020, and gets that one extra electoral vote, then he gets to 269, and a tie goes to the House. The current margin in the House by delegation is 26-24-2 GOP. Of course that's not set in stone either.

But it all adds up making Trump the favorite andmore likely to be get over 300 EV's, than just squeak by, and Joe only a very narrow path to victory.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Stop saying "States".

WI, MI, PA, and AZ and GA are controlled by 1 county each. Milwaukee, Wayne, Philadelphia, Maricopa, and Fulton.

You know, the places where Democrats count ballots in secret and illegally disappear ballots and ballot tracking.

[Krychek_2]

Speaking of derangement syndrome . . .

[Brett Bellmore]

He's not totally deranged, just exaggerating. These ARE all counties that heavily influence state wide outcomes, and at least the ones I'm familiar with routinely have problems with how they run their elections.

[Krychek_2]

Yet another reason to get rid of the electoral college. If I'm a red voter in a blue state, or vice versa, my vote has no practical value and there's no reason for either party to expend resources trying to get it. Plus hanky panky is a whole lot easier if you only have to manipulate a relatively small number of votes in a few key states than if you have to manipulate millions of popular votes nationwide.

But I think this is mostly GOP sour grapes anyway. A majority of the country has rejected GOP policies and the GOP only has power because of anti-democratic institutions. It has reached the point where it's increasingly having trouble staying in power even with anti-democratic institutions. Rather than acknowledge that the voters just don't like what it's selling, it's coming up with claims that the voting is rigged. Maybe it should try looking in the mirror instead.

[Brett Bellmore]

"A majority of the country has rejected GOP policies and the GOP only has power because of anti-democratic institutions."

Trump is actually narrowly leading in the popular vote polls at the moment. You did know that, right? Every 4 years Democrats pull out a Presidential popular vote majority on the basis of California being a big one party state, and think it should impress people who don't live in California.

Proportion of each party's national U.S. House vote and share of seats won in U.S. House of Representatives elections

"Since 2000, the party that received the largest vote share in U.S. House elections won a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives in every cycle but one—in 2012. That year, Republican candidates received 47.1% of the U.S. House vote nationwide and Democratic candidates received 48.4%, and Republicans won a majority of U.S. House seats—234 to 201. The most recent time this occurred prior to 2012 was in 1952 when Democrats won the popular vote but Republicans won the House. The other two times this happened were in 1914 and 1942, when Republicans won the popular vote but did not win the most U.S. House seats."

So, the House of Representatives is actually pretty ... representative! The Senate, less so by design. Oh, wait, that's the branch that the Democrats control at the moment, I shouldn't have mentioned it.

[tylertusta]

Brett, I'm going to nitpick here:

Trump has a plurality of support in the polls, not a majority. In the sense that a majority is not supporting Trump, that is technically correct.

It is also technically correct to say that no one has a majority of support, so Krychek_2 is also incorrect to imply that Democrats enjoy a majority of support.

Based on how the polls look today, they're in deep shit.

[Brett Bellmore]

A fair nitpick.

[bernard11]

So the "California doesn't count" theory of why the Republicans are really more popular than they look reappears.

[kb]

The practical value of any individual's vote is negligible beyond the emotional value of participation. The practical value of the State's selection is appreciable, and the States will not ( and IMO should not) give that power up.

[Krychek_2]

I have enough individualist instincts to not like the idea of voting as part of a collective. In theory, people who reject collectivism in other contexts should oppose the electoral college. Funny how it works out that they don't.

[Brett Bellmore]

Once you're voting, the 'part of a collective' is already baked in, isn't it?

The way Congress is set up to work, you've got the house of Representatives, where you can't win unless an over-all majority supports your idea. Then you've got the Senate, which functionally measures how well distributed support for a position is.

Say you've got a policy that has the support of 51% of the population, and that percentage is pretty much universal. Both the House and the Senate are going to vote for it.

Now, take that support, and instead of being uniform, most of the country is cold to an idea, but some particular section of the country overwhelmingly supports it. You might still have 51% over all support, but you're going to tank in the Senate.

So, suppose a law is proposed to raise all federal revenues in counties that are NOT within 50 miles of the ocean, with ocean bordering counties exempt from taxation. Guess what: You'd be exempting over half the population! And so you'd easily get over 50% of the House of Representatives.

But you might find getting a Senate majority kind of hard.

Is that a bad outcome, in a case like that?

[Krychek_2]

Any system will occasionally produce a bad result. For that matter, any system will occasionally produce a good result; Mussolini famously made the trains run on time. It's like the broken clock that's still right twice a day.

And in general I wouldn't quibble with the idea that at least some policies are important enough that having more than a bare majority is a good idea. But that's not what we have. We have a system under which a small band of contrarians effectively has a veto over everything, and that's not good either. Regardless of the theory under which the Constitution was written, that's not at all like how things work in actual practice.

It is estimated that given the continued shift of population from rural states to urban areas, in another 20 years, 30% of the population will be electing 70% of the Senate, and 40% of the population will be able to elect a president. That means the GOP will effectively be immune from the voters no matter how badly they screw up. Aside from the fact that as a conservative you like the result, give me that argument that that's actually good public policy?

[Brett Bellmore]

"We have a system under which a small band of contrarians effectively has a veto over everything,"

No, we don't. We have a system under which local majorities can't control the whole country, which is something different.

The problem here is asymmetric political geography: Areas controlled by Republicans tend to have very modest Republican majorities, 55% or so. Almost all of the country in terms of land, and a majority of the population, has modest sized Republican majorities. That's why Republicans are so competitive for the House: Most people actually DO live in areas where Republicans are the majority!

Areas controlled by Democrats, OTOH, tend to end up seriously dominated by Democrats, 60,70, 80, even 90% Democratic.

Even in "purple states", where both parties have the same numbers, you see this: Wide expanses where the Republicans have a modest majority, and small pockets that are almost exclusively Democratic.

This disadvantages Democrats in a first past the post voting system, because they waste a lot of votes "bouncing the rubble", electing people by absurdly high margins, while Republican votes are more efficiently distributed.

It also disadvantages them, because they get their majorities in areas that aren't competitive, and that warps them.

Your Republican office holders have to routinely cope with constituents who are Democrats. A lot of the Democratic office holders have a negligible number of Republican constituents. Even their Democratic constituents don't KNOW any Republicans!

The result is a party that's very finely tuned to appeal to Democrats living in urban areas, but which tends to treat people who live any other sort of life like they were weird aliens, they just don't understand the other side.

I see it all the time reading left-wing blogs, they get to discussing Republicans, and you can tell they don't actually KNOW any Republicans, they're like Europeans discussing rhinos and imagining unicorns...

[Malika the Maiz]

"tends to treat people who live any other sort of life like they were weird aliens, they just don’t understand the other side."

Doesn't this go both ways? Which party talks about people not being "Real Americans?"

[Krychek_2]

Brett, we have a system in which rural voters are moving to blue states because they're economically better off, while leaving the red rural states with ever increasing political power. What does it say when the areas of the country that have working economies are largely unable to enact policies at the national level, while economic basket cases hold power?

And it's not local majorities; it's national majorities. The GOP has lost the popular vote for president every election except one since 1992. The trend is obvious.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Doesn’t this go both ways? "

No, that was my point: It's NOT symmetric: Nearly all Republicans live in areas that have large minority of Democrats, many Democrats live in areas that have very few Republicans.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Brett, we have a system in which rural voters are moving to blue states"

Paging reality. Paging reality. Will reality please pickup the courtesy phone?

[Drewski]

"Mussolini famously made the trains run on time."

Famously, he did not. His supporters used to say that, falsely. In reality he invested a lot into the lines that helped him politically and left the rest to rot. The Neo-Fascist party started trotting out the "trains on time" bit in the '90s, but you'd have to be pretty gullible or deliberately ignorant to believe that today.

[Malika the Maiz]

“It’s NOT symmetric:”

It’s Republican and conservative politicians and figures that go on about how those that live in Democratic controlled areas are not living in the Real America or are not Real Americans.

Also, with just a cursory internet investigation it seems that if you exclude DC it's about as many Red states with huge margins of victories as there are Blue states with the same as well as quite a few Red Counties where the GOP got over 90% of the vote.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/stats.php?year=2020&off=0&elect=0

[bernard11]

Then you’ve got the Senate, which functionally measures how well distributed support for a position is.

No it doesn't. You are making that up out of whole cloth. Is political science yet another of the manifold subjects on which you are expert.

[kb]

We have a republic. That is what we have. It is not perfect (that is a reflection of ourselves), but i think it is the best we can hope for. As long as the contrarians have a voice, the Republic will endure. So, be contrarian as loud as you will. you will be heard even if you are not listened to.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

We have a republic in name only.

Our representatives don't represent us.

[Krychek_2]

That depends on which language you speak. Republic is Latin for democracy and democracy is Greek for Republic.

Latin: Res - thing; publica - people. The people's thing.
Greek: Demos - people; kratika - rule. The people rule.

That aside, no one disputes that that's what the rule *is*; the question is whether the rule is good policy. I'm fine with contrarians being contrarian; I just don't think they should have an absolute veto over everything.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I think more damage gets done by lack of veto points in government, than by vetoes. I don't want to have to live in a country where, every time a party gets a razor thin majority they can turn things upside down, make major irreversible changes to society. I think major changes should require major majorities, and modest majorities should stick to modest aims.

So I love a system where a large minority can block action.

This is why our politics have gotten to toxic: People are losing their grip on the idea that just barely winning control of government does NOT entitle you to make and entrench drastic changes!

Your penny ante poker game can be friendly, because it doesn't much matter who wins. Suddenly take that game and raise the stakes to your entire life savings, and see how tense it gets.

But that's our politics today. One lost election and your way of life could change. It's pathological, and the cure is, what? Veto points.

[Krychek_2]

The question is what is a reasonable standard for being able to veto. There are 300 million people, give or take, in the US. If all of them except one support a policy, should that one have an absolute veto? Most people would say no. So it’s about line drawing. 51% should not be enough to change the Constitution, but one person should not be able to stop a law making it illegal to drive 90 through a school zone. So it’s about where to reasonably draw lines.

And I think the solution is to draw that line on the types of laws that can be passed by having a strong Bill of Rights, rather than by denying a majority their choice of who gets to be president. If a vocal minority opposes single payer health care, well, there is no right for a vocal minority to prevent the rest of us from having it.

[kb]

If you speak American English, "Republic" has a particular meaning (but you know that, You were being.....contrarian).

[Brett Bellmore]

"And I think the solution is to draw that line on the types of laws that can be passed by having a strong Bill of Rights,"

If you mean by "a strong Bill of Rights" a restoration of those economic rights that got tossed as "Lochnerism" and a restoration of enumerated powers doctrine, yeah, that would go a long ways towards lowering tensions by reducing the stakes.

[Krychek_2]

kb, the thing is, though, it doesn't have a peculiarly American meaning. It has a dozen different meanings depending on whom you are talking with. The whole line of argument is silly because at this point, republic is so ill defined.

[Krychek_2]

Brett, I might agree to that if you would then agree to make it a whole lot easier to amend the Constitution to reflect that Lochnerian rights and enumerated powers no longer represent what most Americans think the government should be.

[bernard11]

Having a republic has zip to do with whether some regions are overrepresented or not.

If we allocated Senate seats purely on the basis of population we would still have as much of a republic as we do now - actually a better one, since the national legislature would more clearly be representative.

[bernard11]

"Lochnerism."

You'll be raving about Wickard next.

[Roberta]

…

This is why our politics have gotten to toxic: People are losing their grip on the idea that just barely winning control of government does NOT entitle you to make and entrench drastic changes!

Our politics have gotten too toxic because they’ve become too moral and principle-based. Robert A. Wilson wrote, “Convictions make convicts.” Changes wouldn’t seem so drastic if they weren’t understood as based in principle.

In government policy, there is no right or wrong. How could there be, when it involves such large numbers of people? And if there’s a lot of opinion on one side or other, how am I to say either of them are wrong? They’re people too, they must’ve thought about these things too — and many have been considered for thousands of years! This one says this, that one says that, and it’s not like these arguments are ever settled; at most they become irrelevant.

[Kazinski]

Steve Sisolak the Democratic governor of Nevada, vetoed the Democratic legislatures National Popular Vote compact bill saying that Nevada is a small enough state it would get zero attention in Presidential elections without the Electoral college.

The fact it's a 50-50 state means
the net popular vote for the whole state is barely a rounding error in LA's vote. Whereas even a small handful of electoral votes in a 50-50 state will get you a lot of attention.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Get rid of the electoral college because Democrats cheat in elections?

[Frank Drackman]

Popular Vote Winner would have given us a President AlGore in 2000 and Hillary Rodman in 0-16, I'll keep my Electrical College just the way it is, although letting the African Amurican Concentration Camp in Nebraska (AKA Omaha) have 1 vote is crazy (as is the one for the Clamdiggers they have in Maine)

Frank

[bernard11]

These ARE all counties that heavily influence state wide outcomes,

Did you ever stop and think why these counties "heavily influence state wide outcomes,?"

It's because that's where the people live, damn it. It's not like they always controlled the elections, and then people moved there.

For all your boasting about this and that you can't seem to let anything, even simple arithmetic, penetrate the paranoid fog you live in.

he ones I’m familiar with routinely have problems with how they run their elections.

And WTF do you know about it that you didn't learn from some RW liars, and why do you automatically translate "problems" into Democratic wrongdoing?

Is Mark Meadows out of jail yet?

[SimonP]

...and at least the ones I’m familiar with routinely have problems with how they run their elections.

Yeah, Republicans keep shutting down polling sites, limiting resources, finding new ways to make voting difficult and unpleasant, and then when elections happen and all those intentional design flaws result in clip-worthy content for right-wing media - the election was illegitimate!

Cue the parade of unsuccessful lawsuits! There's no limit to what you can challenge, as long as the chumps keep pouring money into the PACs!

[apedad]

"WI, MI, PA, and AZ and GA are controlled by 1 county each. Milwaukee, Wayne, Philadelphia, Maricopa, and Fulton."

So in other words, people vote and cows/corn/coal/cacti don't.

Got it.

[Kazinski]

Well as a resident of Maricopa county I can assure you its not controlled by Democrats, although of course their are plenty, but they hardly dominate the county, the GOP has a 55-45 registration edge.

But there are a lot of McCain or chamber of commerce Republicans which is why Trump and Kari Lake have run into problems focusing their campaigns as much on McCain Republicans as democrats.

[Brett Bellmore]

In both 2016 and 2020, Trump out-performed the polls. The difference is that he was polling a little worse in 2020. He's polling a lot better this year.

But there's plenty of time before the election for all sorts of things to alter those numbers. Either of them could stroke out, Biden could trip on the stairs again and this time break his neck, Trump could have a heart attack. 35 women could come out of the blue and accuse Trump of raping them a decade ago in some vaguely recalled place and time. The DOJ charges Trump with insurrection, all the platforms except X completely censor pro-Trump information...

While Trump has the lead at the moment, most of the potential game changers, setting aside medical events, are things that could benefit Biden, because the Democrats at the moment control the DOJ and most of the media, and are more practiced at lawfare.

[loki13]

"While Trump has the lead at the moment, most of the potential game changers, setting aside medical events, are things that could benefit Biden, because the Democrats at the moment control the DOJ and most of the media, and are more practiced at lawfare."

If Trump wins, it's because he won!

It Trump loses, it's because the SHADOW GOVERNMENT and LIZARD PEOPLE that control the media and the DOJ and the pizza parlors have conspired to keep REEL MURIKANS down.

Look, reality is what it is. Both Biden and Trump have serious drawbacks. I think that the majority of people that don't drink the kool-aid truly wish that we had two other candidates running, preferably candidates that won't be octogenarians in office.

But there isn't some giant conspiracy going on. Will both sides try to spring something? Sure, that's politics. At a certain point, you have to give up unfalsifiable beliefs.

[Brett Bellmore]

Politics IS conspiracy. Anybody who's been involved in it knows that.

[Sarcastr0]

Politics IS conspiracy.

Incredible work, Brett.

[Nige]

Brett, you might be a conspiracy.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “Politics IS conspiracy”

Ya know, I couldn’t begin to condense my entire world-view, political outlook, philosophical perspective, and understandings of culture, economics and history into just three measly words. I couldn’t come close.

Yet Brett can. But (as bernard11 noted elsewhere) he lives in a “paranoid fog”. And that’s gotta cut down on messy complexity. And complexity forces painful and irksome thought. And thought leads to inconvenient answers & uncomfortable truths.

Thus the advantages of never seeing two inches beyond your own nose!

[Roberta]

Why is the statement that politics is conspiracy even controversial? For the part it's an open conspiracy, like the Volokh Conspiracy, but that doesn't diminish it.

[bernard11]

You are right, of course, but it's Brett you are talking to. Don't expect rationality to make a dent.

His whole world view is that Democrats are evil fraudsters, controlled by Soros or some cabal, who intend, by hook or by crook, to install themselves as a permanent government, dedicated to inflicting wokeness and insect diets on everyone. Republicans, OTOH, are fighting valiantly, with one hand behind their back because they are honest and saintly and revere democracy, to fend off this evil.

I can't know for sure of course if that's what he really thinks, but the inferences from his comments are decent evidence.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think both parties are run by evil fraudsters, Bernard, and my votes are cast for the evil fraudsters I think will do the least damage.

[Nige]

Whic is apparently the one with the leader who is proposing to send National Guard units from red states into blue states.

[David Nieporent]

Republicans, OTOH, are fighting valiantly, with one hand behind their back because they are honest and saintly and revere democracy, to fend off this evil.

Oh, that's not at all true. Brett is far more conspiratorial than that. He's all in on Uniparty! Republicans are betraying conservatives! They don't even want to win!

[David Nieporent]

In both 2016 and 2020, Trump out-performed the polls. The difference is that he was polling a little worse in 2020. He’s polling a lot better this year.

No, he's not. He has never polled well, and isn't this year either. The difference right now is that Biden is polling significantly worse than in 2020, not that Trump is polling better.

[Brett Bellmore]

He's polling better against the alternative.

I've already commented on the fact that suppression of 3rd parties foreclosing any chance of one of the majors ending up displaced like happened to the Whigs is a factor in how toxic our politics are getting: They no longer have to be liked, just hated less than the only permitted alternative.

[Sarcastr0]

I can tell you’ve never talked to anyone actually on the left.

Not voting for Biden is not about Trump at all.

Before you lament the lack of a third party, one party needs to immolate at the level the Whigs did.

[Frank Drackman]

Its like 2 guys running from an Alligator. "45" doesn't have to be faster than the Alligator, he just has to be faster than Parkinsonian Joe.

[Kazinski]

Right. Like I pointed out a few days ago, its double disapprovers (those that disapprove of both Trump and Biden) that will decide the election.

And they seem to have decided Trump is more competent than Biden on the economy, immigration, and inflation.

Probably the most disheartening thing to Biden's campaign is while they've succeeded in making "Protecting Democracy" the 4th most important issue, Trump and Biden are tied at 38% in trust in handling that issue.

Biden might have made it a winning issue for him, but by simultaneously trying to put his opponent in jail, it kind of diluted its messaging impact.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/6-months-out-tight-presidential-race-trump-biden-poll/story?id=109909175

[Josh R]

Biden needs to pick up about 3-4%-points to win. That's a polling error that occurs about 50% of the time. But, that error could be in either direction. So, Biden would have about a 25% chance of winning if the election were held today. That's not a dead het, but neither is Trump well ahead.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I'm not commenting on the accuracy of the polls or the odds, but I think it's fair to characterize someone with a 75% chance of winning as "well ahead".

[Josh R]

I wouldn't.

Clinton was about a 70% favorite on election day 2016. She was not well head in my opinion (it took only one, ordinary polling error that underestimated Trump for her to lose). Biden was about a 90% favorite on election day 2020. He was well ahead in my opinion (it took two polling errors for him to lose, there was once again only one polling error underestimating Trump).

[David Nieporent]

I don't. That's a misinterpretation of what "chance of winning" means. One can have a high chance of winning even in a very close race.

Consider two evenly matched baseball teams at the end of the season. Team A is 97-64, and Team B is 96-65, with one game left to play — against each other. We've specified that they're evenly matched, so each team's chances of winning that game are essentially 50/50. If they tie, there would be a tiebreaker game. (Yeah, I know this hypo doesn't work anymore with wild cards. Tough.) Team A has a 75% chance of winning the pennant, and Team B has a 25% chance. But Team A isn't "well ahead" of Team B! They're almost equal!

[VinniUSMC]

91 ham sandwiches for 4 "crimes" which aren't actually crimes.

Kry more.

[Krychek_2]

That's pretty much what the Democrats said about the Clinton impeachment in 1998 too.

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, I think most Shysters would consider Perjury a more serious crime than whatever the fuck "45" is supposed to have done.

[grb]

Frank Drackman : " ... a more serious crime ..."

Lying about a BJ is "more serious" than trying to steal a fucking presidental election ?!?

Yes, you're nothing more than a toxic whiny troll. But you're not that stupid.

[Frank Drackman]

"45" hasn't been charged with "Trying to Steal a Fucking Presidential Election"
and you are that stupid.

[Krychek_2]

As interesting as the discussion about the polls is, my primary point is the parallels between the Democrats standing by a crook in 1998 and the Republicans standing by one in 2024.

[Ed Grinberg]

A Biden supporter calling Trump "a crook"! That's rich!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

According to the House Republicans, the "Biden crime family" has concealed its criminal activity so well, they still can't produce any evidence of it. Trump's been indicted four times, across federal and two state jurisdictions. Trump is many things, crook is just one.

[Bob from Ohio]

"pretty much what the Democrats said about the Clinton impeachment in 1998 too."

Politics are about the now. You stand by the tribal chief now because you cannot predict the future.

[ducksalad]

“An incumbent President Gore almost certainly would have defeated George Bush, for starters. Twenty years out it’s crystal clear that the politically savvy thing to do would have been to force Clinton out of office, as galling as some Democrats would have found it.”

I don’t think it’s crystal clear at all, in fact, I think it was the opposite of what you say. One thing both Bill Clinton and Trump have proven is that committed supporters aren’t moved by criminal accusations that appear to come from the other side, on the contrary, they double down.

So it comes down to those low-information swing voters. As long as the Democrats kept defending, those voters viewed it as an unresolved, unclear who’s in the right. If Gore and the Democrats helped force out their own POTUS that would have been seen as validation of everything the Republicans were saying.

TLDR: It’s the old rule of hardball anything: never apologize, never admit making a mistake.

[Bob from Ohio]

"massive damage they are doing to the GOP will take years to undo"

Slim control of the House, slim deficit in the Senate.

Massive!

[tylertusta]

The Senate election map this year is downright brutal for Dems, too.

[Kazinski]

On Monday's open thread I posted some original (and not very deep) analysis comparing the RCP current polling nationally, and in battleground states to May of 4 years ago and the general election.

Yesterday The Bulkwork posted an article by Marc Caputo that had a very similar analysis, that went slightly deeper. That's pretty suspicious just 2 days after I posted July comment. That would probably be enough to get an ivy league president fired for plagerism.

However reading the story it turns out Caputo was relating a presentation made by Trump's pollster in Palm Beach on Saturday the day before, I put out my comment:
"“We’re expanding the map,” Fabrizio told the donors at the Palm Beach Four Seasons hotel, ticking through three slides that compared Trump-Biden swing-state polling averages today with the same period six months out from Election Day in 2020. The averages, compiled by RealClearPolitics, were in the seven crucial swing states that will decide the election: Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania."
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/tony-fabrizio-feels-good-trump-polling

I bring this up for two reasons, one is my instincts were right it was useful information and worth noticing, and 2) often I get accused here of just parroting something I read somewhere else and just repeating it. In this case not only did I not crib the idea, I beat the Nationally known political writer to print with it, who got the idea from Trump's pollster and.political strategist.

[Armchair]

There's an interesting phenominon with the anti-Jew protests going on.

In many places, the cops have refused to step in to end the protests when asked. Even if a Jewish girl is beaten conscious.

https://www.shiksha.com/studyabroad/news/ucla-jewish-girl-sent-to-emergency-room-after-reportedly-beaten-by-propalestine-protesters-articlepage-163593

This trend of the cops just...standing aside...and refusing to end the illegal protests is interesting. Even if victims are beaten and sent to the ER.

When do the cops get involved though? When the counter-protestors show up. Because "then" the protests could get out of control with violence. It's interesting the message that sends. That those who support Jews and fighting against antisemitism must actually fight, in order for any real progress. The authorities aren't going to step in for you.

[ThePublius]

Yes. I wasn't surprised that UCLA has gone after the pro-Israeli gang so aggressively, while leaving the terrorist-sympathizing occupiers alone.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you have a better source for cops not stepping in than a random blog quoting a random twitter user quoting a random Instagram user?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Nice comment!

Great contribution.

[Armchair]

DuckDuckGo is your friend.

[Malika the Maiz]

Even if the account of the attack on the woman (was it an underage woman or "girl" as you refer to her?) true, it says five people engaged in the assault. Is there proof they were part of the encampments and even if so how would that authorize the police from acting against all those in the encampments?

[Bob from Ohio]

"underage woman or “girl”"

Stupid language policing.

[Malika the Maiz]

Says someone worked up about pronouns?

[Ed Grinberg]

.

the cops have refused to step in to end the ["anti-Zionist"] protests when asked. ... When do the cops get involved though? When the counter-protestors show up.

This isn't new (see here).
(I guess what is new is that the anti-Jew protests get the same protection as the anti-white protests.)

[Nige]

Counterprotesters getting into scuffles and fights suggests the counterprotesters are the problem, and I suspect the cops kinda lurve the counterprotesters more than the protesters. I'm sorry they're not being sufficently fascist for you.

[Armchair]

It's interesting that the majority of the charges in the Trump false business statements case in Manhattan are over a single word. "Retainer".

I'd be tempted if I was the defense to simply post the definition of "retainer" from Merriam Webster.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/retainer
"a fee paid to a lawyer or professional adviser for advice or services"

A retainer does not need a pre-existing written agreement. It doesn't need to be for legal services. It doesn't need to be for future actions. It doesn't even have to be for a lawyer in particular. According to the actual definition, it can simply be a "fee for services".

Whatever novel theory the prosecution may say "Oh it HAS to be for legal services"...just point back to the definition of the word. And argue, if it's false business records to be using the actual definition of the word, beyond a reasonable doubt...If the prosecution gets to define what words mean, and not a dictionary...

Then anything can be a false business record.

[Kazinski]

Well not only that, Trump's controller testified nobody told him how to describe the expense, he just took it from Cohen's invoice.

How can Trump be charged with criminal count of recording a false business expense when he didn't direct anyone to record it that way and he wasn't even asked?

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, because it's Trump?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Trump Law, I'm sure ng will pop in and explain it to you.

[tylertusta]

If there's an exception to the law or an act of discretion that results in a bad outcome for Trump, expect it to be used.

If an exception doesn't exist, they'll try to make one.

Once you view Trump's legal woes in that light, a lot of things start to make sense.

[tylertusta]

How can Trump be charged with criminal count of recording a false business expense when he didn’t direct anyone to record it that way and he wasn’t even asked?

I had that same thought. Shouldn't Bragg have gone after Jeffrey McConney, who actually classified the payment?

[loki13]

Well, did you pay attention to the testimony of Tarasoff and and McConney, and cross-check that with the indictment?

Are you still curious?

[tylertusta]

Are you going to answer my question?

[loki13]

If you’re asking the question, then you’re not paying attention.

I already played this game with multiple other issues in this case (and yet, they keep getting raised!), and unless you’re paying my hourly rate, I have no desire to explain things that are easily known, publicly available, and will just result in people arguing with ascertainable facts.

If you want to discuss something interesting at some point, let me know.

[tylertusta]

If you don't care to answer my question, then why are you ever here?

[loki13]

Well, I did answer your question! Whether you are too lazy or incapable of figuring it out from what I gave you is your call.

But no, I am not going to spell out the obvious. As for why I am here, it’s because I choose to be. It’s not, no matter what you think, because I live solely to serve at your whim and answer your obvious questions with a full answer with pinpoint cites, when I can direct you where to go yourself (um ... well, you know).

I find that on occasion, some actual law-like substance comes out. Just … not with this.

Good luck!

[tylertusta]

No, you didn’t answer. Your reply was two questions back to me. You answered one of my follow-up questions (‘Why are you here?’), so why not answer the first one?

It shouldn’t be hard for you since you believe you are well-informed.

As for why I am here, it’s because I choose to be.

Yeah, I think I understand exactly what you're about now.

[loki13]

"Your reply was two questions back to me. "

I literally told you exactly where to look. I framed it as a question because it was rhetorical.

“Yeah, I think I understand exactly what you’re about now.”

And I understand why you’re here. Bye! Enjoy your internet winnings, and I will enjoy your absence.

🙂

[tylertusta]

I literally told you exactly where to look.

And there we have it: I asked a question, and you told me to watch the proceedings. No substance, just you being passive-aggressive.

You're about as useful as people who say "Just google it" to a question (which is to say that you aren't useful).

There's a bright side, however. I've dragged you down to four replies and I enjoyed every moment of you twisting around to try to avoid answering me.

[Mr. Bumble]

Nice deflection.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It doesn’t need to be for legal services.

First, the testimony is that the payments were characterized as for legal services, so I'm not sure why you think this is a helpful point.

Second, and more directly to the point, the payments at issue weren't to Cohen, they were through Cohen to Stormy Daniels. Unless I'm mistaken, no one is claiming the payments to Cohen for his services that he kept were mischaracterized. But reimbursing him for his payments to Stormy are not legal expenses or payments for a retainer. They are payments for an NDA from Stormy. Those payments are the ones that were mischaracterized and which NY is basing it's case on.

[Bored Lawyer]

"the payments at issue weren’t to Cohen, they were through Cohen to Stormy Daniels."

I was assured by one poster her repeatedly that the payments were campaign contributions by Cohen. I happen to agree with you about what happened. Although, as I have said, it is commonplace for clients to reimburse their lawyer's for out-of-pocket expenses.

[loki13]

“Although, as I have said, it is commonplace for clients to reimburse their lawyer’s for out-of-pocket expenses.”

Again, this covers a lot of ground!

Is it “common” for a lawyer to pay for court costs, and then the client reimburses those (pursuant to a bill and a contractual retainer agreement) later? Sure!

Is it “common” for a lawyer to take out a mortgage on their house to buy a sports car for the client, and then, a year later, the client to pay the lawyer in installments for the sports car, plus some vig, plus the lawyer’s taxes, and call it a legal expense? Well, if that’s common for you, I think my estimation of you lawyerin’ abilities is really fallen down the rabbit hole.

So I will ask you, putting aside partisan bias. If you look at the actual facts of the case, and if you were the attorney … is this something you would do? Is this something that you think is “common” in our profession? Honest opinion, not partisan spin.

Because maybe I hang out with a different class of attorney, but what happened here would never happen at my firm, or any attorney I associate with. Because I would run screaming from any similar arrangement, knowing that an ethics complaint would be the LEAST of my worries.

[David Nieporent]

Is it “common” for a lawyer to take out a mortgage on their house to buy a sports car for the client, and then, a year later, the client to pay the lawyer in installments for the sports car, plus some vig, plus the lawyer’s taxes, and call it a legal expense?

…and all without any written retainer agreement spelling out this arrangement?

Also, to match the situation here, the lawyer would have to bill the client separately each month for "retainer for 3/1-3/31/17" even though it's just an installment plan reimbursing the lawyer for expenses incurred in 2016..

[Bored Lawyer]

You and Loki are missing the boat here. The records were clearly falsified, assuming Trump was in on it (which I think was the case, although there has been some noise that he wasn't.)

The question, though, is whose payment was this -- Trump's or Cohen's? To my mind this makes a difference, because to make this a felony and get over the statute of limitations, there has to be an intent to aid or conceal another crime. One of the theories about what the "other crime" is, is an illegal campaign contribution to the Trump campaign. (It's not the only theory, but it's the one I have seen pushed most often.)

But under Buckley v. Valeo, Trump can spend as much as he wants on his own campaign. I don't think asking your lawyer to pay a campaign expenditure and then reimbursing him for it takes your out of the holding of Buckley, any more than using a credit card for a campaign expenditure and then repaying the issuing bank at the end of the month would be.

And, frankly, the notion that Cohen was paying this out of his own pocket or intended to is laughable. This was a payoff on Trump's behalf that everyone intended Trump to pay back. It was covered up with false entries, because putting in "Pay Hush Money To Loose Woman" would defeat the whole point of the payment.

[Bored Lawyer]

I should add, as I did in a prior thread, that the sleeper here is tax fraud. If this expenditure was taken as a business deduction, then it's tax fraud, and that's the "other crime."
I don't know if it was. I saw somewhere that expenses could be either billed as personal expenses to Donald Trump or business expenses to the company. Maybe we will see proof of this down the line.

[Commenter_XY]

Ouch = tax fraud.

Thx for the posts on this, explaining what you saw as the core legal legal (it comes down to whether you can spend your own money on your own campaign). NDAs are not illegal, either.

[loki13]

That's mischaracterizing the issues, however.

First, Trump did not spend his own money. COHEN spent his own money. AMI spent the money. Trump made a promise to reimburse them, said reimbursement to occur after the election.

I will say the same thing I keep saying- that this is all available in the indictment and, more importantly, the contemporaneous statement of facts. This isn't hidden- it's stated that to execute the unlawful scheme, the participants violated elections laws (which they did) and mischaracterized the entries for tax purposes (that has to do with, inter alia, the "topping up.").

Moreover, the payments were made not by Trump, or even by Cohen, but ... wait for it ... by a shell corporation. And as we all know, corporations have different laws with regards to elections.

Here's the thing. No one disagrees with this- if Trump had, himself, prior to the election, entered into a NDA and paid the money himself, that wouldn't be an issue. But that's not what happened.

So when people try to "simplify" the account of the facts, what they are actually doing is misleading people. Because the facts matter.

Trump didn't pay someone hush money. Instead, Cohen set up a shell company (Essential Consultants LLC), and funded the LLC with his own money that he got with a HELOC in order to pay. This was unlawful, and Cohen already pled guilty and served time for it (and, for that matter, the FEC already found a violation for both Cohen and AMI). Then, after the election, false business records were created to cover up the payments to Cohen to reimburse him.

Those are the actual facts.

[Commenter_XY]

One of the things I enjoy the most here is the exposure to different viewpoints and different 'hot takes'. This was a helpful explanation.

After the testimony this week, I am certain there will be a conviction, barring a mistrial.

[loki13]

And I will add that BL didn't answer my question above.

He keeps trying to say that attorneys do "this" (getting reimbursed by clients "all the time") by analogizing it to court costs.

When I point out that no sane and ethical attorney would ever do THIS, he dodges the question.

I respect a lot of what BL writes, but to the extent that he continues to justify this setup as something that ethical attorneys regularly, or EVER, do, I have no respect for the attorneys where he is practicing.

[not guilty]

The limit on individual contributions to political campaigns upheld in Buckley v. Valeo applied to loans to a political campaign as well.

Donald Trump had a right to spend an unlimited amount of his own money on his election campaign. Michael Cohen had a right to spend an unlimited amount of his own money on Trump's election campaign, provided he did not coordinate the expenditures with the campaign. Neither scenario is what occurred here.

[Armchair]

So....you're saying that you're committing business fraud, when you cover court costs for a client, and then they pay you back with "legal services" on the check?

That's what it sounds like. You can be liable for fraud, according to what you state.

[Armchair]

"First, the testimony is that the payments were characterized as for legal services, "

Did you read WHY they were characterized as legal services, and who made that determination, and why?

Or did you fail to read the court transcripts?

[jb]

This is the same dumb argument that you apparently think lets you turn your vacation into Hawaii into a legal expense by having your lawyer pay for it and then you paying him back and writing "retainer" on the check.

[loki13]

These same dumb arguments keep getting raised and corrected in multiple threads, and as I have written previously, they do Trump apologists no favors. Because there are, in fact, some interesting issues in the case from a legal P.O.V., but because we have so many ... people .... making the exact same wrong comments in each thread, no one bothers to discuss anything interesting.

Because why bother? They've reached their conclusion, discussion is pointless.

[jb]

Agreed. I think the New York case is the weakest and honestly least interesting from an accountability perspective, but I also keep thinking "if this is the best arguments that people can come up with in response to this case, maybe Bragg is actually right".

[NOVA Lawyer]

Agreed.

[bernard11]

They’ve reached their conclusion, discussion is pointless.

"Reaching a conclusion" implies a certain amount of thought, logic, fact-finding, etc.

They haven't done that. They formed a conclusion based on their preferences, or maybe just swallowed whole one they heard from some other idiot.

[David Nieporent]

This is the same dumb argument that you apparently think lets you turn your vacation into Hawaii into a legal expense by having your lawyer pay for it and then you paying him back and writing “retainer” on the check.

It's worse than that, because the allegation isn't merely that the false entries said "retainer." They said "Retainer for 1/1-1/31/17" etc.

[Kazinski]

The issue is who made the "false" entries and the motivation for them. The person who made the entries was not Trump, and his motivation wasn't to cover up any crime.

[loki13]

You so confidently state what the "issue," is!

With that confidence, why not explain exactly why the Prosecutors called Tarasoff and and McConney, the substance of their testimony, and how that fits in with the indictment and the likely jury instructions.

You know, instead of "law-splaining" to us commoners what the "issue" is based on your superlative understanding of the facts and the law?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Oh my!

Kaz vs. loki on a matter of law. I wonder who will turn out to be correct.

*popcorn*

[Kazinski]

Well, I agree with you on one thing: best you stay on the sidelines and just watch.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Ain't much to watch if you came to tweak Jason, but ran from providing a substantive response to loki. It would appear you lost. Too badly to even try to salvage a point. Yet, you're taking shots at Jason. LOL.

[Kazinski]

Why? I already said what I think, and even speculated Merchan will issue a directed verdict after the prosecution rests. I've got nothing to add, and if Loki wants to channel NG and start handing out assignments he'll have to give me an incomplete.

We will know how the trial ends in a few weeks, and someone can do a victory dance, then the appeals will start if it's a guilty verdict, and there will be more dancing.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You've predicted a result. You understand you can be right for the wrong reasons. I mean a collection of 100 coins will get you about 50 right answers and they don't understand the legal and factual issues any better than you.

People who dance at the "right" answer when they either haven't given reasons or gave the wrong ones are mere fans.

I haven't watched the trial close enough to have an opinion on a likely outcome (other than, as you say, there will quite obviously be an appeal in the event of a guilty verdict) and haven't given one. I will say it is highly unlikely Merchan will issue a directed verdict at the close of the prosecutions case. If you're giving anything close to even odds on that, I'll take 'em.

[loki13]

Yeah, that's not really interesting, is it?

I've already written that there are issues with this case. Starting with the most basic one- a jury is not just a black box, but twelve black boxes. For all the intricate legal issues we might be discussing, it only takes one juror to decide they don't wanna convict.

That said, understanding what the facts are, and what the law is, matter. Because otherwise what are you doing? Either contribute something based on the facts and the law (and try and learn something) or, as they say, shut your pie hole and wait for the jury.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Intelligent people don't start fights they can't possibly win. You could take a lesson from that, or you could continue embarrassing yourself.

Don't worry, we all know quite well which choice you'll continue to make.

🙂

[Armchair]

Did you read the testimony?

I did. And not off the NYTimes.

Do you know "why" these charges were classified as "Legal services" and who made that determination?

[Armchair]

Let's use your vacation example...

You get your travel agent to book you a trip to Hawaii. They book the plane flight, the hotel room, and then add a fat fee on top. They bill you. You write "fee for services" or "fee for travel services".

Have you committed fraud? Because you just indicate the "services" and not the hotel room separately on the check?

[David Nieporent]

It’s interesting that the majority of the charges in the Trump false business statements case in Manhattan are over a single word. “Retainer”.

Your understanding of the charges is — to the surprise of nobody — incorrect.

[Armchair]

And yet...you can't bother to explain "why" it's incorrect...because you seem to have no answers.

Let this be a lesson. Those who cannot explain why are simply children going "No you're wrong BECAUSE!"...then running away.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's hard to start out less credibly than to cite an English language dictionary to a bunch of lawyers.

This case is somewhat dodgy, but that ain't why.

[Armchair]

But the point is...the jury isn't a bunch of lawyers. The people on trial are not a bunch of lawyers.

They're common people, using common definitions.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The actual point is...you have no idea how a trial works, otherwise you wouldn't be here loudly and wrongly proclaiming that a jury goes off of dictionary definitions.

[ThePublius]

On a lighter note....

Anyone here play the piano?

Anyone here a piano tuner or techician?

I'm dabbling in piano restoration. My new old house came with a no-name "baby" grand - actually a petite grand, like 5'9". It's probably close to 100 years old. It has many notes that don't work, and hasn't held a tuning in the last 18 months. So, being an engineer and a bit OCD, I've researched it, and have started working on it. It's fascinating! A grand piano action is complicated, and not inexpensive to restore. I'm taking the least expensive approach, and I'm having some success, 'though I should probably buy new hammers, and then the tools needed to properly replace hammers. But, it's really cool. There are some modern composite material actions that replace the traditional wood, leather, felt, and brass/steel/bronze actions that have been in use for 300 years, but such an action costs more than a good used car, maybe even more than an inexpensive new car!

I'm having success so far, and having fun, too.

Would love to hear if anyone else here is into this....

[Brett Bellmore]

My son, 15, plays piano. Manged to get the school to have the old grand piano in their lobby tuned, he practices on it at lunch. His senior project is going to be building a pipe organ. We'll be starting on that this summer, it's not going to be a quick job.

Yes, the works are pretty complex, aren't they? The technology is fascinating.

[ThePublius]

"Yes, the works are pretty complex, aren’t they? The technology is fascinating."

Yes! I like it because of the complexity and the history. I'm so amazed that folks 300 years ago could design and fabricate such precise and interesting mechanisms. Working on my piano I feel a connection to the people who designed it and made it. It's a wonderful combination of history, nostalgia, and technology.

[Mr. Bumble]

If you really want to be impressed look into the history of automatons (and of course the development of clocks and watches).

[Brett Bellmore]

Ever seen the movie, "Hugo"?

[Mr. Bumble]

Not familiar with it, but I'll give it a look if I can find it streaming.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Better yet, the book 'Longitude' by Dava Sobel (1995) about the 18th century clockmaker John Harrison. Amazing.
But I would guess you've already read it.

[BrotherMovesOn]

I think Brett has already read it.
I doubt that Bumble has read a book.

[Mr. Bumble]

The practitioner snipe crawls out of the closet, yaps and crawls back.
FYI BBC did an excellent mini series adaptation of the book.

[Frank Drackman]

I delivered Pianos for a while in College. One for Hank Williams Jr.

[Moderation4ever]

Good luck to you and to Brett's sone below. Both sound like interesting projects.

[ThePublius]

Thank you. Yes, it's a gratifying project. The challenge is determining what must be done to bring it to a particular level of serviceability. I'm struggling over whether to purchase a set of hammers, as that will require some sophisticated fixturing in order to bore them correctly for the shanks. Other than that, I think I have things under control with refurbishing and replacing some key bushings, lubricating the six (!) pivot points per whippen, and generally cleaning wooden parts, polishing metal parts, and cleaning and "fluffing up" felt, woolen, and leather parts.

Today I learned that my no-name piano, a "Mozart, New York," was made by Brambach, who apparently made very good pianos, and lots or private labeled ones, and I am sure mine is. So, I don't feel so bad investing some time and money into restoring it.

Don't know how far I'll go with this. The case finish is heavily "alligatored," and the strings are kinda dirty. We'll see.

[bernard11]

I play some piano. I think I can safely claim to be the worst pianist in New England, at least, though I haven’t gone against wider competition.

My understanding from tuners, technicians, etc. is that pianos, unlike some instruments, pretty much start to deteriorate the day they are new, and maintaining and tuning an old one as you describe is hard work. At some point they become practically impossible to tune. Unless you are a big-time D-I-Y’er, as you are, who just enjoys the work, it’s not at all worth doing.

If you like it, the good thing is there are lots of free pianos – mostly uprights – around.

Me, I bought a decent electronic – a Roland – and was delighted when they hauled off the old upright.

Enjoy.

[Brett Bellmore]

We got our son a Donner. Price was decent, and it was supposed to replicate the feel of a mechanical piano pretty well.

But half the time he's in the other room playing our antique Yamaha Electone, which we got for free from the piano store because it was busted, and nobody cared to fix it. It actually works most of the time, the amp just gets noisy after a while. Maybe I'll try to replace the amp this summer, he's already fixed the Leslie speaker. (Just had a broken belt.)

[ThePublius]

Yes, I understand now how they deteriorate. I think that will be much improved with the new, composite actions, as from WNG:
https://wessellnickelandgross.com/
Mason & Hamlin are using them, and I think it's only a matter of time before Steinway and Bosendorfer adopt that technology.

[John F. Carr]

I am looking at a TOP SECRET document, the text of which reads "The mission of this Allied Force was fulfulled at 0241, local time, May 7th, 1945." This was Eisenhower's vague way of reporting that Germans had signed an instrument of surrender. Why top secret? Partly habit, and partly protocol. Stalin was upset. The surrender wasn't done his way and it had to be done over again with proper ceremony and with Stalin's explicit approval. There was another signing ceremony the next day and fighting officially ended on the second day, May 9, 79 years ago.

AP writer Edward Kennedy revealed this classified information. He was not charged under the Espionage Act but did lose his job.

The top secret document was downgraded in security a month later.

[BrianL.]

I posted this in the Monday Open Thread, but no one replied, so I'm posting it here:

I recently saw the Civil War movie. I’ve heard people say that the President is supposed to be Trump. The President is only in the movie for a few minutes and he does not look, talk or act like Trump. So for people who’ve actually seen the movie and think the President is supposed to be Trump, please tell me what in the movie makes you think that.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

** wrong spot**

[Sarcastr0]

I wonder if not many on here saw it.

I may post a broader media discussion below.

[Brett Bellmore]

I haven't. Nothing political, it's just not my cup of tea.

From the reviews I've read, it primarily focuses on the journalists, who aren't even very likeable, and leaves everything that a normal person would see a "The Civil War" movie to see deliberately vague.

Vegan Rhino Cutlets, IOW.

[BrianL.]

In the comments of the review on Reason, there were people saying the President was supposed to be Trump. I hadn't seen the movie at that point, but now that I have, I want to understand why people think that.

I mainly saw the movie because it's same director as Ex Machina (Alex Garland). Also because I prepaid for a year of Regal Unlimited, so it's essentially free for me to see any movie at my local Regal (with the exception of special screenings like Fathom Events).

[Frank Drackman]

I don't need your Civil Wah
You're power-hungry, sellin' soldiers in a human grocery store,
What's so Civil bout Wah, anyway?

[Ed Grinberg]

I don't go to the movies much. When I do, I try to avoid anything that screams "anti-Republican propaganda."

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, a lot of the complaints seem to revolve around it NOT being anti-Republican propaganda. It just relentlessly avoids identifying who the bad guys are, or why there was a civil war.

[Sarcastr0]

To be fair, it shouldn't need to, given what I understand it's focus to be.

As you said, not my cup of tea.

Those on either end calling this cowardly for not being partisan are sounding like addicts to me.

[Nige]

I've seen a few reviews that suggest that the reason it's not about the politics is because it's about the role of the war correspondents who are the main characters.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Isn’t that quarter mile high speed rail system that took 9 years and $12B to make just ‘classic government’?

Why do the people in government shit up everything they do? They’re like King Midas if the gold was really shit.

Why would anyone want these morons, midwits, and partisans to control their healthcare?

[taqmcg]

While I think it is incontestable that the system being built is an absurd waste of money, the article I've seen on this seem to have been carefully written as clickbait. While the initial impression is that it took 12 billion dollars to build this one tiny segment, I think a more careful reading is that this segment is now done, and 12 billion dollars has been spent overall -- not just on this segment. Just a few hundred billion more and maybe it will carry a few passengers.

[Ed Grinberg]

possibilities:
1. Obama is a really compassionate dude.
2. Obama & Co. wanted (and still want to) destroy our country.
3. Obama & Co. saw it as a way to gain more power.
I think that just about covers it.
As for Obama personally, I'm torn between 2 & 3. I admit the possibility that some others who push for this fall into Category 1. (But, like you said, how stupid do you have to be to think it'll make things better...)

[Sarcastr0]

I'd forgotten how stupid people got about Obama.

[Nige]

4. The US can't do infrastructure any more. This is going to be a Big Problem.

[Jerry B.]

The U.S. can do infrastructure. The government can’t.

[Nige]

So build a high-speed rail system, then.

[Bwaaah]

Twenty years out it’s crystal clear that the politically savvy thing to do would have been to force Clinton out of office”

The “politically savvy” thing for any partisan to do is to support their party’s candidate at any cost, change their story to match that end, and tell it like they’re operating from a set of principles.

[tylertusta]

My favorite example is MoveOn.org, which was created to protect Clinton from the Lewinsky scandal.

[Nige]

But Democrats were never the party of traditional Christian family values in furious opposition to the gay and/or single-parent librul lifestyle threatening the fabric of society. An affair was never as important to them as it was to Republicans. Although we gave since found out what a crock of shit those family values actually were. See also: Party Of Law And Order, and Patriotism.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I was already no longer a Republican by that time, but I supported Clinton's impeachment for rule of law reasons (also, I thought perjury was a particularly reprehensible thing for a lawyer to do).

Today's GOP is a different beast and almost entirely devoid of any principle other than seizing and retaining power, but I'm sure there were Republicans at that time who were as appalled as I was that a President would soil the office in the way Clinton did (metaphorically, not euphemistically).

But perhaps Clinton did us a favor? He showed us what it was really like in the corridors of power.

[Nige]

Considering the massive amount of time and expense and rhetoric that was put into going after him, catching him on a falsehood under oath in relation to an infidelity was a moment of profound bathos. I find it hard to believe anyone really got worked up over it who wasn’t already predisposed against him.

I guess Trump getting friendly media to catch and kill stories about his infidelities isn't against the law, but you'd think it would *matter*, especially to people obsessed with conspiracies and cover-ups and media dirty-dealing.

[Krayt]

I listen to CNN on the way in on sat radio. It's the audio from a video show, probably their normal am show. But I know it's not an audio only show because from time to time they say something like, "as you can see here".

Anyway, it's a complete, breathless media circus when discussing the trials. I can't blame them because that's how they earn money.

But some of the barkers clearly know what they're talking about as legal experts. Main barker always says, "Back to the Trump hush money trial", but later someone says it's not about the payments for silence, "which are legal", but about not reporting it as a donation because it benefits his campaign.

But the past few days, one breathless barker has added, "and corruptly influenced the election." The yokels listening don't know, but others who follow such things know exactly what's happening, whether you facetiously maintain it's all disinterested concern for rule of law, or initiative 37b addendum to git 'im!

So there's method to this madness.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You should try listening to rightwing radio.

I wonder if it's anything like rightwing TV and Internet?

[loki13]

I read an interesting overview of some of the legal issues in the NY Criminal trial of Trump here-

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-must-prosecutors-prove-in-trump-s-ny-trial

I recommend reading it if you would like to at least try to intelligently discuss some of the law-like substance going on. It doesn't cover everything, but it does do a good job of explaining some of the things that seem to keep getting some people here tripped up, like the difference between § 175.05 and § 175.05, and the standard that has to be proved for the "another crime," and the actual cases construing same.

It also has an interesting discussion about both the law, and the possible issues with jury instructions, regarding whether the jury has to agree on what the other crime is.

[Voize]

like the difference between § 175.05 and § 175.05

I’ll have to read it, that sounds like a really subtle point I never would have picked up on my own. <insert smiley here>

[loki13]

LOL!

§ 175.05 and § 175.10.

Need more coffee.

[TwelveInchPianist]

In that case, the difference is .05

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

§ .05

[TwelveInchPianist]

Dammit, I forgot the units.

[Voize]

No, one-twentieth of a section is the correct units. That's 32 acres, innit?

[Commenter_XY]

Thanks for posting this, loki13. This is why I come here. I learn.

[Ed Grinberg]

Is it worth my time to try to "learn" the specifics about how Democrats are railroading their opposition? I don't think so.

[loki13]

.... and that's why you don't have anything useful to contribute to discussions about the law. So noted!

[Josh R]

That’s very helpful, particularly the part about juror unanimity on the underlying crime.

Let’s assume the prosecution relies on 17-152 and the jury need only be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump intended to conspire to promote his election by unlawful means. Can the defense argue (at trial or on appeal) that concealing hush money is not an unlawful means to promote his election, and thus 17-152 can’t be the underlying crime even assuming Trump intended the concealment to promote his election?

[loki13]

Two things-

First, it appears that there isn't just one underlying crime. But assuming your hypo (either the prosecution relies on it solely, or that's what the jury finds in a special verdict), I think it's complicated.

Because the caselaw shows that what matters is not the underlying crime, but the intent. And the cases show that even if a person isn't convicted of the underlying crime, you can still be convicted when there is a separate criminal law that has the requirement of intent to commit the crime (that's the repugnant case).

So I think it would be a difficult appeal to say that the jury found, as a matter of fact, the intent to commit the crime, and that there is no requirement to convict on the crime, but you are going to argue the underlying crime. But I will defer to those with more knowledge of the criminal law of New York for that one; just my immediate thoughts.

(And I will add that for this purpose, the "hush money" is a mischaracterization of 17-152. At least, as the prosecutors are characterizing it, and based on what I've seen of the filings.)

[Commenter_XY]

Does lenity apply in determining intent? Is the jury instructed to adopt the most favorable interpretation of intent to the defendant?

[loki13]

Short answer- no.

Longer answer- also no.

But as brief as I can be- the rule of lenity is a rule of construction, not just some general principle. The basic idea (although the actual application matters) is that is a criminal law is ambiguous, it should be applied in a way that is favorable to the defendant. But that's for the law.

So-
1. It doesn't apply to the jury.
2. It doesn't apply to intent.

In addition, while people often have these "crazy ideas" about intent and you will see the usual people here opine about it (BUT HOW CAN YOU EVER KNOW WHAT SOMEONE IS THINKING??!!!!?11???), "intent," in the law, and especially in criminal law, is very well-established. In fact, almost every ... single .... criminal law has an intent requirement that must be proven. This is the whole "mens rea" (mental state) along with the "actus reus" (criminal act) that must be proven.

[Commenter_XY]

The charts in the article were very helpful. The 'fork' in the road is 175.10, isn't it? It is all about proving intent.

One other question....does the jury verdict need to be unanimous for a conviction on 175.10? The article alludes to the possibility that a majority verdict could suffice. Was I reading that correctly? What I took away was because it is intent (just an element of a crime), unanimous verdict not necessarily required (according to Court of Appeals).

[loki13]

Not exactly. The article was trying to make a point about the "another crime" intent element.

Here's the gist-

There is law that indicates that the jury doesn't have to agree on what the crime is, so long as they agree that there is another crime. In other words, it appears that there is precedent that would allow the jury to disagree on what the other crime is, but so long as they all agree that there was intent for another crime, it's all good.

But the article is making the point that Merchan has been careful so far, so will likely issue jury instructions that require the jury to specify the crime.

[Commenter_XY]

Understood. It really was a great article, esp the charts. It showed how the charges are potentially linked.

Do litigators make those kinds of charts to help them devise trial strategy as a matter of course? Is that what you guys do to figure it out?

[not guilty]

"One other question….does the jury verdict need to be unanimous for a conviction on 175.10?"

A jury verdict of guilty needs to be unanimous as to every essential element of the charged offense, including Donald Trump's intent, at the time of falsifying business records, to defraud, including his intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. In a pretrial order, Judge Merchan permitted the prosecution to argue three theories of what constituted the "object offense," while disallowing argument as to a fourth. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24432832/2024-02-15-order-denying-motion-to-dismiss-people-v-donaldtrump-2-15-24decision-1.pdf

That can get tricky if, for example, some jurors believe that Trump intended to aid or conceal one crime, while other jurors believe that he intended to aid or conceal a different crime, resulting in what is sometimes called a patchwork verdict.

I haven't researched what New York law requires on that aspect of jury unanimity, but some jurisdictions require an enhanced unanimity instruction to the jury that all jurors must agree as to what facts constitute the crime. See, e.g., United States v. Duncan, 850 F.2d 1104, 1110 (6th Cir. 1988) (when evidence of two false statements is used to prove one false tax return offense, the jury should be instructed of the need for unanimity on, at least, one of the statements in order to convict).

[Commenter_XY]

That was the only other loose end I was wondering about. The article was a little murky about it too.

After this week, I think a conviction is now a certainty, barring a mistrial.

[not guilty]

"Does lenity apply in determining intent? Is the jury instructed to adopt the most favorable interpretation of intent to the defendant?"

No, for the reasons that loki13 has explained. But the jury is instructed as to the burden of proof being on the prosecution and the standard of proof being beyond a reasonable doubt as to every element of the offense, so the jury instructions are actually more favorable to the defendant than the rule of lenity.

[not guilty]

The rule of lenity applies only if, after seizing everything from which aid can be derived, the court can make no more than a guess as to what Congress intended. To invoke the rule, the court must conclude that there is a grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the statute. Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 138-139 (1998).

It is conceivable that a trial judge may consider the rule of lenity (along with other rules of statutory construction) when a defendant moves for judgment of acquittal under Fed.R.Crim.P. 29. (The prudent course of action there would be to reserve decision on the motion, proceed with the trial (where the motion is made before the close of all the evidence), submit the case to the jury, and decide the motion either before the jury returns a verdict or after it returns a verdict of guilty or is discharged without having returned a verdict.)

[Brett Bellmore]

The issue here, I think, is that "Intent to conceal X" can't be "Intent to conceal a crime" if X isn't a crime. I don't think you can even stretch it to cover a case where you mistakenly think X was a crime, but X not being a crime certainly complicates proving the defendant THOUGHT it was a crime.

So, if Trump genuinely intended to conceal that he'd paid hush money via Cohen, it still doesn't get you where you want to be if paying the hush money wasn't illegal.

Now, complicating the matter is the fact that Cohen plead guilty to paying the hush money being a campaign finance violation. So it being a crime is established so far as HE is concerned.

But, let's be real: He plead guilty to that as part of a plea deal to get incredibly lenient treatment on some pretty unambiguous genuine crimes, so that it was a campaign finance violation was never subject to adversarial process. The feds bought that confession, they didn't win it.

So if you're trying to nail Trump, it being a crime has to be a part of what you're proving in court, and Trump has to be permitted to contest that. As a matter of justice, anyway.

Perhaps not as a matter of law, because our laws are frequently unjust.

[loki13]

"The issue here, I think"

That's the first problem. Seriously. Instead of just "thinking" and spouting off, how about actually looking at some of the relevant legal issues and law?

Hint- there's a place you can start with this issue.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I'm not sure how the state will prove that Trump's "conscious objective or purpose" was to promote his election by concealing the fact that he paid hush money to Stormy Daniels for the purpose of... or whatever the elements of the object crime are.

It seems plausible that his conscious objective or purpose was to promote his election by concealing the affair, without more.

[Josh R]

.

Because the caselaw shows that what matters is not the underlying crime, but the intent.

I understand, but you summarily dismissed Brett's point unpersuasively.

First, assume 175.10 requires only an intent to commit or conceal another crime. And further assume the sole underlying crime is 17-152 and we stipulate Trump falsified business records with the intent to conceal hush money payments as part of a conspiracy to promote his election.

At first blush to me, I don't see a violation of 175.10 because Trump's intent cannot be an unlawful promotion his election. That is, what he intended is perfectly legal, whether or not it happened.

[loki13]

“I understand”

Well, then you should refer back to my reply to you, supra, where I explained in more detail my thoughts on the issue.

Now what is the burden of proof? Well, it’s just an enhanced intent requirement, NOT an actus reus requirement. Here’s that legal pull quote you should be familiar with-

“The People were not required to establish that defendant committed, or was convicted of, the crime he intended to conceal.”

All that is required is INTENT to commit the other crime. It’s an intent element.

So lets’ go through this, AGAIN, in more detail. First, there are three separate crimes that we are looking at- FECA, 17-152, Tax Law 1801(a)(3), 1802. But let’s just confine this to 17-152 for the purposes of the hypothetical. What … is … 17-152?

§ 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

I’m getting shades of the whole “conspiracy” conversation again. Anyway, this is why elements of this trial can sometimes have that “conspiracy” feel to them.

But getting back to the topic, the unlawful means under 17-152 would be entering into a scheme that provided unlawful campaign contributions by AMI, Pecker, and Cohen, and falsified the business records by misclassifying the payments and repayments.

And, as already noted, since Cohen pled guilty to violating FECA, and since Cohen AND AMI were found to have violated FECA by the FEC, it’s going to be really hard to say … “yeah, but this isn’t unlawful,” given, again, that this is an intent requirement, and the law is that you don't need to seek, or get, or prove a conviction of the crime.

ARE. WE. GOOD. NOW? ????

[Josh R]

We might be good.

It seems like your theory of intent tied to 17-152 is coextensive with intent tied to FECA. But, I assumed the prosecution only presented 17-152 which would be kind of weird if the 17-152 intended violation occurred if and only if the FECA intended violation did.

[loki13]

Not MY theory of intent. Please! Remember, I try and explain things, but that doesn’t (always) mean that I agree with them. As I’ve pointed out, it is possible to think that this is a case with problems, but still be able to talk intelligently about the law … as opposed to just making stuff up as we see so often.

The Prosecution’s theory, as identified in prior court filings, is that 17-152 applies to federal elections, and that it is not preempted by FECA (something already litigated in People v. Trump, SDNY).

Because of that, 17-152 is largely coextensive with FECA in terms of intent and the underlying facts. There is probably some nuance I am missing, but close enough for an internet comment.

[Josh R]

We haven't heard boo about FECA yet in the trial. I presume the prosecution will get around to it.

[Sarcastr0]

Media discussion thread!

Watching:
--X-Men '97 (3 eps in already actually)
-All Creatures Great and Small (only the Christmas ep left in the latest season - my wife and I call it 'Cozy Animal Show.')

Want to watch:
-Gentleman from Moscow (rather enjoyed the book)
-Wrexium
-Ghost detectives

Reading
-Fourth Wing (Just started - so far kind of a female-centric Starship Troopers with dragons)

Recently Read
-Redwood and Wildfire by Andrea Hairston(meeeeh - discursive and too much with the vibes)
-The Heart Goes Last by Margaret Atwood (about 3 novels jammed into one each hornier than the last; and the main characters are all loathsome...not a fan)
-Power Failure: The Rise and Fall of an American Icon (GE's history from start till breakup. Interesting stuff about how much corporations run on the great man theory more than inevitable forces).
-Half-built Garden by Ruthanna Emrys (this one is a banger - cozy solarpunk about aliens coming into a sort of tripartide cold war. A bit rushed in the ending)

Upcoming:
By-Line - Ernest Hemingway
The Tyranny of Metrics by Jerry Z. Muller
Golden Age of the Solar Clipper Series by Nathan Lowell
The Interdependency series by John Scalzi

Playing (tons of nerdy jargon here - beware!)
-Old Gods of Appalachia (Too rules light; but I enjoy my drunken forest ranger)
-Planescape (gonna play a panglossian kobold barbarian sensate)

-Running
-a heavily modded and converted to Pathfinder Curse of Strahd.

[BrianL.]

I was surprised how much I liked A Gentleman in Moscow. The show that is; never read the novel.

The first two episodes of Dark Matter were released on Apple TV yesterday. I plan on watching them soon.

Currently reading The Three Body Problem. I want to read the book before watching the Netflix show.

[Sarcastr0]

I found Three Body Problem to be just too misanthropic for me. The author comes by it honestly, but it's not a universe I wanted to spend a lot of time in, innovative though it was.

I finished it, but no interest in the sequels.

Thanks for the tip on Dark Matter - heard good things.

[Ska]

All Creatures Great and Small is really great. It's the only wholesome show I can think of that doesn't veer off into pure cheese.

I proposed to my fiance with the help of our cats while watching an episode of All Creatures, and it was perfectly fitting.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, it's my wife and my quality time. We're going slow on it to savor it.

I knew it was going to be special when an important animal had to be put down unexpectedly. The trainee came in to tell the lead vet, and this prickly guy's response was 'are YOU okay?'

Yeah. Nice.

[Malika the Maiz]

Wrexham is fun, both if you are a fan of soccer, interested in other cultures like Wales and if you think Ryan Reynolds's social media is funny.

[Magister]

I still hold a deep hatred for Curse of Strahd, which turned my perfectly nice paladin into a cynical nihilist.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, the module contemplates doing some some interesting things with player agency.

Sound like your DM got the brief.

I'm working hard to set expectations.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm running CoS right now in fact.

[Sarcastr0]

reddit (yes that reddit!) has some incredible resources for it.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I’ve looked into MandyMod and CoS:Reloaded already. I agree with you that they are really good.

Are you currently running it as well, or have you played it previously?

[Sarcastr0]

After having been inspired by Puffin Forest's run-through I edited to add some elements from that version, and converted it to Pathinder,

I've run it once already, over Zoom and roll20.
Went pretty well, though after they solved the mystery of St. Andral's bones and did everything right did not avoid badness because Strahd was still one step ahead of them...had to stop the game because there were some pretty mad players.

Other feedback was the ticking clock of Strahd hounding them shoulder made them unable to appreciate the world enough. The pressure was all vibes, so I don't know if I want to change that.

I'm prepping to run through with another group (last one was lawyers, this one is an older more mixed group). The main thing I did was make a player's guide to explain, among other things, that this is gothic horror not heroic fantasy. They may figure everything out and still be unable to change what's in store.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I converted a 3.5 adventure to 5e (Scourge of the Howling Horde) as an introductory experience in Faerun before dropping them into Barovia, as I have one player who's watched Critical Role, but has never played D&D at all. I did not wish to subject him and the others to Barovia immediately until they've had a chance to figure themselves out and I've had a chance to gauge their abilities as well. They are about to finish up that module and I've previously introduced an NPC offering to take them back to the main town if they accomplish their goals in this module.

What they don't realize yet, is that NPC is actually a Vistana whom Strahd uses to find interesting toys to play with and lead them into Death House.

So on the way back to the main town, should they accept his offer of celebratory wine (the wine is poisoned) and a free ride home, he's instead going to drop them off outside of Death House with the Mist closing in. In this version of CoS, Death House is actually an entity designed to travel the planes and subject would-be Strahd playthings to a gauntlet, to determine if they will be acceptable entertainment to Strahd once they reach Barovia.

If they survive DH, then they will escape it and find themselves outside the Gates of Barovia where CoS will properly begin.

If you are a Pathfinder fan, might I suggest you look into Foundry VTT? It's light-years ahead of Roll20, and although they now have a deal to officially support D&D, Foundry was actually built from the start with Pathfinder in mind.

It's a pleasure to talk about something other than the usual bullshit for once!

[Sarcastr0]

I’m skipping death house myself…I’m just too eager to get to the plot (having PCs start at level 3).
But if you have new folks that’s a great tone setter and not too breakneck a pace unless they insist on it.

I’ve had other DM’s try out Foundry. It was bit too much machine for what we usually do.

Plus I’ve got all the pictures, maps, monsters, and handouts, already set-up from last go-round.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not converting Dragon Heist, but putting it in space.

After that I've got a yen to write something in the Unknown Armies direction.

[Don Nico]

I liked "Gentleman from Moscow." Ewan McGregor makes for a likeable Count Rostow

[hobie]

Looks like republican antisemetic jargon is in full swing. The hook-nosed shylock jewish globalist pupetmaster tropes employed by Stalin and the Nazis are again the republican de juer. And regular Jewish Americans? Trump: "any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion."

You hayseeds do realize that Israelis are quite aware that all the free welfare they get, and all the fundamentalist obsession over Israel, is so they can be slaughtered in the End of Times. And they're totally fine with that

[Brett Bellmore]

Personally I support them because they're in the right here, Hamas are murdering savages. And I'm certainly not going to get to do a pilgrimage to the holy land if the Muslims control it! That was the original cause of the Crusades, if people forget: Muslims had conquered formerly Jewish and Christian areas in the Middle East, and were denying non-Muslims access to holy sites.

If you're a Christian, frankly, you wouldn't see any need to support Israel so that they'll be available for Armageddon. If God wants them there for Armageddon, they'll be there without your help.

[hobie]

How I feel about the Palestinians and the Israelis is largely what George Carlin said about children which he felt were over-praised, "Children [Israelis/Palestinians] are like any other group of people: a few winners and a whole lot of losers."

[Mr. Bumble]

As opposed to Hamas, all losers.

[SimonP]

Ah, so the war on Gaza is a Crusade, in Brett's view.

[Brett Bellmore]

People who hate on the Crusades typically fail to understand that they were actually a push back against Muslim military advances. And, like I said, really got going when the Muslims up and decided to stop allowing pilgrims access to their own holy sites.

[SimonP]

I'm not going to spend time today refreshing on the historical context of the Crusades so as to better evaluate your framing of them. I suspect, as usual, that you are simply spinning the record, but I don't give enough of a shit to rebut you.

I will simply observe that it is odd to care this much about "correcting" common understandings of the Crusades, which all happened centuries ago and have little direct relevance to anything happening now, absent a general interest in history you've never before evinced. You can't help projecting your insecurities onto the entirety of human history, it would seem.

[Nige]

'that they were actually'

Why do people think this precludes the entirely accurate view of the crusades as a series of Holy Wars driven by insane religious zealotry?

[David Nieporent]

People who hate on the Crusades typically fail to understand that they were actually a push back against Muslim military advances.

The Jew killing was just a bonus for them!

[Kazinski]

I think the crusades were the result of an economic and military and surplus in Western Europe and lack of other outlets to employ them.

Probably the same thing that drove the, Romans, Huns, Goths, the Arab Jihad's across northern Africa into Spain, the Mongol invasions, the Viking era, Ottoman conquests (which the crusades probably enhanced)etc.

Then the new world opened up and provided other outlets for the military and population surpluses, the Thirty year war mopped up those surpluses for Central Europe for generations.
Leaving periodic wars like the War of Spanish Succesion, the Napoleonic Wars, on through WWII every 30-50 years.

Its kind of early to tell if the relative peace since WWII is actually new paradigm, or merely a longer pause in an ongoing series of alternating expansion, consolidation and contraction. It could be that the mostly peaceful migrations we are seeing now in Europe and our southern border are that new paradigm, or the age of population and military surpluses is over.

Right now the ball is in Russia's, China's, and Iran's court.

But the crusades aren't unique because they were some kind "insane religious zealotry" but because they were an unserious lark, by rich dilettantes rather than serious attempts at permanent conquest and occupation.

I think its hardly coincidence that many of the crusader kingdoms were spearheaded and ruled by Normans, the descendants of a culture that invaded and set up similar pocket kingdoms across Ireland, England, France as pagans, then to Italy, Greece, pre-Turkey and Palestine as Christians.

[grb]

1. The “crusades” covers a lot of historical ground. General statements on the subject should be treated skeptically.

2. Not only did they result from many factors, but they sometimes morphed in something different midstream. You might have a Pope calling for liberation of the Holy Land to start, but crusaders sacking fellow Christians in Constantinople at the end. In execution, they were often all about the Benjamins.

3. Yes, they were caused by panic over the Ottomans. And the emergence of powerful nation states in Europe. And avaricious mercenary opportunism. And reglious / secular leaders jockeying for preeminent & advantage. And leaders trying to defuse regional conflicts via the appeal of a common enemy. (And many other things as well).

4. Plus they were often a useless, pointless, destructive mess.

[Nige]

You're not going to take the insane religious zealotry out of the crusades just by simply alluding to some of the various conditions that helped them come about.

[Sarcastr0]

And the Crusades were largely a Christian war of liberation.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"And I’m certainly not going to get to do a pilgrimage to the holy land if the Muslims control it!"

This is an absolutely deranged thing to post in the year 2024

[Ed Grinberg]

I don’t know about keeping out Christians, but I’m pretty sure there're some (many? most?) Muslim countries that don’t allow Jews (or is it just Israelis?) to visit.

[Ska]

I heard a good story from a colleague, a Syrian Jew, at the border of Israel and Jordan a couple decades ago when going to Petra. He was allowed to pass through, but it was a pretty wild story from his telling.

[Frank Drackman]

Deranged thing would be going to any Moose-lum controlled country, in Ear-Ron Pete Booty-Judge and his Wife Chaz would be tarred and feathered and then pubicly hung from cranes for Homosexuality and Corrupting Youth, (and not for Petey's incompetent running of Dept of Transportation like he should be)

Frank

[Nige]

'If you’re a Christian, frankly, you wouldn’t see any need to support Israel so that they’ll be available for Armageddon.'

All very well, but THEY DO.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not so far as I've noticed. Of course, you spend all your time around Roman Catholics, I merely AM one, so you'd know better than me.

[Nige]

You work very hard not to notice some things. Everyone knows the strong influence the Roman Catholics have over the GOP.

[grb]

Lord knows they’re a damn good example showing the effectiveness of Affirmative Action (Supreme Court Edition).

[bernard11]

That was the original cause of the Crusades, if people forget: Muslims had conquered formerly Jewish and Christian areas in the Middle East, and were denying non-Muslims access to holy sites.

That's a rather sanitized, not to say inaccurate, view. The fact is that Alexios, the Byzantine emperor, needed help from the west to, belatedly, fight off the Turks who had taken most of Anatolia and were threatening Constantinople. Pope Urban II saw it as an opportunity to strengthen his hand vis-a-vis his rival Pope, Clement III. Hence his famous speech and the organization of the Crusade during which the holy Crusaders launched numerous pogroms while on the way to the Holy Land.

Anyway, the First Crusade was a sort of success:

The siege of Jerusalem marked the successful end of the First Crusade, whose objective was the recovery of the city of Jerusalem and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre from Islamic control...

After Jerusalem was captured on 15 July 1099, thousands of Muslims and Jews were massacred by Crusader soldiers. ...

On 15 July 1099, the crusaders made their way into the city through the tower of David and began massacring large numbers of the inhabitants, Muslims and Jews alike. The Fatimid governor of the city, Iftikhar Ad-Daulah, managed to escape.[14] According to eyewitness accounts the streets of Jerusalem were filled with blood.

Yeah. They were worried about Jews not being able to visit holy sites.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, I tried to call him on this above but just sound like I think the Crusades were about Christian liberation.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Looks like republican antisemetic jargon is in full swing.

Yes, all of those pro-Hamas/gas-the-Jews protesters are almost certainly members of the Young Republicans. Oh, wait...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually, at least at UMass Amherst, it has become a demand that the university end Defense-related research on campus and stop letting its grads go work for Raytheon.

Now who would not want the US to have better weaponry?
China?
Iran?

[Sarcastr0]

stop letting its grads go work for Raytheon

You're so fucking bad at making up stories.

[ThePublius]

Made up?

"SGA passes resolution to divest from Raytheon and drop sanctions on 57 arrested students and staff"

https://dailycollegian.com/2024/05/sga-passes-resolution-to-divest-from-raytheon-and-drop-sanctions-on-57-arrested-students-and-staff/

[Sarcastr0]

Read this again, "stop letting its grads go work for Raytheon."

That has nothing to do with divesting from Raytheon.

[SimonP]

I realize it’s a common talking point, but I am skeptical that the “End of Times” rationale explains most fundamentalist Christian thinking on Israel. It just doesn’t seem to feature often enough in the rhetoric.

Christians have their own territorial claims to the region (as Brett aptly illustrates), and Christians have always been fans of religiously-motivated violence and especially of killing Muslims (again, as Brett aptly illustrates). So I think that’s all there is to it, really.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Exodus 22.2

[Frank Drackman]

I don't care why, but I run into less antisemitism in Columbia SC than I see at Columbia University. Its more of a cultural thang, if you're into Guns, College Foobawl, Fast Cars, and not a flaming Homo most Southerners will cut you some slack, if you're a Jerry Nadler/Chucky Schumer Putz you might get the Leo Frank (no relation) treatment (Socially! Socially!).

Frank

[bernard11]

if you’re a Jerry Nadler/Chucky Schumer Putz

IOW, if you're Jewish you better act like a good ole boy. Nothing antisemitic about that.

[Frank Drackman]

No, not like a Good Ole Boy, nobody mistakes my Shark Nose, Martini Drinking, Wingtip Wearing and non-accented speech (Military Brat, I have a Georgia/Florida/Missouri/Nebraska/South Dakota/NorthDakota/Germany/California/Louisiana/Alabama Accent) for a "Good Ole Boy" just don't be a Schmuck. And carrying a .357 Magnum helps.

Frank

[OtisAH]

You don’t see it featured in their *public* rhetoric because openly stating that you “support Israel” because that’s where Jesus will return to smite every Jew, and anyone else, that does not convert to Christianity is bad form. Butt! You can hear/read it in their private conversations and media. AND every now and again representatives from some of the dumbest precincts of MAGAevangelistan *will* say it outright. But it usually doesn’t generate that much press compared to, say, announcing new regulations for more efficient appliances does.

[Brett Bellmore]

I gotta say that you must be involved in rather different private conversations than I am.

But, of course, I've met most of my friend through the local Phi-Am association, and I don't expect you'd meet a lot of bigots in an organization for people in inter-racial marriages.

[Bwaaah]

"You can hear/read it in their private conversations and media."

Lemme guess. You think the right is plagued with conspiracy theories, and you're not.

Anyway, all the "right wingers" I know have apparently been hiding that stuff from me. I must have the lefty stink on me or something. Those right wingers can't seem to shut their mouths about anything, but they sure do know how to keep their secrets!

[Malika the Maiz]

The charge of anti-semitism on campuses has some truth but is being fanned by Republicans largely to do three of their favorite things: 1. attack higher ed 2. attack student protestors and 3. do the “no you’re the real racist” owning of the libs. It’s largely in bad faith as they’re generally usually hostile to “hostile environment” law and theory.

[Ed Grinberg]

re: do the “no you’re the real racist” owning of the libs
Hmmm… When “the libs” are supporting the people who loudly support the people who murdered hundreds of people (including lots of women & children) in the most gruesome ways imaginable based on their “race” — this isn’t very hard.

re: It’s largely in bad faith as they’re generally usually hostile to “hostile environment” law and theory.
Wait a sec… Aren’t “the libs” (i.e., you) “generally usually [in favor of] 'hostile environment' law and theory"?! And, if so, why are you OK with this?! Is it just that, to paraphrase George Orwell, all animals are equal, but some animals are less equal than others?

[Malika the Maiz]

"When “the libs” are supporting the people who loudly support the people who murdered hundreds of people"

Is that happening? Libs supporting the very same people who loudly support Hamas?*

*As opposed to supporting the rights of speech (even if poorly understood), or pro-Palestinian civilian or anti-war protestors

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The charge of anti-semitism on campuses has some truth but is being fanned by Republicans...

And the KKK was really a bunch of black guys in white face.

[Malika the Maiz]

KKK? Why not go full Nazi? Where's the courage of your convictions?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

KKK? Why not go full Nazi? Where’s the courage of your convictions?

Yeah, your posts have the foul stench of a Sarcastr_0 sock puppet...or at least a kindred spirit...all over them. Another use for the "Mute" button.

[Sarcastr0]

I always find it telling how often Wuz accuses other people of sock puppeting.

[Nige]

That'll be going round right-wing circles as historical fact any time now.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Jews created that with their Schofield Bible nonsense.

It's their own doing.

[Mr. Bumble]

Did John Fetterman receive one of Elon Musk'ds brain implants?

[SimonP]

What makes you think so? Did he suddenly start speaking out in support of corrupt fascists?

[Ed Grinberg]

re: "corrupt fascists"
Let's see:
- 10% for the Big Guy
- federal administration imposing censorship on (pre-Musk) Twitter, Facebook, etc.
- railroading the opposition
- letting thugs attack opposition rallies
Pretty fucking corrupt. Pretty fucking fascistic.
Speaking out in support of corrupt fascists is what you and every other leftist here does day in, day out.

[SimonP]

You seem to be vomiting on your keyboard, Ed. You should get that checked out.

[Jerry B.]

Ad hominem, anyone?

[Sarcastr0]

Not here - insults are not ad hominem, they are insults.

When I ding people for that I say 'your comment was nothing more than empty insults; you didn't engage with the argument at all' or something like that.

But Ed's comment here was just a partisan yawp. It deserves about the level of engagement Simon gave it.

[SimonP]

Suck a dick, anyone?

[Brett Bellmore]

Personality changes post-stroke are actually quite common. They usually involve your internal censor breaking down; I saw that with my mom after a bad auto accident involving a closed head injury. She'd just blurt out things she was probably thinking all along, but would never have previously actually said.

Perhaps Fetterman has always been thinking this way, and is now just speaking his mind more than he would have pre-stroke.

[Frank Drackman]

I like the new Fetterman, sort of a younger Jesse Ventura, never did like Doc Oz, he would have turned into another Romeney or Spector.

[bernard11]

C'mon Brett.

You've already embarrassed yourself with your neurological "expertise" once.

Trying for #2?

[Kazinski]

His more conservative outlook might be the result of his anti-depression therapy. The NY Times had a good explanation yesterday why conservatives are generally happier and liberals more depressed.

"Why is it that a substantial body of social science research finds that conservatives are happier than liberals?

A partial answer: Those on the right are less likely to be angered or upset by social and economic inequities, believing that the system rewards those who work hard, that hierarchies are part of the natural order of things and that market outcomes are fundamentally fair.

Those on the left stand in opposition to each of these assessments of the social order, prompting frustration and discontent with the world around them."

Or in other words conservatives feel more in control of the things that matter to them, and their families. Whereas what matters to liberals more control of others and their efforts are doomed to frustration.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/08/opinion/conservatives-liberals-depression-anxiety.html

[Sarcastr0]

An opinion piece is not good to offer for facts.

I find these exercises of who is generally happier to be silly.
1. Most of America isn't who they vote for.
2. Happiness is not about where you are, it's about change. Most of the common changes - marriage, kids, new job, are nonpartisan things.

It's a useless project, relevant to nothing. If you want to see abusive pop-sociology, this kind of pablum is it.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, well I’m not saying he’s 100% right about the explanation for the difference, but he is right that “a substantial body of social science research finds that conservatives are happier than liberals”.

As usual rather than attempting to rebut the assertion, you say don’t pay attention to it because its Fox News Daily Mail New York Times opinion piece.

And of course individuals differ, its the aggregate.

Personally I like my life, which I’ve intentionally structured how I like it, and I’m not looking for any change.

[Sarcastr0]

I do not find that slicing to be very elucidating, rather the opposite. I same the same about the neuroscience about left/right empathy as well. Also a statistical trend, also more heat than light. Now that I'm involved in social science funding, I have some pretty strong opinions.

Speaking of which, an *opinion* piece is an opinion. It is not a survey or a paper or even straight up reporting.
Offering an opinion piece for the truth it asserts is just an appeal to authority, unless you're going to adopt the argument which...there is no argument it's all assertion in your excerpt.
(And from the dude that wrote the Making of Red American and the Roots of Trump's Rage...maybe not a conservative, but not a NYT lib either)

Anyhow, you’re putting the cart before the horse with Fetterman. Even assuming a causal role, it’d not that being happier makes you more conservative.

Fetterman's been heterodox on…Israel, lab manufactured meat…I think one more thing. Early days to make a whole conversion narrative.

[Kazinski]

Fetterman's shift right was enough to make almost his entire capital hill staff resign.

I doubt it was just Israel.

[Sarcastr0]

You are making a ton of assumptions here.

Maybe you are correct, but it’s way too early to think yiu know what’s going on.

And just utterly u supported that treatment for depression causes conservativism.

[Kazinski]

I don't know what its efficacy is, but it certainly couldn't hurt.

[Nige]

'Or in other words conservatives feel more in control of the things that matter to them, and their families'

Got to wonder what it is about the rise of Trump and MAGA that lets anyone say this with a straight face.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Whereas what matters to liberals more control of others and their efforts are doomed to frustration."

So its not so much how "liberal" (in the US-sense) you are, but how authoritarian you are.

That certainly explains why Republicans have become so angry...

[SimonP]

It took the New York City schools chancellor to provide the response to Republican attacks on campus "anti-semitism" that I wish I'd see from some of the professors here:

"We cannot simply discipline our way out of this problem. The true antidote to ignorance and bias is to teach."

I realize Eugene has given up on teaching - probably best for all involved - but he may take note of that sentiment before he posts yet another post about clearing out encampments. Such a simple concept. It's really shameful that it never seems to have occurred to the Conspirators who teach for a living.

[Malika the Maiz]

I think Professor Volokh, a First Amendment scholar, has just been peeved that current caselaw simply does not support the claim that many defenders of the encampments make that they are examples of protected free speech. I do think he might want to consider that debates over speech can go beyond what current caselaw protects and doesn't (free speech can be a cultural value, not just a legal value).

[SimonP]

Eugene regularly comments upon "free speech values" in the context of higher education, particularly when it comes to private institutions not directly subject to the First Amendment. He understands their importance.

He just opposes the message of the encampments, and so focuses on how the authorities are 100% in the right to forcibly remove them. The same way David complains loudly about how laws against wearing masks at mass gatherings aren't being fully enforced against the pro-Palestinian protesters. Regulating speech by other means.

[Brett Bellmore]

While the message IS pretty nasty, I think he's genuinely taking exception to the tactics.

Now, maybe if we start to get right-wing masked non-students setting up encampments on college campuses, you'll get a chance to confirm your theory. I wouldn't hold your breath, though.

[bernard11]

All saints on the right.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hardly. Thugs are common enough to the left AND right. But the tactics differ, and you get precious few on campus right-wing encampments to test your theory against.

[bernard11]

My theory is that there are assholes of all stripes on the left and the right.

You claim to agree, but your comments give no indication that you regard anyone on the right as capable of being an asshole. It's always the evil Democrats who are conspiring against the Republic.

Go back and read them yourself.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I think he means they are unlikely to be setting up tents in the quad to force university divestment. It's just not their thing.

[SimonP]

Kinda makes you wonder why, if Biden is so bad for the country, if he's such an authoritarian, we aren't seeing conservatives protest more.

Seems like conservatives express their discontent and existential alarm over the direction that the country is going by sending more money to Trump.

[Bob from Ohio]

Conservatives don't do much street protesting.

January 6 was a big exception.

There is a March for Life every year which is a sort of street protest, but orderly. Can't really think of another.

[SimonP]

Maybe it's because conservatives aren't as upset about the state of things as they'd like the rest of us to believe, huh?

[Frank Drackman]

Same reason that "45" didn't pay much taxes, we're "Smart". What did January 6 get us but a War Veteran killed and a bunch of Good Amuricans in prison? Most of us have jobs on the "Inside" and are biding our time until the Balloon goes up. When Ham-Ass does an October 7 in San Fran Sissy-Co people will wish they had an "Assault-Style" Rifle.

Frank

[Bwaaah]

"consider that debates over speech can go beyond what current caselaw protects and doesn’t"

But then, they're not really debates over speech; they're debates like yours that turn a blind eye to harassment, intimidation, property damage, trespass and violation of school rules, all of which exist quite aside from SPEECH (which is protected). You just conflate speech with not-speech, and pretend that's a blurry distinction to people. But it's only blurry to would-be oppressors; to people who, through their LOUD silence, tacitly endorse harassment, intimidation, property damage, trespass and violation of school rules.

Preach on with your universal theory of justice. The universe is a big place. Your theory might not capture all of it.

[David Nieporent]

“We cannot simply discipline our way out of this problem. The true antidote to ignorance and bias is to teach.”

Presumably the NYC schools chancellor is talking about children, unlike the campus people.

[SimonP]

The "campus people" aren't students at institutions of higher learning?

[David Nieporent]

The “campus people” aren’t students at institutions of higher learning?

According to the police, a large percentage are in fact not, no. (e.g. https://www.opb.org/article/2024/05/04/nyc-says-half-of-those-arrested-at-2-pro-palestinian-campus-protests-were-not-students/)

But even the ones who are nominally students are adults. (And not interested in being taught, either. As MAGA demonstrate every day, you can't "teach" people when they're not listening.)

[jb]

Okay, that article seems super misleading.

First, the math doesn't add up. It says "over half" of those arrested weren't students, but then goes on to say that it was 29% (32 or 33) of 112 at Columbia weren't students and then 60% (102) of 170 at City College weren't. But 135 out of 282 is less than half, not more than half. (Don't get me wrong, it's still a lot, but "over half" is a factual statement that is either correct or not and in this case it's clearly incorrect.)

Second, the police claim that those arrested were "not students at either school" but what they actually reported on was the fraction of students at Columbia who were Columbia students and the fraction of students at City College who were City College students. So if a bunch of people from Columbia marched over to City College* and got arrested there, they are somehow now counted as "not a student at either school".

* Which is what happened and presumably why the fraction at City College is so much higher.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

First, the math doesn’t add up. It says “over half” of those arrested weren’t students

No, it doesn’t. It says “half” in the title, and “nearly half” in the first sentence. The phrase “over half” appears nowhere in the piece. 135 is just a hair under 48% of 282. “Nearly half” is not even remotely misleading as a descriptor for that, let alone "super misleading".

[jb]

Okay, mea culpa. I seem to have misread something with regards to point 1.

With regards to point 2, though, they seem to clearly be characterizing what they're counting in a very misleading way.

[SimonP]

Chip, I trust NYPD's reporting about as much as I trust your characterization of it - which is to say, I don't.

Your own linked story makes clear that these top-line figures are based on the detective work of the NYPD, who are not known for their diligence, transparency, or honesty. I'll wait for better numbers to come out, thank you.

[Ed Grinberg]

“We cannot simply discipline our way out of this problem. The true antidote to ignorance and bias is to teach.”

At the progressive campus rallies and beyond, “From the river to the sea, Palestine is Arab” has made quite the comeback. In the past, the second half of that line was often “Palestine will be free,” a slightly more politically savvy version of the slogan that calls for the murder and enslavement of all Jews in the land of Israel. ... “From the river to the sea, Palestine is Arab” establishes as its baseline a Nazi-like racial hierarchy. What that means is that regardless of political or governmental structures and constitutions, that racial hierarchy is baked into society: Jews would be treated this way even if they no longer had a state, just as they were treated this way in the 20th century before Israeli sovereignty was established. Put simply, ethnic cleansing of the Jews would be the goal in a one-state solution as well.
Because this racial hierarchy is fundamental to its proponents’ worldview, opposition to coexistence with Jews is global. The skinheads in Charlottesville weren’t deterred from their version of this ideology just because they live outside of Germany. Similarly, those who chant “Palestine is Arab” subscribe to this racial hierarchy wherever they are. That this chant was delivered outside the White House, for example, is not a protest of Israeli policy but rather a challenge to the foundational ideas and values of the United States.
Although the expression of this worldview isn’t limited to college campuses, those campuses are the main reason we are now witnessing three Charlottesvilles a day. After all, it means students are paying attention in class.
“From the river to the sea, Palestine is Arab” is a direct application of the popular academic theory of the day, “decolonization.” The idea of Jewish self-determination in Israel being a settler-colonialist project might be a flat-earth level of historical crankery, but it is all the rage—and I do mean rage—in the classrooms of our esteemed institutions of higher learning. Teaching young minds that Jews must be supplanted from their homes because they represent a race that belongs elsewhere has a long history of inspiring those students to carry out what they’ve been taught. It is no surprise that Jews at Columbia over the weekend were told to “go back to Poland.” The racial ideology at the heart of decolonization theory demands nothing less. As a now-infamous Twitter/X post, amplified by a writer and editor at the Washington Post among others, asked in celebration of Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre and sexual torture spree: “What did y’all think decolonization meant? vibes? papers? essays? losers.”
And that helps us understand the look of absolute despondency on Columbia President Minouche Shafik’s face throughout her congressional hearing this week. She, and many of her peers at other institutions, are facing two problems. The first is the violence and harassment targeting visibly Jewish students. Contrary to various media figures’ attempts to spin recent events, this is absolutely taking place on campus and these violations absolutely are being committed by students. They are also, however, taking place outside of campus as part of the same demonstrations a few feet away. It’s not either/or. The campus-organized protests are spreading and so is the violence they incite.
The second problem is the ideological fuel for the violence, which is being pumped from the colleges themselves. It is much easier to increase the police presence on campus than it is to change a culture cultivated purposely and with great enthusiasm over the course of decades. These schools are churning out people who have extraordinarily sick and violent beliefs toward Jews. Those sick and violent beliefs earned them good grades at these same schools.
There has not yet been a solution proffered by any of these campus administrators that would fix the broken, anti-Semitic culture of these schools, just as figures throughout history have struggled to convince the sun not to shine.

source: https://www.commentary.org/seth-mandel/united-states-of-charlottesville/

[SimonP]

Ed, I'm not going to read some random blog post from someone not here to defend their position, as a comment.

Post your own thoughts or fuck off.

[Ed Grinberg]

If reading a couple of paragraphs is too difficult for you:
He directly addresses the point you quoted:
“We cannot simply discipline our way out of this problem. The true antidote to ignorance and bias is to teach.”
He says that the “discipline” problem is secondary to the primary problem of what colleges teach.

[SimonP]

I am happy to read a couple of paragraphs. Well-formatted, well-written paragraphs from people who might possibly read my comments and be able to respond to them.

I am not really interested in reading a blog I'm not already voluntarily reading, nor am I interested in addressing your facile lie, which just rehearses a common right-wing talking point that is irrelevant to the point I'd made anyway.

[Ed Grinberg]

related:
https://archive.is/IoMpT

[Noscitur a sociis]

The true antidote to ignorance and bias is to teach.

Yes, I would agree that it would be a good idea for New York City public schools to start teaching their students.

[SimonP]

Ba-dum ching! Take my wife - please! Try the veal!

[Kazinski]

I'm not sure I am buying what the Chancellor wants to teach.

No, I think I'd really like to try the discipline thing by the proper authorities thoroughly before moving to other solutions like "teaching", or vigilante action.

[Estragon]

“You remind me of my daughter”

[Estragon]

It’s funny— all the huckleberries who have spent months talking about “groomers” and “pedo Joe” suddenly are pretty quiet. What gives?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I'm not sure why you think that particular comment would trigger any kind of epiphany. They've obviously already gotten comfortable with Trump's previous comments about his daughter (which were in the same vein):

https://forward.com/schmooze/357185/7-creepy-things-donald-trump-has-said-about-ivanka/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY
RACIAL SLUR SCOREBOARD

This white, male, conservative blog
with a vanishingly thin academic veneer
— dedicated to creating and preserving
safe spaces for America’s vestigial bigots —
has operated for no more than

TWO (2)

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

TWENTY-SEVEN (27)

occasions (so far) during the
first three months of 2024
(that’s at least 27 exchanges
that have included a racial slur,
not just 27 racial slurs; many
Volokh Conspiracy discussions
feature multiple racial slurs.)

This blog is outrunning its
remarkable pace of 2023,
when the Volokh Conspiracy
published racial slurs in at least

FORTY-FOUR (44)

different discussions.

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

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

Amid this blog's stale and ugly thinking, and as UCLA students prepare to navigate classrooms featuring fewer racial slurs, herer is something worthwhile (from the mid-'80s).

This one, from the same year, is good, too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones report:

First, a cool tune they trotted out in the desert the other day.

Next, a popular song (the fan vote winner in Glendale).

Enjoy!

[Frank Drackman]

OK, OK, we get it, you like the Stones, how about something for the Non-Octogenarian crowd (you know, us cool Sex-a-genarians (Hey Now!) like the Ramones or the Dead Kennedys??

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Maybe a Ramones tune (I think they have two that are worthwhile) sometime, but I don't know enough about the Dead Kennedys to generate a recommendation.

[Frank Drackman]

Like the Ramones weren't really named "Ramone", the dead Kennedys weren't Kennedys. I think some of them are dead now.

[Martinned2]

Is it just me or is this open thread even more pointless Trump arguing than usual. (I had actual work to do today, so no time for procrastination.)

[Ed Grinberg]

"pointless Trump arguing"
For once, I agree with you.
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/05/09/thursday-open-thread-190/?comments=true#comment-10553764

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems about on a par with other open threads lately.

[Commenter_XY]

Not you at all.

[Martinned2]

In non-Trump news, the FTC's rule on non-competes is now in the Federal Register: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/07/2024-09171/non-compete-clause-rule

[Martinned2]

I'm curious whether an FTC intervention like this forecloses state law, because California deputy AG Cari Jeffries said at a webinar the other day that California's rule against non-competes is 'broader and stronger'.

[M L]

Where in the Constitution is the federal government granted the power to ban noncompetes?

Answer: Nowhere.

Regardless, the FTC intervention, if not overturned, would essentially foreclose and supersede a gigantic body of state law on noncompetes, specifically laws allowing the enforcement of noncompetes.

However, shooting from the hip here, I don't think it would preempt even stricter state laws against noncompetes. The FTC rule would not conflict with such laws, I think, and would not reflect a "comprehensive scheme" meant to occupy the field of regulating noncompetes. Just my guess.

[Martinned2]

This rule seems like a more obvious regulation of interstate commerce than Raich.

[M L]

Agreed, of course it is, and I disagree with Raich.

If you try hard enough, you can decide that farting affects interstate commerce, and therefore Congress can regulate farting.

[Martinned2]

Agreed. The FTC should have put in an independent hook to interstate commerce, instead of whatever this is:

The Commission has considered these comments and concludes that it may promulgate the final rule consistent with the Commerce Clause. The final rule extends to the full extent of the FTC's jurisdiction, which in turn extends no further than the Commerce Clause permits. As the Supreme Court has explained, the phrase “in or affecting commerce” in section 5 of the FTC Act is “coextensive with the constitutional power of Congress under the Commerce Clause.” 

In this final rule, the Commission finds the use of non-competes by employers substantially affects commerce as that term is defined in the FTC Act. The final rule is therefore a lawful exercise of Congress's delegated power.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem with that approach has always been that the clause didn't extend Congress' authority to regulate things that affect interstate commerce, but only to the commerce itself. The authors of the Constitution knew well enough that there was a difference, if they'd intended the current interpretation, they'd just have written "To regulate;"

[Sarcastr0]

Your 'Constitution of the 1700s plus amendments' originalism remains fundamentally an incorrect reading of the founders' understanding of how legal documents worked. But even under your political project originalism, you're wrong.

Necessary and proper. You can't regulate commerce effectively if you lack the authority to regulate the things that effect commerce.

If the founders knew there was a difference, they wouldn't have picked the one that rendered an enumerated power a non-functional playpen, they would have meant the interpretation which allows national governmental policy, which they seemed to understand was gonna be a thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Necessary and proper"; But today it's read as "Convenient, and eh, whatever".

No, actually you can regulate commerce without regulating things that vaguely effect commerce, adopting a position that renders every word past "regulate" void.

The problem faced today is that the federal government doesn't WANT to regulate actual interstate commerce. They want to use ritual invocations of 'interstate commerce' to regulate things that aren't interstate commerce, often aren't commerce at all.

Look at the logic of Wickard: The government can prohibit you from having a home garden, because if you grow broccoli in your backyard, you won't buy as much at the grocery store, where some of the broccoli might have come from a different state. And that reduced demand might slightly interfere with the government's efforts to increase the cost of broccoli, the horror!

But raising the cost of broccoli, (And never mind how twisted you have to be to think raising food costs is a legitimate purpose for government to pursue.) isn't regulation of commerce, let alone interstate commerce. It might be a purpose of the regulation, but it's not the regulation itself.

So, even allowing unfettered home gardens, and roadside stands, the federal government is still able to ban interstate commerce in broccoli that's priced below $2/lb. That ban won't be as effective at achieving Congress' goal in regulating the commerce, but screw that, they're still regulating the commerce.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you see how you changed scope from a broad view of how the commerce clause jurisprudence is wrong, to an as-applied view? I sure did.

YOU of all people don't get to say 'government today is acting in bad faith, so the Constitution means a different thing now.'

And then in your discussion of Wickard you just forget the necessary and proper discussion entirely, as though I never said it.

[M L]

Well right, I think the original meaning was little more than a free trade pact, aimed at barring interstate tariffs and such, with the federal government being empowered like the WTO is for international trade agreements.

[Sarcastr0]

So McCulloch was radically wrongly decided in your view.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The commerce clause allows the government to regulate interstate commerce. Using that authority, which has not been questioned, Congress passed The Federal Trade Commission Act which states that: "Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful." It has created the FTC to enforce this command. The FTC has found that noncompetes are unfair or deceptive practices affecting commerce.

"would essentially foreclose and supersede a gigantic body of state law on noncompetes, specifically laws allowing the enforcement of noncompetes."

This is actually incorrect, if anything it will supplement the prevailing view: noncompetes are highly disfavored under most state laws. They're only enforceable in certain circumstances. Unfortunately, most people don't actually know that, and employers can take advantage of that lack of knowledge to place them in contracts as a way of gaining leverage over employees. Jimmy Johns did this with their employees in a particularly insane way: The agreements had barred departing employees from taking jobs with competitors of Jimmy John’s for two years after leaving the company and from working within two miles of a Jimmy John’s store that made more than 10 percent of its revenue from sandwiches.

Small businesses that are not as large as this one pull this shit too, its pretty common in salons for instance. These are even less likely to come to the attention of courts and local regulators.

[SimonP]

Yes - unfortunately I doubt the rule is long for this world. There is not much - perhaps no - precedent acknowledging that the FTC has authority, under this provision, to regulate non-competes, and it appears all but certain that this will be an easy "major question" challenge, given the breadth of the rule hinged on a single provision of the FTC Act.

It really makes me wonder how laws like the provision you've cited are supposed to be interpreted and enforced, in the developing view of the Supreme Court.

[M L]

Correct.

I mean, obviously the problem is Congress can't be passing laws saying "just be fair and shit" and then hand the reins to all of Congress' powers to the President or a permanent unelected bureaucratic state. Or maybe they can but doesn't it kind of defeat the supposed point of this structure? If we are going that route then you could at least disband Congress, certainly would save a good chunk of money and some real estate.

[SimonP]

You don't really understand how this works.

The law is the law. If the President can't make rules to give a broad statement of law substance, then the President goes to court. The courts then decide how to interpret the law, for a given set of facts.

So the choice isn't between "Congress decides" and "the President decides." The choice is between "Congress decides generally, the President decides particularly, and the courts mediate" and "Congress decides generally, the President brings lawsuits, and the courts decide."

Which do you think is better, in terms of democratic accountability? Consistency? Rule of law?

[M L]

“If the President can’t make rules to give a broad statement of law substance, then the President goes to court.”

What do you mean by the President can’t make rules? If the President can’t make rules according to whom? What’s a situation where the President can’t make rules to give a broad statement of law substance?

No telling what your point is, or how it was supposed to be disagreeing with me, or if you were trying to explain something anyone doesn't already know. I think you don’t really understand how this works.

Anyway, again, maybe Congress can just pass a law that says “pursue fairness and justice” and then leave it to the executive from there. No need for Congress any more.

[M L]

"noncompetes are highly disfavored under most state laws."

No, this is actually incorrect. Noncompetes are perfectly fine in the vast majority of states. Yes, they have to be reasonable in scope and duration and geographic reach etc.

"if anything it will supplement the prevailing view"

It's laughable how wrong you are. This FTC rule is a sea change.

Jimmy Johns was unreasonable. And guess what? They got nailed. They are the exception that proves the rule. I hope you understand that employees remotely similar to a sandwich maker or cashier at Jimmy Johns aren't the ones being asked to sign noncompetes typically. It is executives and managers, b2b sales people and the like. And the FTC rule is a massive change that would put an end to all of that.

[LawTalkingGuy]

They’re perfectly fine in the abstract but have always been disfavored. That’s the point of the reasonableness restrictions.

“ I hope you understand that employees remotely similar to a sandwich maker or cashier at Jimmy Johns aren’t the ones being asked to sign noncompetes typically.”

Happens to salon employees all the time. Happens to random salespeople. (We also have trade secrets laws to prevent proprietary info theft, like client lists so a noncompete isn’t needed). Happens to medical personnel like doctors and travel nurses who. I’ve seen them. Studies have shown that there are actually millions and millions of workers subject to them which wouldn’t be the case if it was just executives.

I mean literally any tyrannical small business owner can put these in an employment to trap their employees. Employees won’t necessarily know that the common law of their state has this multi-factor test that would likely hinder enforcement. But having a federal ban is an easier thing for people to know about.

As a final note: it’s actually against ethics rules for lawyers to have them, funnily enough. Almost like they’re such an obviously unfair trade restraint they don’t want to subject themselves to!

[Commenter_XY]

LTG, I am glad that most non-competes are being done away with. I much prefer golden handcuffs to leaden ones.

[M L]

I'm not really interested in debating the merits of noncompete policies.

Instead, as per usual, I find it more relevant to focus on who should rightly decide the issue. My point was to respond to Martinned's question and then also to note that the FTC rule would drastically alter and abolish a huge body of law. It's not the FTC's decision to make, in my view, not even Congress's probably.

[M L]

Again, noncompetes are usually reserved for higher level employees. Some states explicitly prohibit them for lower wage workers based on annual compensation. There are a variety of approaches generally aimed at limiting noncompetes to the reasonable protection of legitimate business interests, but the FTC rule would put an end to all of it.

Noncompetes for lawyers actually abound, for partners in law firms, not as outright prohibitions on competing, but with terms requiring payment of liquidated damages or other punitive financial measures relating to the partnership interest.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Also: "where in the constitution is the federal government granted the power to [insert hyper specific policy]? Answer nowhere" is the dumbest form of constitutional argument. Of course the 235 year old document doesn't have a list specifically authorizing every conceivable policy that a Congress might want to enact. Why would it?

[Sarcastr0]

Area ML passionate defender of what he imagines Constitution to say.

[Martinned2]

Actually, the rule itself answers the question of foreclosure:

§ 910.4 Relation to State laws and preservation of State authority and private rights of action.

(a) This part will not be construed to annul, or exempt any person from complying with any State statute, regulation, order, or interpretation applicable to a non-compete clause, including, but not limited to, State antitrust and consumer protection laws and State common law, except that this part supersedes such laws to the extent, and only to the extent, that such laws would otherwise permit or authorize a person to engage in conduct that is an unfair method of competition under § 910.2(a) or conflict with the notice requirement in § 910.2(b).

(b) Except with respect to laws superseded under paragraph (a) of this section, no provision of this part shall be construed as altering, limiting, or affecting the authority of a State attorney general or any other regulatory or enforcement agency or entity or the rights of a person to bring a claim or regulatory action arising under any State statute, regulation, order, or interpretation, including, but not limited to, State antitrust and consumer protection laws and State common law.

[Martinned2]

Also, net neutrality is back. I can remember thinking that it was a really big deal back when it was introduced originally, and when it was abolished. But I don't get the impression that the absence of a net neutrality requirement has made much of a difference one way or another in the last few years.

https://www.fcc.gov/net-neutrality

[tylertusta]

Your impression is largely correct. We have been without net neutrality for a while, and the internet hasn't imploded.

At best, it's a solution in search of a problem.

At worst, it's going to crush ISPs in any dispute with content providers.

[Michael P]

Network neutrality is largely pushed by big content providers, who use data centers relatively close to major network interchanges. It's opposed by the providers who have to build and maintain huge last-mile networks to keep up with the speed demands for all that content.

[Martinned2]

True, but all that pushing doesn't seem to have helped anyone. We still have data centres, and I don't think the US has fewer data centres because it didn't have net neutrality for a few years.

[Martinned2]

O, and before I forget, happy Ascension Day! (I would have had the day off today if I hadn't emigrated to a country full of heathens.)

2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
(...)
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

[Martinned2]

For the heathens, today is Europe Day, the anniversary of Robert Schuman's speech proposing what later became the European Coal and Steel Community.

World peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it.

The contribution which an organized and living Europe can bring to civilization is indispensable to the maintenance of peaceful relations. In taking upon herself for more than 20 years the role of champion of a united Europe, France has always had as her essential aim the service of peace. A united Europe was not achieved and we had war.

Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity. The coming together of the nations of Europe requires the elimination of the age-old opposition of France and Germany. Any action taken must in the first place concern these two countries.(...)

https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/history-eu/1945-59/schuman-declaration-may-1950_en

[TwelveInchPianist]

I read the caption of a libel of information case from the forties where the suit was filed against the goods named in the caption. I couldn't tell from the caption if it was against 43.5 used goods or 43,500 new ones. It turned out they were new goods.

[Brett Bellmore]

The original context for that was smuggling, where this contraband would be found, and nobody would claim ownership of it, so there was no identifiable person to file a suit against. What were you supposed to do, leave it moldering in a warehouse?

So they 'sued the property'.

The idea of using this tactic on property with identifiable owners would be laughably stupid, if they weren't doing it anyway.

[Michael P]

Chicago's mayor apparently had a plan to tell illegal immigrants living in shelters around the Loop to go be illegal somewhere else, but forgot to ask the target building's owner whether he could warehouse people there.

Squatter philosophy and impulses apparently go up throughout the levels of the Democrat party.

[Michael P]

The comment by the protester at https://twitter.com/IsraelWarRoom/status/1788017663995719962 is remarkable for two reasons: first, the open admission that they are anti-Jewish; second, the clarity that they would like the state to use force to stop counter-protesters.

So much for the gaslight theory of state force being inherently deplorable and dangerous.

[Malika the Maiz]

There was a lot of coverage in the Times, CNN and the WPost about the 20 percent "uncommitted" vote in Michigan and how this indicated big trouble for Biden. So, what does Haley getting 20 percent in Indiana recently mean for Trump?

[Brett Bellmore]

Not a whole lot. Biden is running unopposed, and not only are Indiana primaries are semi-open, there was actually a serious push to get Democrats to vote in the Republican primary. So only 20%? That's kind of sad, really.

[Malika the Maiz]

Didn't she get 17% in Pennsylvania shortly before Indiana? Was that due to a Democrat push as well?

[Sarcastr0]

I've been around enough since Obama in 2008 to know that horse-race reporting about either candidate is basically clickbait till the conventions.

It is interesting purely as a media studies exercise.

[Mr. Bumble]

Will Biden be on the Ohio ballot?

[Frank Drackman]

was he in 2020? Ohio's a "Swing" State that Swung

[Zarniwoop]

Strong geomagnetic storm friday night, with possibility of auroras visible as far south as Alabama (!)

I haven't seen a good aurora display for a while, I'm going to set an alarm if the skies are clear here in Wisconsinland.

Y'all may now return to the usual partisan bickering.

[Estragon]

Wow cool! I’ll be on a red eye flight Friday night— should be clear up there!!

[Frank Drackman]

Make sure your seats on the right (or left) side, or better yet, watch it from the ground.

[grb]

Zarniwoop : “possibility of auroras visible as far south as Alabama (!)”

I’ve always wanted to see the Northern Lights. A couple of years back I did a couple of hundred miles backpacking in Northern Sweden above the Arctic Circle. The time of year wasn’t ideal, but I was sure my hour had come!

So I would crawl out my tent a couple of times a night, look up to the sky, then crawl back dejected. And note : I show my age not when carrying a monster backpack or climbing steep mountains, but in the bone-creaking effort getting in&out of my Big Agnes Copper Spur Ultralight.

The next day? Other hikers would be grouped together, showing off the awesome aurora borealis spectacles they filmed the previous night. I would congratulated’em (thru gritted teeth).

[Zarniwoop]

The best auroras I've seen were north of Yellowknife, when I was doing geology work, getting flown in/out in a float plane. Solar activity was high, enough that it sometimes interfered with our radio check-ins.

I also spent two summers in arctic Norway (around Narvik, sometimes going over to Kiruna area in Sweden), but there was less solar activity at the time. And there's not much to see when you've got 24hr sunlight 🙂

Good choice on Big Agnes. I def. like their products. But yeah, I feel you that it's harder to get in/out than it used to be ...

[grb]

One highlight of hiking in Sweden was the reindeer. This was partially because we'd see them while hiking or hear ones belled by the Sámi on foggy days. But mainly culinary. I had reindeer burgers, reindeer pasta, reindeer stew, reindeer jerky, and reindeer flavored cheese. I’m sure there was reindeer ice cream somewhere; I just missed it.

All well & good. But I learned later it doesn’t pay to talk about that near Xmas in front of children. They’d look up at me eyes-wide with betrayal, as if I just confessed to eating Rudolph himself.

[Estragon]

Yeah word, I have a real nice big ag myself and they were super nice about replacing the old one after I left the rain fly in Wrightwood… oops.

[grb]

I learned about backpacking manufacturers while doing the AT in '10. When my backpack broke (the rigid plate tied to the cinch belt snaped), Gregory sent me a brand new pack. This was completely free of charge - their only question whether I wanted to keep the old one for sentimental's sake. When I lost a piece off my Whisperlite stove, MSR sent me a replacement, plus additional fittings and a fresh set of maintainance instructions.

The assumption seems to be I'd laud their products to other hikers. And I do:

Buy Gregory.
Buy MSR.

[Bwaaah]

My 25 year old MSR Whisperlite remains a prized piece of gear. Adjusting the valve according to the sound of the burning gas is a uniquely special second nature skill...an almost intimate bond between me and the equipment.

Fun side story: For my first long distance hike (Long Trail in Vermont), I had an Arcteryx backpack. By the third day of the hike, the skin at the top of my waist had turned raw from the pressure of rubbing from the backpack waist belt pad. It got worse and worse, and my focus turned to the belt as each step triggered burning sensations.

The belt pad was about 7 inches high. It occurred to me that if I were to design a pad like that, I'd make it slightly tapered from bottom to top, i.e. slightly narrower at the top and wider at the bottom so as to distribute the load evenly over the hip waistline. I was thinking about how much better that would be, and conversely, how all the weight of my pack seemed to be concentrated at just the bottom edge of the pad.

Suddenly, I had my holy crap! moment. I stopped in the middle of the trail, threw my backpack down to the ground, and examined the belt. Sure enough, it was slightly tapered the way I imagined it should be, but had been installed UPSIDE DOWN.

Beware: backpacks are often assembled by backpack salespeople who may or may not know important details about the packs.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've seen some nice ones in Michigan, especially Northern Michigan, but the best I saw was in Southern Michigan, back in '80, I think; I can't recall the date.

I happened to step out of the house for some reason, look up, and a colored wave was crossing the sky. Before it was done the whole sky was flaming in different colors. I hear they saw THAT one down in Florida.

I'm kind of hopeful for tonight, the sky is finally supposed to clear here in the SC Piedmont.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prime Minister Netanyahu took a break from killing children today and announced that Israel would "stand alone," without American assistance, if necessary.

If Israel does not need American subsidies, why would or should American taxpayers be asked to send billions of dollars in assistance to Israel?

Where are all of the small-government, low-tax, America First, right-wing assholes expressing indignation about this needless theft from American taxpayers?

Carry on, clingers . . . so far as your betters permit (as Israel may be about to learn vividly).

[Frank Drackman]

First of all, Bibi isn't "Killing Children" and even if he was, just pretend he's an Abortionist.
You sure you aren't Jewish Arthur? You sound like Shylock from "The Merchant of Venice" "Da Rent! Da Rent!"
Oh wait, that was Tony Soprano taunting Hesh when Hesh asked for Tony to repay his loan. The piddly Shekels Uncle Samuel throws Israels way is more important to the Usual Gang of Idiots of Congress than it is to Israel, and I can't tell you because they I'd have to kill you, but even a Chucklehead like you should realize the US gets way more intelligence (what a concept, you should try it) from Israel than the other way around.
Now go get your effin Shine box!

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Here are some of the dead Palestinian children whom clingers claim the Netanyahu government is not killing.

How do clingers intend to discredit a photograph of dead children killed by Israel's war-crimey bombing in Gaza?

Was that photograph staged on the "fake moon landing" soundstage?

Was it found with the PizzaGate, bamboo ballot, Seth Rich, birther, Crackhead Pillow Boy, Jewish space laser, vaccine-borne computer chips files?

Was it produced by Soros-Obama Woke Light and Magic studios?

Prepare for the reckoning, clingers.

[Frank Drackman]

The Revolting Reverend's been in stir too long, that photo's as fake as SC Senator Lindsay Buckingham Nicks Graham's claimed Heterosexuality.
Trying to remember, if it was real, are those the ones killed by the Ham-Ass Rockets or the Hez-boola-boola ones?
I'll even give you that they were killed by Israel, where are the Adult Terrorists that were killed? Bad things happen when you attack another country, ask the Japs.

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

ask the J . . .

Does Prof. Volokh recognize the connection between this blog and his friction with/departure from UCLA?

[Frank Drackman]

You certainly don't

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I am inclined to trace a relatively direct link.

[David Nieporent]

Does Prof. Volokh recognize the connection between this blog and his friction with/departure from UCLA?

The thing you made up, just like the "censorship" of you that didn't happen?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He expressly admitted it at this blog. Nearly boasted about it, said he would do it again.

Not for the first time, I ask: if I spend the time find that admission, will you pry your nose out of Prof. Volokh’s ass and join Artie Ray Lee Wayne Jim-Bob Kirkland in no longer posting at this white, male, bigoted blog?

Let me know, clinger. I figure you have just about as much integrity and character as a white, male, right-wing law professor whose blog hugs bigots and regularly publishes racial slurs.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Great Moments in Conservative* Jurisprudence

* also known as "libertarian," "often libertarian," or "libertarianish," at least in some downscale, disingenuous circles

[Michael P]

It looks like Amsterdam jumped right past wing plows to bulldozers to clear criminal protesters: https://twitter.com/RadioGenova/status/1787765247480144240

[Mr. Bumble]

Are they reading Dr. Ed's comments?

[Brett Bellmore]

Probably just finally read the protesters' signs.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I have never represented a garrulous, undisciplined, narcisisstic criminal swelled by a sense of entitlement, so perhaps someone with more relevant criminal litigation experience could address these points:

Is a defendant customarily permitted to curse, scowl, mutter, shake his head, and similarly express opinion about witness testimony during witness testimony?

Could that communication reach a level at which prosecutors might be entitled to cross-examine a defendant who testifies from the defense table (who, for example, punctuated a witness' testimony with "He's lying. Just look at him. I swear, I didn't do it . . . please, you gotta believe me")?

Could the prosecution mention the defendants' communications, telling the jury that the defendant had tried to communicate with them but that those communications should be considered against the points that the defendant was unwilling to testify under oath or be cross-examined?

Would a judge instruct the jurors to disregard the defendant's communication or that the defendant had acted improperly by communicating from the defense table?

Thank you.

[not guilty]

"Is a defendant customarily permitted to curse, scowl, mutter, shake his head, and similarly express opinion about witness testimony during witness testimony?"

No. That would likely prompt a reprimand from the court in the presence of the jury in the first instance. Repeated performance after having been warned could result in summary contempt sanctions.

"Could that communication reach a level at which prosecutors might be entitled to cross-examine a defendant who testifies from the defense table (who, for example, punctuated a witness’ testimony with “He’s lying. Just look at him. I swear, I didn’t do it . . . please, you gotta believe me”)?"

No. The defendant's Fifth Amendment right to decline to testify would predominate. The judge would likely instruct the jury to disregard the outburst, and jurors are presumed to follow the court's instruction.

"Could the prosecution mention the defendants’ communications, telling the jury that the defendant had tried to communicate with them but that those communications should be considered against the points that the defendant was unwilling to testify under oath or be cross-examined?"

No. The defendant's outburst is not evidence, and any inference therefrom would not be based on evidence.

"Would a judge instruct the jurors to disregard the defendant’s communication or that the defendant had acted improperly by communicating from the defense table?"

Yes.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Thank you, not guilty. Can you help also with these additional questions?:

If a defendant's lawyer during cross examination repeatedly refers to her own client as, "the orange turd," as happened yesterday, is that:

1. An occasion for professional sanctions?

2. Ineffective assistance of counsel?

3. Cause for a mistrial?

4. The opening salvo of a T-shirt marketing campaign?

Also, what happens after marionette-style violations of a gag order by a U.S. Senator, who appears at the courthouse for the performance?

5. Can the defendant be punished?

6. Can the Senator be punished?

7. Can the prosecutor investigate the Senator, to discover whether he coordinated with the defendant?

8. If that conduct enjoys impunity, should many other Senators flock to show loyalty by singing gag order violations in chorus?

More generally, can a judge forced to the verge of becoming a circus ringmaster remedy that by imprisoning the defendant for the duration of the trial, and throwing the defendant's tightrope walking confederates in after him?

[not guilty]

I doubt that counsel referring to her own client as "the orange turd" in questioning or mocking a witness's use of that phrase would have any of the consequences you ask about. I do question the wisdom of counsel emphasizing that, however.

I am unaware of any Senator being subject to a gag order, so no violation there. And the First Amendment generally protects out of court commentary on the trial by nonparticipants.

The defendant has the right to be present at trial. That right can be forfeited by disorderly and disruptive behavior during trial, but only after the trial judge has warned the defendant that further outburst can result in his removal from the courtroom. See, Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970). Hypothetically, if the defendant were jailed for criminal contempt, he would still have the right to attend trial proceedings. He would be brought to court and then returned to jail after court adjourned.

[Stephen Lathrop]

And the First Amendment generally protects out of court commentary on the trial by nonparticipants.

As usual, after expert correction I see how my commentary falls short of the standard for legal precision. So thanks for that.

But I remain baffled how a U.S. Senator, a political ally of the defendant, who journeys to the court to deliver a public attack on the judge's daughter, after the defendant has been barred explicitly from doing that himself, can be construed, "commentary on the trial," by a nonparticipant.

[Nige]

Swamp Thing

Trump’s response stunned several of the executives in the room overlooking the ocean: You all are wealthy enough, he said, that you should raise $1 billion to return me to the White House. At the dinner, he vowed to immediately reverse dozens of President Biden’s environmental rules and policies and stop new ones from being enacted, according to people with knowledge of the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation.

(sorry for the url, it’s supposed to be a gift link)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/09/trump-oil-industry-campaign-money/?pwapi_token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJyZWFzb24iOiJnaWZ0IiwibmJmIjoxNzE1MjI3MjAwLCJpc3MiOiJzdWJzY3JpcHRpb25zIiwiZXhwIjoxNzE2NjA5NTk5LCJpYXQiOjE3MTUyMjcyMDAsImp0aSI6ImIwNDZiN2RiLTkwOTEtNGFhNC05N2FiLWYwNjZkNWNkZjU4OSIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lndhc2hpbmd0b25wb3N0LmNvbS9wb2xpdGljcy8yMDI0LzA1LzA5L3RydW1wLW9pbC1pbmR1c3RyeS1jYW1wYWlnbi1tb25leS8ifQ.l4FggMDGR9yHiIRhPzHUQee2u9vL7PR1PpVQT6Efgjk

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If Americans re-elect Trump, they probably deserve him.

[Frank Drackman]

If Americans re-elect PARKINSONIAN JOE/COMMON LAW HARRIS, they probably deserve them.
FIFY

Frank

[Kazinski]

I know I deserve him.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Who do you idolize more, misfit — Donald Trump or Ted Kaczynski?

[Commenter_XY]

Like Kazinski, I'll take the economy under POTUS Trump, and a rational foreign policy (i.e. Abraham Accord) that did not embroil us in conflicts. Low inflation. Low-ish taxes. Dynamite performance in real return, for investment portfolios. Cheap gas (and energy) too. Lowering of the poverty rate (pre-pandemic), and solid growth for AA, Hispanic wages. Nearly daily entertainment as MSM talking heads melted down on national TV reacting to mean tweets.

Yeah I know, we deserve that. 🙂

[Nige]

'I’ll take the economy under POTUS Trump'

The one he inherited from Obama/Biden, who inherited a catastrophe from the previous Republican administration?

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, the economy that POTUS Trump inherited from POTUS Obama and subsequently improved with sound tax, regulatory and economic policy for the betterment of America. Yes, that one.

[Nige]

The one he coasted on and wasn't given a chance to completely wreck with tarrifs and tax cuts for the wealthy and alienating economic partners before covdi hit, which he fucked up completely with the notable exception of the vaccine, yes, that one.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I wonder whether his apologists around here understand that this, selling his office to the highest bidders, is what he means when he says he is for free markets.

[tylertusta]

"Support me and if elected I will implement a policy you want" is about as basic as politics gets.

Naturally, since it's Trump, it must also be a crime. Just stick "corruptly" in an indictment somewhere and we're off to the races.

[NOVA Lawyer]

“Support me and if elected I will implement a policy you want” is about as basic as politics gets.

That’s not what he said. That you feel the need to water down his ask, in which he actually framed it as a “deal” for Big Oil, says all that needs to be said about whether it was normal.

While post McDonnell, etc., it is not criminal, it also is not “drain the swamp” behavior.

And Trump is not a free market guy. As he himself says, he is “Mr. Tariff”, among other ways (like this one) where he demonstrates he has no real interest in free markets.

[tylertusta]

I'm not interested in talking about how Trump is a hypocrite.

I'm interested in explaining that what Trump is doing is no different than what ever other President does.

"Selling his office to the highest bidder" my ass.

[Nige]

Trump eternally exists in state of being different from normal politicians yet also exactly the same as normal politicians, whichever is convenient.

[Brett Bellmore]

"At the dinner, he vowed to immediately reverse dozens of President Biden’s environmental rules and policies and stop new ones from being enacted, "

I'm not sure what's so heinous about pledging to return things to the status quo prior to the election of a President of the opposing party. That's actually pretty routine, despite your apparent presumption that only Democrats can reverse policies.

[Sarcastr0]

'Pay me and I'll deregulate your industry' is not the normal level of political promising, Brett.

[Commenter_XY]

It is absolutely normal politicking...AYFKM?

[Martinned2]

Not if you're going to stick that money in your own pocket it's not. That is corruption.

[Brett Bellmore]

Is it corruption, or is it abnormal? Make up your mind.

[Nige]

When was the last time you heard of a politician demanding a billion dollars from a special interest group to enact policies harmful to the general public but profitable to the group?

[Brett Bellmore]

It was, "$1 billion to return me to the White House. "

Not, "$1 billion to add to my bank account."

It's perfectly routine for candidates to demand campaign donations and help from interests they would aid in office.

[Nige]

Have you been paying even the slightest bit of attention to how Trump uses campaign contributions? I mean, you were cool with him laundering money for influence via his Washington hotel, you're cool with Kushner being in bed with the Saudis, you were cool with Melania's gifts from China, it makes sense you'd be okay with this. Oh and by the way, Biden's OBVIOUSLY corrupt, here's absolutely no evidence to that effect whatsoever.

[tylertusta]

Wooosh.

That one went right over your head, Nige.

[Nige]

Normal for Trump, anyway.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Pay me because I'll deregulate your industry, but obviously only if I get elected!" is, though.

[Sarcastr0]

No, it isn’t! When have you heard anything like that?

You have normalized a lot of not actually normal things in order to support Trump and pretend you aren’t supporting extraordinary corruption.

[Brett Bellmore]

Reminder: "$1 billion to return me to the White House. "

He was asking for campaign donations. That is perfectly routine, for a candidate to point out that they plan to do something favorable to a group's interests, so donate to their reelection.

[Sarcastr0]

You're cutting off what he said because you're straining to make this not a quid-pro-quo. No, this is not perfectly routine - you didn't even bother trying to find a commensurate quote.

Yet again, as with Ukraine and plenty of other quotes, you're losing the ability to parse English in order to find that Trump didn't mean what he clearly meant.

You shouldn't have to keep doing that.

[Brett Bellmore]

He said they were wealthy enough to raise $1B to assure his reelection, and it would be worth it to them because his policies would benefit them at least that much.

Which is, in fact, a perfectly routine sort of thing for a politician to say, even if the $1B is kind of shocking baldly stated.

It's not like he's saying his energy deregulation policies are contingent on them ponying up. He's saying that his getting to implement them is contingent on his winning the election, which campaign donations would assist.

This is all perfectly normal, and you're just outraged because you like the policies he'd reverse.

[Nige]

He's selling himself to the highest bidder, openly, shamelessly. The guy who'se supposed to be different, who's supposed to drain the swamp. You are rubes and clowns, and he couldn't do it if you weren't so willing to rube and beclown yourselves. You want to be ruled by billionaires and corporations. You want an oligarchy.

[Bwaaah]

The government tries to "decarbonize" our energy utilization by throwing money at alternative energy sources. But the market only sees limited value in the alternatives; not enough to hit government "Climate Goals."

If the government can't stimulate the production of a better alternative to fossil fuel energy, then how can it still prevail with less valued alternatives? By causing fossil fuels to become so expensive they're not worth using.

How does the government cause fossil fuel energy to become more expensive? By making it difficult for energy companies to do business. By making it difficult for them to get permits. By making more and more natural resources unavailable to their exploratory efforts. By making it difficult for them to improve their distribution networks. By increasing import and export controls. The Biden administration has done all of those things to make it more expensive to produce fossil fuels.

When you consider the depth and dynamism of the global energy market, it's laughable that so many Americans believe in trying to craft their energy economy as if it were an isolated island, as if there could be some kind of government monopoly over the architecture of energy utilization, as if a people could regulate away the market forces they don't like. Is that a good bet?

I would welcome any President to unwind the regulations that this administration has promulgated for its purpose of increasing fossil fuel energy costs to consumers.

[Nige]

You think the US is the only country on the world trying to move away from fossil fuels becasue of the way those same fossil fuels are setting the planet on fire?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, we think a lot of countries signed onto that fad, and the US won't be the first one coming to its senses if Trump wins.

[Nige]

Why is it a fad? I know you're ideologically committed to denying climate change and to giving fossil fuel companies trillions in subsidies for poisoning the air and ground, oh yeah, right, that's why. Bring back coal, I guess.

[Sarcastr0]

You are just nuts if you think in this day and age that climate change is a fad.

But not also that he wants to dismantle NOAA Brett.

Weather prediction is not a fad. Climate change will continue even if we stop gathering data on it.

[Brett Bellmore]

I thought we were talking about forcing adoption of 'alternate energy'? Not a slight change in the weather.

Because that's the fad I'm talking about: Shutting down nuke plants in favor of unicorn farts, then burning lignite because the unicorns don't fart enough.

[Sarcastr0]

Don't narrow the scope as though you have amnesia.

That's not what Trump's talking about. Nor Nige.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's what Bwaaah and I are talking about, and your efforts to tell us what we have to be talking about have been tiresome for a long time now. Would you just give it a rest?

Do I ever try to tell YOU what you are and aren't allowed to talk about?

[Sarcastr0]

OP 'Trump said give me money and I'll let you do all the global warming stuff you want.'

You: 'Alternative fuels are a fad.'

Me: 'Trump wants some racial anti-environmental stuff.'

You: 'how could you think that's what I was talking about?'

Your deflection was so clumsy I took it for a subset of a larger thesis. I gave you way too much credit.

[Bwaaah]

“your efforts to tell us what we have to be talking about have been tiresome for a long time now”

I never denied climate change. I always found the theory of anthropogenic climate effects compelling. A belief in anthropogenic warning doesn’t magically give us a comprehensive grasp of its dynamics, nor an appropriate strategy for dealing with it. But the religion of Popular Environmentalism is one giant stupid bill of goods that, to be accepted in full, must not be denied in any part.

An idiot says: “Our planet is catching fire!” And all good Popular Environmentalists say “Yes!” if they are idiots too, or just stay silent if they aren’t that stupid.

Indeed, these Popular Environmentalist idiots shut down nuclear power plants. And what do they say to those who question the wisdom of that? “Your are a DENIER!”

A denier of what?

Forty+ years of this idiotic ideology has indeed been very tiresome. And COSTLY to average humans. VERY COSTLY TO AVERAGE HUMANS. Popular Environmentalists think of themselves as saviors, while making the lives of those they purport to save even more difficult. Why should so many people pay such a price? For the hope of building a future that is no worse than the present, Popular Environmentalists degrade the present.

Popular Environmentalism. Question none of it, or be branded as against all of it. BRILLIANT!

[Nige]

'But the religion of Popular Environmentalism is one giant stupid bill of goods that, to be accepted in full, must not be denied in any part.'

You want to pick and choose which bits of it to accept, and you justify this with a lot of strawmanning.

I don't know what you think environmentalism has cost humanity - cleaner air and water seem like pretty obvious benefits - but fucking up the environment has always cost humanity a hell of a lot more, and will continue to do so. Has any enviromentalist 'cost' been even a fraction of the cost of a single wildfire?

[Bwaaah]

DENIER!!!

[Sarcastr0]

Nutpicking, strawmanning, general resentment.

Why wold anyone think you're a Trump supporter?

[Nige]

'DENIER!!!'

Are you sure it's other people calling you these things and not just you yelling them every time someone disagrees with you?

[Nige]

Nuke plants: incredibly expensive, takes years and years to get them up and running, a slight waste disposal problem. Wind and solar: lash 'em up and hook 'em in. No wonder the fossil fuel industry delays and sabotages them every step of the way.

[Nige]

He's promising to do it for a billion dollars on behalf and for the benefit and profit of a small number of vested interests, not the good of the people.

[Brett Bellmore]

What a coincidence: Obama blew a half billion dollars on Solyndra, remember that? Doing so definately profited a small number of vested interests, while costing the people in general that half billion.

[Sarcastr0]

Not every risk the government takes on is corruption.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, just because you're willfully blind to corruption when it's on your side doesn't mean we have to pretend not to notice it, too.

Obama took a cool half billion and set it on fire, and Nige is coincidentally complaining about Trump proposing to do something of the same scale, but which is at least largely guaranteed to actually keep people from freezing in the dark.

[Nige]

Again, the degree to which your defences always rely on references to other things that are completely different is an indication of how indefensible Trump's actions really are. 'To keep you from freezing in the dark, because we have absolutely no solutions to offer on real-world problems, I'm going to get this special interest group to give me a billion dollars, you're welcome, oh and by the way, your air and water quality are about to go straight to hell - maybe the health insurance lobby will be good for another billion - and we're going to keep driving the weather chaos flooding and burning your homes harder than ever, good luck getting house insurance if you're not rich! '

[Sarcastr0]

You appeal to your priors, which are based on a wide swath of 'Government has done bad things in the past.' Why not cite Teapot Dome?

You need particularized evidence if you're going to make a particularized accusation.

[Nige]

You keep relying on inference, speculation and making stuff up to both-sides an issue while Trump just basically got up and openly did it.

[tylertusta]

"return things to the status quo prior to"

Also known as status quo ante.

[grb]

At some point Trump is going to push one last little bit and be jailed for contempt. The judge has bent over backwards to accomodate DJT’s misbehavoir, but he’s like a Terrible-Two forever testing mommy & daddy’s limits.

Besides, the smart money says Trump wants to be jailed. You only have to imagine it : Just like King or Mandela! It’ll be yuge! If Trump wasn’t functionally illiterate, he could write a “Letter from the NYC jail”.

The real question is whether his bootlicking cultists in this forum will buy the act. Will they think Trump gets to misbehave during trial – just like they bless his criminal acts? Will they claim he gets special privileges that way too? Will they make excuses for his babyfied ways?

The real answer is of course. The bootlicking cultists in this forum sold away their souls, standards, and self-respect long ago. They will excuse anything anytime on the orders of their orangish man-child deity.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump's misbehavior in and outside of court will not endear him to the judge who in the event of conviction will sentence him, including determination of whether or not to probate any or all of the sentences. More importantly, this judge will make the initial determination following sentencing as to releasing the defendant on his own recognizance or fixing bail pending appeal.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think he would rationally believe that he could endear himself to this judge by anything short of screaming "I'm guilty!" and cutting his throat. And the judge would probably be irate about the need to clean up the blood.

[grb]

A truly Bellmorean conclusion. The judge has given Trump more slack than any other defendent could hope to receive in his courtroom. This is to honor the office Trump himself repeatedly shat-on out of brat-child mischief. Warnings from not guilty notwithstanding, I bet Judge Merchan continues to show the presidency more respect than the contemptible buffoon embodying it in his courtroom.

In short, Trump will get special treatment again. Throughout his years of lifelong criminality, he’s always counted on it. In his scam university, phony charity, order-of-magnitude lying on business documents, and long brazen attempt to overturn his election loss, Trump hadn’t just bent the laws – he’s trampled them into rubble under foot.

He didn’t just refuse to return presidential records, he dared the government to do something about it. Rules and laws are for nobody losers, not someone so exalted & distinguished by Daddy’s millions. And thus we have an answer to my question above. Will the cultists excuse Trump again? Are they that hollowed-out & bereft of self-respect? Sure. And I bet I know who’ll be first in line…

[Mr. Bumble]

Apparently RFK jr. isn't the only one with a brain worm and yours is still active.

[grb]

It’s been many a decade since I did the ‘I’m rubber, you’re glue” shtick, but it’s very appropriate here. You see, Bumble, you’ve got a worm eating your cranial cavity clean – a big fat orange worm.

Soon they’ll be nothing left and the worm will be licking the inside of your skull for one final taste. After all, Bumble, this is a very selfish creature and it sees you as nothing more than mark, dupe, fool.

Rather a high price to pay for being one with the Cult, don’t ya think? But I never understood the cult’s appeal anyway. Perhaps you can explain why voluntary zombification is worth giving up all reason and dignity.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Bumble has only always posted one sentence non sequitur insults to practitioners commenting here who are of a different viewpoint than hayseed.
He is obviously not a lawyer, doesn’t understand legal issues past the NY Post headline, but he is a tabloid-educated culture war kamikaze pilot polluting a legal blog.
So there’s that!

[Stephen Lathrop]

I bet Judge Merchan continues to show the presidency more respect than the contemptible buffoon embodying it in his courtroom.

Alas, grb, if Judge Merchan supposes reticent responses show respect for the presidency, he is mistaken. They do show faith in judicial process, and respect for it. They may be a well-chosen tactic, necessitated by anticipation of appeal to a plainly biased Supreme Court.

But to show respect for the presidency a judge ought to punish dispassionately but severely any ex-president who by repeated, flagrant, illegal misconduct degrades that office. If he cares to do it, such a judge should feel free to add to stern punishment an explanatory remark or two, to rebuke an ex-president's practice of sullying his former office by associating it with contemptuous conduct, and by deliberately disregarding his oath.

I greatly admire what I have seen from Judge Merchan. It is almost, but not quite, to his credit that he has not apparently concluded that open defiance not only justifies extraordinary responses, but requires them.

Of course, the same could be said of Merrick Garland and President Biden. Since 1/6/2021, the nation would have been better served if everyone in authority whom Trump defied had asked before responding, "What would President Lincoln have done?"

The ensuing Civil War showed that even Lincoln did not at first command power sufficient to match the circumstance he shortly thereafter confronted head on. The urgent need now is for energy and dispatch sufficient to cure a deteriorating circumstance, to head off any need to confront a worse one.

[Commenter_XY]

I had to laugh at the 'Terrible Two' analogy; it fits in some ways. POTUS Trump seems to have adopted a strategy of having surrogates say exactly what he would want to say to the media (and potential voters) to comply with the gag order. Is that illegal? Is that unethical? Isn't that what spokespeople do?

I don't think the gag order extends to anyone not affiliated with the case, does it?

Social media postings...could be different, depends on the content of the post.

[OtisAH]

The proof is always in what he does, not what he says. If he wanted to go to jail he would still be doing it. He gave it a shot with some nonsense about Stormy on Tuesday or Wednesday but quickly deleted it. Nothing since. And he’s so desperate to scream about her they actually asked Merchan to exclude her from the gag order (denied from the bench, possibly while laughing). And note how there hasn’t been a single E. Jean Carrol post since the second judgment came down. He doesn’t want to go to jail. He’s terrified of it.

He’s not a germaphobe either. He just thinks everyone else is gross.

[tylertusta]

I would expect that Trump being jailed for contempt would give him a 2-3 point boost in his polling.

If convicted and/or put in prison, then an even larger boost.

[grb]

tylertusta : "....a 2-3 point boost in his polling...."

Let's run thru a quick primer on modern presidental elections:

Right now we're getting regular polling & all good information is good, but it has limited value. I have painful memories of being confident at this stage reading the polls only to face disappointment when November arrives.

What's been happening for quite some time is this : After the conventions and approaching the election, voters who are coy or whimiscal now return home to their natural choice. The numbers will tighten because we're close to a 50-50 country, national-election-wise. Yes, that's amazing given the GOP candidate is a sleazy huckster buffoon, but there you have it.

And what that means, tylertusta, is the poll boost you're so proud of is completely illusionary. The people who would vote for Trump because they're proud of his incessant criminality are people destined to vote for him anyway.

Of course Trump thinks otherwise. He's taken to bragging about fantasy crowds protesting outside the courthouse and proudly comparing himself to Al Capone during rallies. Like many a soft boy, he's always dreamed of being a gangster. It's why he follows Putin and Kim around like a eager little poodle.

[tylertusta]

I predict one thing, you predict another.

Let's come back in six months and see who was right.

[Mr. Bumble]

What did Trump do to you that you have so much hate?

[Voize]

We can only conclude that Bragg and Merchan are really Deep MAGA.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Does anyone know the screen name Jonathan Yudelman -- another recent right-winger turned former professor -- uses(d) at the Volokh Conspiracy?

[David Nieporent]

"Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are you so bitter and partisan that you can’t be happy for UCLA, rid of a disaffected right-winger who launches racial slurs in classrooms and associates the school with a bigotry-saturated blog?

How sad.

[Frank Drackman]

Know that asking a real question goes against the rai·son d’ê·tre of this whole site, but I’ll throw my Pearls before you Swine…

“Has the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, that Parkinsonian Joe sold off to (temporarily) lower Gasoline Prices, not that that would help his re-erection chances at all, been replenished?”
There’s a website,
https://www.energy.gov/ceser/strategic-petroleum-reserve
but no cool clock, graphs, diaphragms, showing the current status of the reserves,
but of course with Sleepy/Parkinsonian flying around in that Electric Air Farce 1, SUV’s, Train to Delaware, who cares how much Oil we have???
OK, all you Millennial Generation X/Y/Z LGBTQ*’s prove I’m an A-hole and there’s an App that shows the current reserve figgers down to the last drop…

Frank

[Bwaaah]

Here’s a helpful graph of how much we’ve kept in the reserve. Looks like Biden admin took it down by around 46%, from 650 million barrels in 2020 to 350 million now. The reserve is now at the lowest it’s been since 1983, shortly after its inception.

What’s a reserve for? To fight inflation? Did we overestimate how much of a reserve we need, security-wise, and it’s safe to take it down now? Maybe we need less security now?

It’s probably part of a resilience initiative where they decided we need less resilience. They could make that decline look real pretty, in a Resilience Report, plugged into some formula that shows our dependencies on fossil fuels have declined (as math like that goes).

Anyway….goooooooOOOOO U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve! (or go away. or something.)

[Brett Bellmore]

In theory the purpose of the reserve is to keep things running when a WAR interrupts petroleum production or shipments. It's a military, "strategic" stockpile.

Not to be used only for military purposes, but to be used in the event of a WAR.

But the longer a country goes without the treat of an existential war, the less urgent it seems to maintain the capacity to fight one, and everything put in place to fight one gets diverted to less existential purposes, such as pushing down gas prices right before an election.

Honestly? Biden's emptying the SPR would be the stuff of impeachment if we had a serious Congress. It's the military equivalent of using munitions stocks to hold a fireworks display.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.energy.gov/ceser/history-spr-releases

“Non-Emergency Sales: Although the Reserve was established to cushion oil markets during energy disruptions, non-emergency sales of oil from the Reserve can be authorized to respond to lesser supply disruptions or to raise revenues.

FY 2020 Mandated Sales

FY 2019 SPR Modernization Sale

FY 2019 Mandated Sales

FY 2018 SPR Modernization Sale

FY 2018 Mandated Sales

FY 2017 Mandated Sales

FY 2017 SPR Modernization Sale ”

Fucking crickets from you, Brett.

Naked double standard here.

[Bwaaah]

Chirp.

(did you say something meaningful?)

[Sarcastr0]

Look at the dates. Look at who Brett is complaining about.

You can figure it out, I have faith in you.

[Bwaaah]

Brett seems to be saying that the SPR, whose primary purpose is security, e.g. war or supply disruptions, is being used to lower energy prices, and now leaves us without that security. How does what you pasted contradict what he said? Please be specific. Brett wrote "[....]." That is disproved by "[...]."

[OtisAH]

Only a piece of shit would think “Has the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, that Parkinsonian Joe sold off to (temporarily) lower Gasoline Prices, not that that would help his re-erection chances at all, been replenished” is a “real question.”

[Brett Bellmore]

It's current news, though: Biden is making renewed noises of starting to refill it.

Which, based on past behavior, is probably a strong indication he's going to open the spigot again.

[Frank Drackman]

Like one of my favorite POTUS's Hairy Truman, I tell the truth and you Homos think it's hell. It's a real question, just one you don't like the answer to.

[Bored Lawyer]

This might be a bit technical, but here goes. SCOTUS came out with a decision today, Warner Chappell Music v. Nealy (2024)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1078_4gci.pdf

To summarize: Copyright Act has a 3-year statute of limitations. Some circuits, including the 11th from which the case came, allow for a "discovery rule" under which the SOL does not run until the plaintiff discovers the infringement. Others don't.

The Second Circuit, which also has the discovery rule, nevertheless holds that you can't collect damages from more than three years prior to suir. You can bring suit, maybe get an injunction, but no damages. 11th Circuit disagrees.

The majority of 6 at SCOTUS rules: assuming there is a discovery rule, the 2d Circuit distinction between suit and damages is wrong. If you can sue, you can get damages, even on very old infringement. So far, not a crazy decision.

But, the same majority says that it is not deciding whether there is a discovery rule under the Copyright Act. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. Leave that for another day.

Gorsuch in dissent, joined by Thomas and Alito, says nothing doing. You should first decide whether there is a discovery rule first. And he writes (convincingly to me) that there is none under the Copyright Act.

I find the majority's disposition bizarre. It won't decide if there is a discovery rule, but if there is, then it allows back damages. How do you pronounce on the details of a legal rule that might or might not exist at all?

[Bored Lawyer]

I should add that Gorsuch would apparently allow a limited discovery rule where there is fraud or concealment. But that's rare.