Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Judge Loose Cannon has scheduled a June 24, 2024 hearing on Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss indictment based on unlawful appointment and funding of special counsel. As I posted on a prior thread, suppose for purposes of this discussion that there is a problem with the appointment of the Special Counsel. How does that invalidate the indictment found by the grand jury in the Southern District of Florida, so as to require dismissal of the indictment?

Neither Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.326.0.pdf , nor his reply to the government’s response to the motion to dismiss, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.414.0.pdf , cites any authority in support of dismissal of the indictment as an available remedy.

Jack Smith didn’t indict Donald Trump, the grand jury in the Southern District of Florida did. Smith’s participation is simply immaterial to the finding of the indictment. A grand jury investigation may be triggered by tips, rumors, evidence proffered by the prosecutor, or the personal knowledge of the grand jurors. United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 344 (1974); Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 701 (1972).

If Jack Smith’s appointment were found to be problematic, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida could step in and prosecute the pending indictment. He could even hire Smith and Smith’s staff as assistants. Trump’s motion is a red herring.

[Mr. Bumble]

“If Jack Smith’s appointment were found to be problematic, …”
which is what the hearing will examine.

Also, hate the wide spread use of "problematic"; improper seems a better fit here.

[not guilty]

To-may-to, to-mah-to. The Attorney General was fully authorized to appoint the Special Counsel. If not, however, dismissal of the indictment is not an available remedy, no matter how pejorative the characterization of any defect.

[Mr. Bumble]

Says you.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Does that mean Judge Cannon will hold a hearing on a matter for which she lacks power to grant a remedy? If so, are there legal implications for that?

[not guilty]

I wasn't suggesting that there is no remedy, just that a dismissal of the indictment as Donald Trump has requested is not applicable.

[Bored Lawyer]

But then your criticism of Judge Cannon loses most of its weight. He may be right that there is legal issue, but wrong on the remedy.

Someone has to represent the United States, which is a party in this and every criminal case. If not Jack Smith, then it has to be someone else.

(A similar situation arises when a corporation tries to appear pro see. I have seen that a few times; usually the judge stays the case and requires counsel within some period of time, like 30 days.)

[not guilty]

The main thrust of my criticism is that Team Trump is advancing a frivolous legal argument. I realize that a litigant ordinarily not get relief unless he has asked for it, but lawyers owe a duty of candor to the courts.

I actually hope that Judge Cannon does order dismissal, which would be appealable as of right under 18 U.S.C. § 3731. That would result in a prompt reversal by the Eleventh Circuit.

The Eleventh Circuit has twice reversed Judge Cannon at the investigative stage of this case. In other cases where that court has reversed the same district court multiple times in the same case, the Court of Appeals has ordered that upon remand the matter be reassigned to a different judge. United States v. Plate, 839 F.3d 950, 958 (11th Cir. 2016); United States v. Gupta, 572 F.3d 878, 892 (11th Cir. 2009); United States v. Martin, 455 F.3d 1227, 1242 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Remillong, 55 F.3d 572, 577 (11th Cir. 1995); United States v. Torkington, 874 F.2d 1441, 1447 (11th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); United States v. White, 846 F.2d 678, 696 (11th Cir. 1988).

[DrCoke]

"The main thrust of my criticism is that Team Trump is advancing a frivolous legal argument."

It's not frivolous to insist on proper procedures being followed, that's just due process. The fact that the Government can respond by having a legitimate prosecutor step in does not make it any less so. We want the Government to do it right and proper.

Apparently the court doesn't think that this, which might be motivated as a delaying tactic, is frivolous or they would have just said so.

[not guilty]

The Trump Tean's request for dismissal of the indictment as a result of claimed irregularity in the appointment of the Special Counsel is wholly without legal authority and is therefore frivolous. Dismissal is simply not an available remedy.

As I wrote upthread, "An indictment returned by a legally constituted and unbiased grand jury, like an information drawn by the prosecutor, if valid on its face, is enough to call for trial of the charge on the merits." Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363 (1956) (footnote omitted).

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in GA things aren't looking to good for Miss Fanny.
Fani Willis suffers new blow as Georgia court allows Donald Trump's appeal to remove the Fulton County DA from his election fraud case

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13428301/Fani-Willis-Georgia-Appeals-Court-Trump.html

[not guilty]

Nine of the fifteen remaining defendants sought to appeal the interlocutory order declining to disqualify Fani Willis. The appellate court did not order a stay of trial court proceedings. If I were prosecuting the case I would move the trial court to sever the six non-appealing defendants for a separate trial to begin promptly.

At that separate trial, the full range of evidence of the RICO conspiracy among all defendants would be admissible. Donald Trump's conduct and such of his statements as were made during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy would come before the jury, with Trump having no ability to controvert such evidence.

IOW, Trump may have thrown Ms. Willis into the briar patch.

[Commenter_XY]

The wheels of justice grind slowly NG, do they not? 🙂

[gVOR08]

Our system guarantees the defendant as much due process as he can afford.

[bernard11]

And having the judge repeatedly throw sand in the gears slows them down even further. No, XY?

[tylertusta]

Grand juries don't write indictments. Who writes those indictments?

Grand juries don't summon themselves. Who asks the court to summon a grand jury?

[not guilty]

Do you fancy that you have a point, tylertusta?

The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length. Judges' direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 47 (1992).

"An indictment returned by a legally constituted and unbiased grand jury, like an information drawn by the prosecutor, if valid on its face, is enough to call for trial of the charge on the merits." Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363 (1956) (footnote omitted).

[tylertusta]

There's no need to try to divine a deeper meaning behind my words.

I made two points, and I asked two questions.

Can you answer them, please?

[not guilty]

Prosecuting attorneys typically write indictments and criminal informations. When the grand jury acts on its own, the charging instrument is a presentment.

In the Southern District of Florida, the Internal Operating Procedures state at section 8.01.00:

The Duty Judge’s functions are as follows:

– Handle all grand jury matters. This includes convening grand juries and ruling on matters affecting those grand juries during each month’s duty. Grand jury matters, and all matters reasonably related to the original grand jury matter, will be handled by the district judge before whom the original matter was filed. The Clerk’s Office will call the offices of the Duty Judge to attempt to arrange a time convenient to the Judge for the empanelment of the grand jury (if one is scheduled for that month), but if the jurors have already been summoned, the date will be firm and the Judge will adjust his or her schedule accordingly. Once the date for the empanelment is set by the Duty Judge in consultation with the clerk, the date will be firm and not subject to change. A Magistrate Judge may handle the empanelment of a grand jury upon referral by the Duty District Judge, (which will typically be made to the paired Magistrate Judge rather than the Duty Magistrate Judge). Rule 6(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure makes provisions for a grand jury return to be taken by a United States Magistrate Judge, and grand jury returns will ordinarily be taken by the Magistrate Judge on duty. In addition, the Duty Magistrate Judge will ordinarily handle the issuance of writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum, hearings regarding the appointment of counsel for subjects or targets of grand jury investigations, and motions made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2705(b) seeking non-disclosure orders regarding grand jury subpoenas. Until Rule 6(f) is further construed, a District Judge should handle immunization of witnesses and all matters that pertain to contempt.

https://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/sites/flsd/files/1-2-24%20Internal%20Operating%20Procedures.pdf

I infer from the parenthetical language that the empanelment of grand juries in that district is a regular, recurring event.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I don’t know whether Trump is guilty (or to put it in your terms, whether Judge Cannon is guilty).

But as a side issue (as if anything could be a side-issue vis-a-vis Trump), your description of the grand jury is also the constitutional vision for the institution. Yes it most certainly is designed as a referee between the prosecutor and the suspects.

If grand jurors could educate themselves, they’d find out about their true function and we’d have less rubber-stamping and more scrutiny of prosecution cases.

Today, however, prosecutors don’t share your and my constitutional vision of grand juries. To prosecutors, grand juries are just rubber stamps, as practically irrelevant as the old Soviet Parliament. In other words, grand juries ratify the decisions of the real players, they don’t make decisions themselves.

Prosecutors are Wormtongue, seducing grand jurors away from their duties and giving them the illusion of powerlessness. When grand jurors wake up, prosecutors will find themselves held to more accountability.

Meanwhile, back on this planet, prosecutors have major influence on grand jury decisions.

[David Nieporent]

Grand juries tend to do what prosecutors want, yes. But de jure, they're independent actors. And they derive their powers from the courts, not prosecutors. It doesn't matter if a janitor wandered into the grand jury room and suggested they indict someone; their decision to do so is independent, and as long as there was probable cause, the indictment is valid.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I don’t know all the legal details, though I suppose if the accusation was at the request of the cleaning staff it would be an information, not an indictment.

Query: Whether a grand jury accusation drawn up by someone who isn’t really a prosecutor can ever be an indictment?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I suppose this is the federal rule we're discussing.

"The indictment or information must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged and must be signed by an attorney for the government."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_7

So who qualifies as "an attorney for the government"? I can't say that I know for certain, but I suppose the courts will come up with some authoritative interpretation.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I guess what I called an "information" is actually a presentment. The Constitution allows it but this official note suggests the statutes don't allow it:

"Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts."

(see my link above)

[not guilty]

A criminal information is drafted by the prosecutor independently of the grand jury, typically by agreement with defense counsel, where the accused waives his Fifth Amendment right to be charged only by indictment, presentment or impeachment.

[not guilty]

"Query: Whether a grand jury accusation drawn up by someone who isn’t really a prosecutor can ever be an indictment?"

An indictment is drafted by the prosecutor. When the grand jury acts independently of the prosecutor, the charging instrument is a presentment. Either document has the same legal effect.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Are you sure about that last claim?

See above for the official note that presentments are “obsolete” in federal court.

Also:

"Presentments are obsolete in the federal courts." /Brian A. Garner (ed.), Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition) (St. Paul, MN: Thomson West, 2004), 1222.

[not guilty]

Presentments are uncommon, but still a viable charging mechanism. I was talking about the difference between an indictment and a presentment.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“still a viable charging mechanism”

I’d like to see some authority for that.

As well as some authority for your claim that an indictment and a presentment have “the same legal effect.”

Let’s limit ourselves to federal courts.

[not guilty]

Presentments have fallen into disuse in federal courts, but the plain language of the Fifth Amendment is that a presentment is of equal dignity to an indictment as a means of initiating a prosecution. A grand jury, being an inquisitorial body, can investigate criminal conduct independently of the prosecuting attorney:

"The role of the grand jury as an important instrument of effective law enforcement necessarily includes an investigatory function with respect to determining whether a crime has been committed and who committed it. . . . `When the grand jury is performing its investigatory function into a general problem area . . . society's interest is best served by a thorough and extensive investigation.' Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 392 (1962). A grand jury investigation `is not fully carried out until every available clue has been run down and all witnesses examined in every proper way to find if a crime has been committed.' United States v. Stone, 429 F.2d 138, 140 (CA2 1970). Such an investigation may be triggered by tips, rumors, evidence proffered by the prosecutor, or the personal knowledge of the grand jurors. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. [359,] 362 [(1956).] It is only after the grand jury has examined the evidence that a determination of whether the proceeding will result in an indictment can be made . . . ."

United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 344 (1974), quoting Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 701-702 (1972).

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Certainly, the 5th Amendment is satisfied with either an indictment or a presentment.

But the statutes must be satisfied, too. What about the federal statutes? Have these statutes curtailed presentments?

I myself like the idea of presentments, because it gets the grand jury accustomed to thinking outside the prosecutor’s box. I would ask, though, that before summoning anyone for trial, the grand jurors get legal help in framing their presentment to make it…presentable. The legal help could be from a special counsel, for example.

But my question is less about what the law should be and more about what existing statutes provide. Does federal procedure allow presentments, and if so, are presentments treated as the equivalent of indictments?

And what do the sources I cited mean when they call presentments obsolete in federal court? Are the sources in error, or are they using an obsolete meaning of “obsolete”?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It doesn’t matter if a janitor wandered into the grand jury room and suggested they indict someone; their decision to do so is independent, and as long as there was probable cause, the indictment is valid."

You mean anybody can walk into a grand jury room, present some evidence, and get an indictment against anybody? Even the prosecutor?

Why am I just being informed of this now?

[DrCoke]

I liked the TV show "Quincy" episode that was all about the grand jury. The title was "Guilty Until Proven Innocent". Should be included in the civics education class in junior high school. Which doesn't exist.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Grand juries don’t write indictments. Who writes those indictments?

The prosecutors.

Grand juries don’t summon themselves. Who asks the court to summon a grand jury?

Not sure if you’re talking about particular jurisdictions or not, but generally the court rules or statutes require the court to put together a plan for convening grand juries, if that plan isn’t adequate, the prosecutors would raise it.

[Nige]

'Judge Loose Cannon has'

It's like a mantra at this point.

[Martinned2]

On Crooked Timber they've been thinking about originalism:

Whittington assumes, wrongly, that the political function of originalism, qua instrument for promoting conservatism, would be like a crank you turn to crank maximally conservative results. Not exactly. No doubt it gets policy pay-outs. But it crucially distributes those pay-outs in a way that affords stable coalition-building. Whittington’s list of competing conservative jurisprudential philosophies demonstrates this. You could never get the conservative movement to rally round libertarian-oriented natural rights, because the moral traditionalists would balk. You could never get the libertarians to rally round Burkeanism. Originalism is the 2nd-best all around, and no one’s 1st best is attainable, and everyone knows it, and knows everyone knows it.

https://crookedtimber.org/2024/05/15/i-found-a-paper-that-denies-one-of-my-two-obvious-thoughts-about-originalism-so-stating-the-obvious-turns-out-to-be-useful/

[Martinned2]

He's reflecting on this paper by Keith Whittington. I can't remember whether Whittington has blogged about it on the VC.

https://kewhitt.scholar.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf3716/files/Originalism_Conservative_0.pdf

[Brett Bellmore]

I frequent Crooked Timber, though not as much as before they banned me. (It's not so much fun reading an argument you can't take part in.) It has one of the most relentlessly curated commentariats of any blog out there, and even so they can't tolerate the idea of comments posting without first being reviewed for wrongthink. Well, they do cover the whole range of opinion from A to B, at least.

When they're discussing anything conservative, the blind men feeling up the elephant come to mind. Only, these blind men are absolutely opposed to the very idea of elephants... No matter how much data they collect and how they compare notes, that it's an elephant they've found is not an admissible conclusion.

So it's quite natural that the possibility that people would support originalism on account of thinking it is correct just wouldn't occur to them. Let alone that it was so obviously correct that people just called it "reading" before an opposing philosophy came along to fight back.

"Oldster", in the first comment, stumbles upon the truth: "Or am I misreading him? The language here is so crassly results-oriented that I suspect in the article as a whole Whittington must be criticizing the approach quoted here. I don’t have time to read it, but I suspect the dialectic must go something like, “people accuse us originalists of having chosen our interpretive philosophy merely for its instrumental value to the conservative movement –it generates conservative results and justifies conservative outcomes. But if we had that merely instrumental goal, then we’d choose more efficient instruments. So its very inefficiency is evidence that we espouse originalism for noble, disinterested reasons, not for low grubbing instrumental reasons.”"

Not only is that what Whittington is actually saying, it's what he's EXPLICITLY saying! Oldster would only have had to have read to the middle of the second page to discover that.

Well, Oldster stumbled across the truth, rejected it, and the rest of them proceed as though it had never been mentioned.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Speaking of “originalism”…what people did the 2A originally protect?? Because it was ratified as an individual right except the BoR didn’t apply to the states…such a head scratcher. 😉

[David Nieporent]

It originally protected the people of the United States, just like the 1A, 4A, and every other one. Are you going to keep pretending you don't understand this?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, of course he is.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

But the BoR originally didn’t apply to the states…such a head scratcher. So it applied to federal entities like the US Attorneys and US Marshalls that operated in the states but not to individuals in states. Such a head scratcher. 😉

[David Nieporent]

But the BoR originally didn’t apply to the states…

That is correct. Why is that a head scratcher?

[bernard11]

Brett,
I don't know why you were banned from CT.

I do know why Kleiman banned you from his site, and it wasn't your political views. What it had to do with was the (extremely poor and often dishonest) nature of your arguments. It wouldn't surprise me if CT had much the same motive.

And of course the notion that it couldn't possibly have been legitimate is standard Bellmore.

You also say,

it’s quite natural that the possibility that people would support originalism on account of thinking it is correct just wouldn’t occur to them.

This is you in mirror image. If there is anyone who consistently refuses to accept that opposing viewpoints might be held in good faith, for sensible - even if in your view, incorrect - reasons, it is Brett Bellmore.

You have even defended this paranoid view.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Originalism --

less well-known than Kim Kardashian,

less popular than Kim Kardashian,

less important than Kim Kardashian,

less persuasive than Kim Kardashian,

less interesting than Kim Kardashian,

probably less longevity than Kim Kardashian --

but, as conservatives love to note, a few months older than Kim Kardashian!

(Here's a more developed version of that tune, featuring the band's original guitarist.)

[apedad]

Which Originalism are we talking about?

Actual Originalism
Framework Originalism
Intrinsicist Originalism
Instrumental Originalism
Liquidated Originalism
Original Intent
Original Meaning
Original Methods Originalism
Original Public Meaning
Semantic Originalism
Structuralism
Textualism
“Halfway Originalism”

[Kazinski]

Kind of weird to be posting on this again, but he did it again:

Washington
CNN
—
For the second time in less than a week, President Joe Biden falsely claimed Tuesday that the inflation rate was 9% when he began his presidency.

Biden was criticized by many Republicans, including former president and current presidential rival Donald Trump, for telling CNN in an interview last Wednesday: “No president’s had the run we’ve had in terms of creating jobs and bringing down inflation. It was 9% percent when I came to office, 9%.”

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/14/politics/fact-check-biden-inflation-when-he-became-president/index.html

This is clear as mud:

“I think inflation has gone slightly up. It was at 9% when I came in, and it’s now down around 3%.”

[Mr. Bumble]

“I think..." a fact not in evidence.

[Kazinski]

I should also note the April inflation report came out today, at .3 monthly, 3.4 y/y CPI, and 3.6% y/y core inflation.

That's a slight improvement, but not enough to start cutting rates yet.

[Mr. Bumble]

So, even now, after 3.5 years of Bidenomics inflation is over twice the rate it was when he took office.

I should also note insomnia sucks!

[Kazinski]

Out here on the westish coast its just one am, so I'm just going to bed. Its actually Mountain Standard time in Arizona which is same as PDT in summer, and then an hour earlier in winter.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The Fed goes by core PCE which has been under 3% for a while…and the forecasts have the next two prints coming in closer to 2% yoy. And before you make some remark about core PCE being a suboptimal metric I will point to 2008 hitting 5.5% CPI inflation right before the Financial Crash. So if 3% core PCE inflation is unacceptable then I will assume you were preparing to vote for Obama in 2008 right up until the Final Meltdown at which time you switched to McCain because inflation started coming down.

[Mr. Bumble]

Numbers, is there anything they can't do?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Another number is 2.9%…the highest GDP growth rate both Obama and Trump hit…except it was unacceptable under the black guy and the “greatest economy in history” under the old white guy.

[tylertusta]

"Not as bad as it was, but still bad" is a good way of describing the current inflation rate.

[Sarcastr0]

You know why I trust Kevin Drum on inflation? He uses the same variables consistently and across administrations. If it's good news, he says it's good news. If it's bad, he says it's bad.

He's a liberal partisan, but he relies on numbers, not vibes, and that keeps him honest.

You don't even point to numbers. And those on here that do, keep switching which number is the most important one so they always have some bad news to speak to. Or they claim like Brett it's all a liberal statistical plot (heh).

"It was all good news today: Inflation continued to slow down in April from its recent surge. On an annualized basis headline CPI inflation came in at 3.8%, down from 4.6% last month and 5.4% in February. Core CPI came down to 3.6%:

Groceries showed considerable deflation in April. The cost of food at home decreased 2.4% on an annualized basis.

On a conventional year-over-year basis, headline CPI was 3.4% and core CPI was 3.6%."
https://jabberwocking.com/inflation-settles-down-in-april/

[tylertusta]

I don't need to point to other numbers because I don't need to.

The Fed's stated target is 2%.

The current annual 3.4% is higher than 2%, but less than the peak of inflation which was 9%.

3.4% is still bad. Less bad, but still bad.

[Sarcastr0]

This is a very low bar for what counts as an unacceptable rate of inflation.

[Mr. Bumble]

Why should any inflation be considered acceptable?
Why isn't the Fed's target 0%?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why isn't it -90%? Who wouldn't love that?

Carry on, clingers.

[Sarcastr0]

Because deflation is also bad. Worse, arguably.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Forty years later, I recall the "deflation is bad" lesson from an economics class.

[bernard11]

Why isn’t the Fed’s target 0%?

Because that would be an economic disaster.

Time and again we hear commenters yearn for zero inflation, or even deflation. Wouldn't it be great if prices were steady, or even trended downward?

No. It wouldn't be great. Wages would decline, including probably yours. Companies would stop expanding, maybe cut back (Because the price they can sell their products at will decline relative to their costs, and because lower wages means fewer customers). So there would be layoffs - not you, of course.

What wouldn't decline are debt obligations. Owe $300K on your mortgage - a sensible, manageable, amount at the time you bought the house? How does that look when you get a pay cut, or lose your job because your employer goes broke?

Some of your interest bills will drop, but man won't. Even if you have a floating rate mortgage it might not reset right away.

So take that idea out of your golf bag. It won't help you.

[Nelson]

"Why should any inflation be considered acceptable?
Why isn’t the Fed’s target 0%?"

Tell me you know nothing about macroeconomics without saying it.

[tylertusta]

Does Kevin Drum say that a permanent annual 3.4% inflation rate is good?

Or are you just guessing?

[Sarcastr0]

He doesn't say that, but from other posts he thinks the costs of raising rates and risking recession is generally the worse concern with a rate down below...4ish (don't quote me on the specific bright line).

I'm not trusting him on the *policy* though, I'm trusting him on the numbers, including his focus on month-over-month versus the reductive headling-bait of taking a snapshot and a goal.

[tylertusta]

I’m not trusting him on the *policy* though,

Do you agree with my statement that 3.4% is worse than 2%?

…including his focus on month-over-month versus the reductive headling-bait of taking a snapshot and a goal.

Hold up. You said this just up-thread:

“And those on here that do, keep switching which number is the most important one so they always have some bad news to speak to.”

So it’s OK when you do it, but it’s not OK when others do it?

[Sarcastr0]

When did I switch a number?

I just quoted Kevin Drum. I've provided no other numbers than in that quotation.

[tylertusta]

No, I'm not letting you get away with not answering my question:

Do you agree with my statement that 3.4% is worse than 2%?

[Sarcastr0]

You are asking a policy question.

I'd be comfortable saying inflation above 5% is worth moving against.

But at this 3 and 2 level? I honestly don't know the answer, and would guess it's deeply contextual and depends on the costs of the policies required to get that number farther down.

I swear I'm not trying to be cagey I just have a point where I don't trust my expertise (or really anyone's per Hayek).

[NOVA Lawyer]

tylertusta,

Not ideal is not the same as bad.

“Not as bad as it was, but still bad” is a good way of describing the current inflation rate.

A better way to describe it: Not as good as it could be, but still pretty good.

Average yearly inflation under*.....
Reagan (charitably only starting with 1983 when it had dropped to 3.1%): 3.45%
G.H.W. Bush: 4.35%
Clinton: 2.61%
G.W. Bush: 2.83%
Obama: 1.38%
Trump (including the pandemic year!): 1.88%
Biden: 5.6% (through 2023, likely about 5% once 2024 is included).

Average over the 41 year period 1983-2023. 2.84%

Years during that period when inflation was within 0.5% of 2% = 13 (out of 41).

Is 3.4% inflation "bad"? Really?

*I broke it down by President not to imply any of the Presidents are responsible for inflation during their term, but simply to give pictures of periods of time within the 41 year period.

**voters won't be voting on 3.4% inflation, they just remember the shock of 8% inflation and high gas prices, but I assume we are talking about economically what's "bad".

*** this is obviously a semantic discussion, it's just curious tylertusta is so invested in the "bad" terminology to describe what is, pretty unequivocally, good news about dropping inflation that has reached a historically reasonable level.

[bernard11]

Do you agree with my statement that 3.4% is worse than 2%?

Silly statement. But, to give it a shot, who knows?

The problem is that inflation does not exist in isolation. It's part of the overall economic situation, and interacts with production, investment, unemployment, and who knows what else.

So unless you have a plausible model of the economy - at least a stick-figure sketch - the question has no answer.

Would an increase in rainfall be desirable?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

So long as you are excluding months from Reagan you should exclude the final several months of Bush’s 8 years. So CPI hit 5.5% yoy right before the Financial Meltdown…people don’t necessarily remember it because the Fed uses core PCE and so they didn’t really consider the high headline CPI figure to be a serious issue and so it didn’t get much coverage.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

We had deflation in 2020 and so you should exclude everything after February 2020 from Trump’s numbers.

[Commenter_XY]

Good luck getting a direct answer. 🙂

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You don’t even point to numbers"

Um, it's pretty clear that he was referring to the numbers upthread, which you proceeded to regurgitate.

"If it’s good news, he says it’s good news. If it’s bad, he says it’s bad."

Well, the rates came down, that's good. But they're still way above target, that's bad. So "It was all good news today:" isn't quite right, is it?

And you've ranted quite a bit about how other commentors talk about inflation numbers. Tell us, Sarcastro, how do you feel about someone who pulls the number 9% straight out of his ass?

[Mr. Bumble]

Like a kindred spirit?

[Sarcastr0]

So many of you don't bother to engage with comments, just make with the insults and flounce off.

Why do you spend your time like that?

[TwelveInchPianist]

How’s it an insult to say that you’re a kindred spirit to Biden? I thought you liked Biden.

[Mr. Bumble]

As I've said several times before, because he is a douche.
Douche

someone who is more than a jerk, tends to think he's top notch, does stuff that is pretty brainless, thinks he is so much better than he really is, and is normally pretty good at ticking people off in an immature way.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I know. What's more, he regularly calls people dicks, assholes, etc.

I'm sure he thinks he only insults people who deserve to be insulted, but everybody thinks that.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

How does a pathological liar feel about another pathological liar pathologically lying?

[Kazinski]

Its better for at least a month, but its not good. If the trend continues another few months that will be good.

[Kazinski]

Actually trust Jamie Dimon, more than Kevin Drum or even me:

"Inflation be higher for longer than people think because of multiple factors, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon told Bloomberg TV.
Markets are too optimistic about inflation, interest rates, and the US economy, Dimon said.
"I think the chance of inflation staying high or rates going up are higher than people think," he said."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/jamie-dimon-inflation-soft-landing-recession-outlook-china-interest-rates-2024-5%3famp

We get it wrong nobody will notice, he gets it wrong people lose billions.

[Sarcastr0]

This is a very different thing than the Kevin Drum post, which is descriptive, and not predictive.

I don't trust *anyone* to be properly predictive on specific economics stuff or else I'd be making a lot more financial gambles.

[bernard11]

Predictions are hard. Yes, Dimon is an informed, intelligent, observer.

Do you think there are none that disagree with him?

Are you really claiming that one man's opinion, however informed and intelligent he is, is the final word on our economic situation?

That's not very smart.

[Kazinski]

No, I didn't say he couldn't get it wrong, I said if he gets it wrong then people, including his shareholders could lose billions.

But it wouldn't be the first time.

[bernard11]

It's even worse. Let core inflation be lower than measures that include food and fuel and they are all over,

"I guess these people don't buy gas and groceries, but most people do."

But when food and fuel inflation is the lower measure the distinction is suddenly forgotten.

And of course whatever the worst economic indicator is, that's absolutely the only one they want to talk about.

Cultists.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you also still think Biden is the crime lord of the Biden crime family while also somehow being clearly in deep dementia?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's kind of a mashup of The Godfather and Weekend at Bernies. The Godfather was originally a crime lord, but now he's a doddering figurehead while the kids keep the empire going pretending he's still running it.

[Sarcastr0]

I’d think you were satirizing the inconsistent anti-Biden right, but I know you well enough to know you’re serious, if being a bit jocular.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm mainly being jocular. I think there's a bit of truth to my description, but it's highly exaggerated.

You know, Biden was kind of unusual for a high level politician until recently in that he WASN'T on the gravy train. I'm not saying he was entirely on the up and up, but he was a bit player in that game for most of his life, didn't really cash in on his positions even as he watched people around him get stinking rich. Admission against interest: That was kind of admirable.

I don't think his close relatives share that admirable quality. Hunter has absolutely been cashing in on his being related Dad, and relied on Dad to shelter him from the consequences of it. And Dad obliged, giving his son that shelter and influence.

Honestly? If his son weren't a corrupt drug addict, I think Joe would still be on the up and up, relatively speaking. Paternal loyalty has eroded his morals.

[Sarcastr0]

I absolutely agree that we need to tighten up the way we regulate financial decisions by politicians.

But I also think you shouldn't generalize about them all being guilty.

And further that corporations putting famous and powerful people on the board to trade off their name isn't corruption.

If you were worried about corruption, you wouldn't be so committed to 'money is always speech.'

But this is all digression - the dual narratives of Biden being demented and running an elaborate big crime scheme full of shell companies are not mutually consistent. And the GOP is absolutely pushing them both.

[Brett Bellmore]

I obviously don't think they're ALL guilty; If they were ALL guilty, Biden couldn't have been an exception, now, could he? I do think the corruption is pretty widespread, though. It's VERY conspicuous how people go to Washington, and suddenly they become amazingly good at spotting stocks that are going to go up.

"And further that corporations putting famous and powerful people on the board to trade off their name isn’t corruption."

LOL! You actually wrote that! Of course it's corruption when somebody goes to Washington, and suddenly their no account druggy son ends up on corporate boards pulling in seven figure paychecks.

"If you were worried about corruption, you wouldn’t be so committed to ‘money is always speech.’"

Well, first of all, it's not "money is always speech", it's "money spent on getting speech heard is always speech. And yeah, if I'm worried about government corruption, why the hell would I want the government to have more tools to regulate private speech?

"the dual narratives of Biden being demented and running an elaborate big crime scheme full of shell companies are not mutually consistent."

Fair enough. He's the demented figurehead for his relatives running a not so elaborate big crime scheme.

[Sarcastr0]

You generalize about a group, and use that to make assumptions about individuals in that group. We don't like collective guilt in America. Or propensity evidence.

Of course it’s corruption when somebody goes to Washington, and suddenly their no account druggy son ends up on corporate boards pulling in seven figure paychecks.
No, trading on a famous name is not corruption. Are nepo-babies in Hollywood and the record industry corruption? At some point you bar for what's corruption is so low the word ceases to be useful.

"money spent on getting speech heard is always speech" is not the holding of Buckley v. Valeo or even Citizens United. You call anyone who disagrees with those holdings not just anti-speech but anti-freedom.
Are you slowing your roll here?

He’s the demented figurehead for his relatives running a not so elaborate big crime scheme.
Not even compelling fan fiction.

[Bob from Ohio]

"trading on a famous name is not corruption"

A business hiring a pol's relative to get favorable treatment from the pol is not corrupt?

Dude, its an indirect bribe.

[Sarcastr0]

You would need to establish actual favorable treatment for this to have any heat.

Hence the blustery 'indirect bribe.'

You go with 'gives benefit to relative' means 'bribes' and just about everyone of any fame is corrupt based purely on their kids getting good jobs.

You've generalized the term beyond meaning.

[Bob from Ohio]

"blustery"

LOL If I called it a bribe, you would pooh pooh that too.

You are turning slowly turning into "ACKShully Guy"

Hiring a relative of a famous actor is also a bribe, btw. I'm scratching your back now so you can scratch mine later.

[Sarcastr0]

If everything is a bribe, Bob, nothing is.

[David Nieporent]

A business hiring a pol’s relative to get favorable treatment from the pol is not corrupt?

It's not corrupt by the politician unless the politician is actually giving favorable treatment to the business because of the relative's hiring.

It's not corrupt by the relative unless the relative promises that s/he can get the business favorable treatment and/or actually tries to do so.

[Brett Bellmore]

"It’s not corrupt by the politician unless the politician is actually giving favorable treatment to the business because of the relative’s hiring.

It’s not corrupt by the relative unless the relative promises that s/he can get the business favorable treatment and/or actually tries to do so."

Kind of! It could be a failed attempt to indirectly bribe the politician if neither of these happens. Or it could be the politician doing a bait and switch, promising favors and never delivering.

Biden spoke with son's business associates numerous times, former partner tells lawmakers

Laptop shows Joe Biden attended meetings between Hunter and his Mexican business partners

This is a marginal case, I would admit. This sort of thing clearly implies that greasing Hunter's palm gets you favorable attention from Joe, but proof that Joe actually DID anything beyond an occasional meal or ride on AF1 is scanty.

The optics are horrible, though, which is why Joe lied about it having happened.

[David Nieporent]

Biden spoke with son’s business associates numerous times, former partner tells lawmakers

As always, your research consists of googling until you find something that supports your preconceived notions, and not reading any further. Here's what the link actually says:

“The witness indicated that Hunter spoke to his father every day, and approximately 20 times over the course of 10-year relationship, Hunter may have put his father on the phone with any number of different people, and they never once spoke about any business dealings,” Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., told reporters after the closed-door meeting. He said that included times when Hunter Biden was with friends, and times when he was with "potential business partners or business partners.”

“As he described it, it was all casual conversation, niceties, the weather, what’s going on. There wasn’t a single conversation about any of the business dealings that Hunter had,” Goldman added.

And we know Goldman is telling the truth (and Comer is lying) because we have the transcript. Basically, Hunter and Joe spoke every day, and if Hunter happened to be in a meeting when Joe called him, Hunter would take the call and put Joe on speakerphone.

[not guilty]

Brett, try parsing the federal bribery statute (18 U.S.C. § 201) to see whether the facts fit the actual elements of the offense.

[Nige]

'not so elaborate big crime scheme.'*

*evidence not included.

[bernard11]

I don’t think his close relatives share that admirable quality.

Well, Hunter doesn't.

Hunter has absolutely been cashing in on his being related Dad, and relied on Dad to shelter him from the consequences of it.

Hoped Dad would provide shelter, anyway. And remember, he may have gotten shelter from his name, without his father doing anything. If someone gave him a pass because his name is "Biden," that doesn't mean Joe was behind it. If some bank, say, lets Warren Buffett's son slide on a loan, because they think it will give them influence, or access, maybe some indirect connections, or good will with daddy, that doesn't mean Warren has done a damn thing wrong, or even had shit to do with the whole thing.

Trading on one's name is an old practice. It does, of course, become bad if Jr. occupies a position of influence, or might soon, or has used such a position in the past to do you a favor you are reciprocating. But none of you dogged investigators are sniffing around in Jared Kushner's deals.

And Dad obliged, giving his son that shelter and influence.

As I said, none of your comment establishes that this happened, no matter how convinced you are.

[Nige]

It's weird though. The whole Trumpian approach is for his family to capitalise on his name and his position and his influence and their influence on him, in business and in politics. They're literally voting for it.

[Don Nico]

It would not be the first time that condition obtains in crime families.

[Kazinski]

Well actually all the improper actions that are being alleged are from about 2013-2017.

[bernard11]

all the improper actions that are being alleged are from about 2013-2017.

Ah. If only we had had a Republican Administration in, say,2017-2020, then we could have had a proper investigation, learned the facts, and not had to rely on baseless innuendo and evidence-free accusations to understand just how much criminality Moriarty - er, Joe Biden - was mixed up in back then.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, it is not illegal for a politician to lie. 😉

[Longtobefree]

He only remembers the nine percent number because it was his personal best.

[Nige]

'Inflation Eases as Core Prices Post Smallest Increase Since 2021'

https://www.wsj.com/economy/inflation-april-cpi-report-interest-rate-55eda190?st=ax4cb3ow89bct0j&mod=djemwhatsnews

[Martinned2]

Apparently the New Yorker published a long story about a British trial, but the article was "blocked" for viewers in the UK. I assume that's something the New Yorker did, to comply with UK law. (I gather there was a court order, but I think that's just an order setting out how to comply with the general principles of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.)

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2024-05-14/debates/CD985C17-1A75-43F8-94AD-2F85BDBC0B02/TopicalQuestions#contribution-6C110CCF-9216-49B0-B241-11B3988411F5

[Martinned2]

I can confirm that I cannot access this article from London. I get an error message from the New Yorker website. (I.e. not a regular 404 error, but a Page Not Found message from the website.)

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Sure you can. Just use a VPN with a US node.

I lived on the soggy isle for many years and long ago gave up any hope of learning anything of significance in the press about any criminal case at any time.

I understand the goal of the UK's press speech restrictions, but experience clearly shows that the UK's highly insulated criminal justice system is not appreciably better than others in which such press restrictions are not nearly as strict. But, I suppose it could be worse...

[Martinned2]

Oh, I'm sure I can get at the article. The point was simply to confirm that it is still blocked.

As for the merits of such restrictions, I think the zoo around all the Trump prosecutions has shown that a free-for-all isn't great either. I think all the people on this blog who complain that Trump won't get a fair trial must wish that there were some reporting restrictions in place in the US.

[Commenter_XY]

Not at all, a free and vigorous press is essential to the survival of the Republic = I think all the people on this blog who complain that Trump won’t get a fair trial must wish that there were some reporting restrictions in place in the US.

I'll take our 'free for all' over government censorship any day of the week.

[Martinned2]

a free and vigorous press is essential to the survival of the Republic

Leaving to one side what that slogan actually means, you're positing an empirical question. And, on recent evidence, America's "free and vigorous press" is more of a threat to the survival of the Republic than a benefit.

[Bwaaah]

"America’s 'free and vigorous press' is more of a threat to the survival of the Republic than a benefit"

Wow. There you are.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, I know. M2 totally missed the boat.

[Nige]

Uh, you guys say things ten times worse about US media every other comment.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The enemy of the people, if you will?

[Bob from Ohio]

"a free and vigorous press is essential to the survival of the Republic"

Too bad all we have are Democratic party cheerleaders.

[Nige]

'Why aren't Democrats voting for scandal-ridden petty crooks like we are so that the coverage is fairer?'

[Michael P]

I can't imagine wanting those kind of restrictions on the press. It's far better to keep the government from being able to censor coverage than to keep Democrat rags from revealing their biases and priors.

[Martinned2]

Pick your poison. Do you want Trump to have an unbiased jury or not?

[Michael P]

In New York City, it’s unlikely that any jury will be unbiased. More broadly, he’s a special case where almost everyone has a going-in opinion, and news stories about some new trial are not likely to change that. What we can aim for is a trial with fair procedures and comparable rules for admitting witnesses and evidence for both the prosecution and defense — rather than, say, letting a porn star testify to things totally unrelated about the charges but blocking a federal official from testifying about why the federal government did not share the prosecution’s characterization of facts that are key to the charges.

So while I would like him to have an unbiased jury, he won’t get one and can only hope for a reasonably balanced set of biases, and I don’t think the remedy you propose would help in the slightest.

[Martinned2]

Oh, for the record, I'm not proposing any of this. I'm just explaining the logic of British reporting restrictions around criminal trials.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, basically the idea is that in the US we turn the jury into mushrooms, (Kept in the dark and fed bullshit...) while in the UK you accomplish the same end by turning the entire population into mushrooms?

[Martinned2]

That's an amusing, yet accurate way to characterise it.

As you may recall, there are three basic reasons why I dislike jury trials. 1) jurors are idiots, 2) jurors don't have to give reasons and can't be appealed, and 3) having juries requires the courts to create a whole set of laws to govern what evidence they are and aren't allowed to see, which is basically your thing.

[Michael P]

1) So, kindred spirits of yours? 2)
Defendants appeal jury verdicts all the time. They can't do much to appeal findings of fact, but that's also true in bench trials. A judge in a bench trial also spent have to explain why they found certain facts to be true. 3) The complex rules are mostly about how to figure out whether jurors carry in a bias, and how to prevent them from becoming biased by outside spices during the trial; the need for rules about admissibility of evidence don't change based on who finds facts in a given trial.

[Martinned2]

They can’t do much to appeal findings of fact, but that’s also true in bench trials.

Not in a sensible system it isn't. Criminal defendants should be entitled to a proper appeal on the facts and the law.

[Martinned2]

the need for rules about admissibility of evidence don’t change based on who finds facts in a given trial.

Yes it does. There's no point in excluding prejudicial evidence unless you're worried about prejudicing the jury.

[David Nieporent]

2) jurors don’t have to give reasons and can’t be appealed,

Judges don't have to give reasons either. (Again: "I believed A but not B" is not a "reason" in any meaningful sense.) And jury verdicts can indeed be appealed. Of course, if the only ground for appeal is a difference of opinion about credibility, it's not going to get far — but then, neither will the appeal of a bench verdict on that ground. If the argument is that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction, it can be made whether a judge or a jury was involved.

[Michael P]

How many times should a defendant get to appeal findings of fact? The US is not the only place that prefers to do that only once, given the risk of losing or spoiling evidence in a re-trial: https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2019/05/14/appealing-findings-of-fact-the-uphill-battle/ . One can argue error of fact, but it’s not an argument that appeals courts should accept lightly.

[Martinned2]

@David: That's more reasons than a jury has to give. And there's a difference between an approach like the English Court of Appeal, which basically upholds jury verdicts unless god himself comes down from the heavens and says that the defendant is innocent, and a proper scrutiny of the court below. Never mind the possibility of actually having the appeal court hear witnesses, which is of course also a thing they'd be doing in a sensible country.

[Martinned2]

@Michael: If someone is at risk of being sentenced to years or decades in prison, the number of times they should be able to appeal any aspect of their trial should be more than zero.

[Brett Bellmore]

"As you may recall, there are three basic reasons why I dislike jury trials. 1) jurors are idiots, 2) jurors don’t have to give reasons and can’t be appealed, and 3) having juries requires the courts to create a whole set of laws to govern what evidence they are and aren’t allowed to see, which is basically your thing."

Of course jurors are idiots, and largely ignorant of the law. They're not there to be the voice of the law, they're there to be the voice of the People in the courtroom, so that the government can't just casually dictate the outcome of every trial by having all the decisions made by government employees.

The government hates that, of course, and those rules you reference in #3 are an effort to minimize as much as possible the influence of juries in trial outcomes. They're not a necessary component of a jury system, they're a determined effort to render juries futile.

[David Nieporent]

@Michael: If someone is at risk of being sentenced to years or decades in prison, the number of times they should be able to appeal any aspect of their trial should be more than zero.

Nobody is entitled to appeal. (I mean, they are as a matter of statute. But not as a matter of rights.) I don't know why you think a defendant should keep getting to call "do over."

It's one thing if the defendant can identify a legal error, or new evidence that was unavailable at trial, but merely disagreeing with a verdict is not, and should not be, grounds for appeal.

Never mind the possibility of actually having the appeal court hear witnesses, which is of course also a thing they’d be doing in a sensible country.

It is not. No "best two out of three" when you lose a trial.

[Martinned2]

@David: I was articulating a (moral) view, not a summary of US law. And yes, of course someone who appeals should articulate an error in the judgment below. But in my view they should be free to articulate any legal or factual error, rather than being constrained to the former. Only on further appeal should we limit them to the legal issues.

For the record, even Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR still leaves a lot of wiggle room:

1. Everyone convicted of a criminal offence by a tribunal shall have the right to have his conviction or sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal. The exercise of this right, including the grounds on which it may be exercised, shall be governed by law.

2. This right may be subject to exceptions in regard to offences of a minor character, as prescribed by law, or in cases in which the person concerned was tried in the first instance by the highest tribunal or was convicted following an appeal against acquittal.

https://rm.coe.int/16800c96fd

[David Nieporent]

@David: I was articulating a (moral) view, not a summary of US law.

As was I. That's why I put in the caveat about statutory rights. Nobody has a moral right to an appeal.

And yes, of course someone who appeals should articulate an error in the judgment below. But in my view they should be free to articulate any legal or factual error,

What is a "factual error"? The entire point of a jury trial is to find the facts. If we knew them, we could skip the first trial, let alone appeals.

[Noscitur a sociis]

And there’s a difference between an approach like the English Court of Appeal, which basically upholds jury verdicts unless god himself comes down from the heavens and says that the defendant is innocent, and a proper scrutiny of the court below.

So, sounds like your actual problem is with the standard of review that is used in England, not anything inherent in the jury system?

[Noscitur a sociis]

having juries requires the courts to create a whole set of laws to govern what evidence they are and aren’t allowed to see, which is basically your thing.

Again, this is completely false (unless you’re including things like this English gag law, which is very much not required). The exact same substantive rules of evidence do (and should!) apply, regardless of whether or not a jury is finding the facts.

[David Nieporent]

The exact same substantive rules of evidence do (and should!) apply, regardless of whether or not a jury is finding the facts.

Well, that's something of a semantic debate. You're absolutely right that the same evidence would be excluded from the record regardless of whether it was a bench or jury trial.

But it's also the case that we sometimes treat overly-prejudicial evidence as tainting the jurors so that a defendant can't get a fair trial, while we don't worry if a judge hears that same evidence in a bench trial in order to decide whether to admit it.

[Martinned2]

If you only ever have bench trials, there is no point in excluding evidence on prejudice grounds. After all, the same person who makes the decision on excluding evidence also makes the decision on guilt. All probative evidence should be admissible unless it's unlawfully obtained.

[David Nieporent]

In New York City, it’s unlikely that any jury will be unbiased.

There’s no reason why a NY jury would be any less unbiased than anywhere else.

Yes, I know the argument is that NY is too Democratic, but that’s utterly irrelevant; an unbiased jury is not formed by gathering some people biased in favor of the defendant and some biased against him; it’s formed by gathering 12 people each of whom is unbiased either way.

(The reason it might be possible to empanel an unbiased jury in some place but not another place is that one place may have had too much pretrial publicity and another place, not. But that’s not a factor here. There’s no place in the U.S. where Trump’s conduct didn’t get extensive press coverage.)

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's generally a problem in trials with high political valence if the local jury pool is so heavily of one party that use of peremptory challenges can render the jury politically unanimous. This is an issue in NYC and especially in DC.

There's nothing really to be done for this problem most places, for constitutional reasons. DC is a special case because it's not a state, so Congress could if it wanted enlarge the district from which DC juries were drawn to moderate the problem.

This is not to say that political bias can't be an issue in trials anywhere. But the ability to create an all Democrat jury when trying a Republican politician isn't conceptually any different from being able to engineer an all white jury when trying a black. Actually, it's worse, because race only correlates with bias, while political affiliation IS bias.

I think Democrats would be more open to recognizing this problem if it weren't for the asymmetry at work here: There simply aren't any areas with significant population where Democrats have to worry about this, because Republicans don't tend to end up totally dominating populous areas the way Democrats often do.

So Democratic politicians basically never have to worry about confronting 100% Republican juries, the way Republican politicians have to worry about the inverse.

[Mr. Bumble]

Too many people have the idea that NYC is Manhattan but NYC is much more. A more representative jury could have been achieved with a change of venue to Staten Island.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I can only conclude that you don't believe that, if you were on a jury, that you would be capable of giving a Democrat a fair shake.

[Noscitur a sociis]

.

[ducksalad]

Martinned2, only lawyers equate "unbiased" with "kept ignorant".

[Krayt]

Not a big fan of trying to jail a current political opponent “in secret trust us!”

We had a “secret witness -- impeach and remove please trust us!” already.

I’ll stick with a wide open circus in this case.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I think the zoo around all the Trump prosecutions has shown that a free-for-all isn’t great either"

40%+/- of the US thinks it is a corrupt political prosecution. You think making it secret would be helpful?

[Martinned2]

Oddly, the print edition of the New Yorker that that article appeared in is for sale in London in the usual way. (Meaning, presumably, in whichever three bookstores that usually sell it.)

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/justice-and-contempt

[Noscitur a sociis]

This seems extra strange since the woman in the story was already convicted (indeed, that’s kind of the point of the story). Surely even a developing country like the UK doesn’t try to stop people from talking about a trial after it’s over?

[Martinned2]

The appeal is still pending, so the Contempt of Court Act continues to apply. And the whole purpose of the exercise is to protect the deliberations of the jury, so don't start with this whole "developing country" business. This is a UK/US thing, us civil law countries don't go in for this sort of nonsense.

[Kazinski]

So what did you think about Australia ordering Elon to pull a video of a church stabbing down worldwide?

[Martinned2]

I don't support such measures.

I also think it's an example of the jurisdictional problems you get because of the internet. Within the EU, legislation usually assigns either a single Member State or the European Commission the authority over certain online issues, like data protection. But globally it's a free-for-all until we conclude a global treaty that sorts out who gets to enforce which kinds of laws on the internet how. (Defamation being the obvious tricky one.)

Meanwhile, here is a video that's still on Twitter of the immediate aftermath of the assassination attempt against Slovakian prime minister Robert Fico. I gather that he's going to recover. https://twitter.com/frederic_RTfr/status/1790982881147265169/video/1

[Krayt]

I expect the US government to do its job and keep the international arena open and free, just like the high seas.

[Martinned2]

Just like the high seas, the US is not in charge of the internet. (Nor should it be.)

[Michael P]

If the purpose is to protect the deliberations of a jury, why would the restrictions apply during appeals? Does the UK use a jury in the appeals process?

[Martinned2]

No, but a successful appeal might lead to a new trial.

[David Nieporent]

Even if there isn’t a successful appeal, they plan to retry her on some counts for which the jury couldn’t reach a verdict.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Prof. Someone posted (12 years ago!) about the Ideological Turing Test, an exercise where you try to present a position you disagree with the way its proponents would. I think it’s a valuable exercise to see whether you actually understand your opponent’s position or not. So please, take an issue you feel strongly about—Gaza , the Trump trials, originalism, Biden, transgender athletes, COVID shutdowns, gun rights, whatever—and try to make the best case you can for the other side. And those on the other side, please let us know how we did!

[Mr. Bumble]

Good luck with that.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trans females are at a disadvantage because they have to squeeze their pee pee in between their thighs the whole time they are competing.

[Randy Sax]

Beards are less hydrodynamic for swimming.

[Brett Bellmore]

Also, they're really hard to seal scuba masks against, which is why scuba divers rarely have hairy faces.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not really. As you descend the increasing pressure does a good job.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually just got my dive certification last weekend, and it was a topic of discussion on the boat while we were on our way to the dive site for the skills test. No, the increasing pressure does NOT do a good job, you need to keep the pressure inside your mask nearly equal to the pressure outside it or else you're going to hurt yourself.

Guys with a lot of facial hair use an extremely thick silicone grease in their hair, like silicone caulking, except it never sets up. But it's messy, gets all over, and it's an expendable. it's much easier to just shave.

[Mr. Bumble]

I suppose if you're talking about full face masks that are popular that is true. When I got certified 50 years ago the most common masks only went to just below the nose.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, it's mostly mustaches that cause problems, you CAN trim a beard to be OK if there's no 'stache'.

[hobie]

Drag queens wear dresses and a lot of makeup and act feminine. This could confuse young children and cause them to turn gay. Therefore drag queens should not be allowed to read books to children

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Woodrow Wilson was right to censor all those unpatriotic war opponents!

Just like we face risks from seditionists today, Wilson confronted seditionists who opposed the government and its righteous crusade against tyranny in Europe.

If Wilson had followed the “free speech” model, as our Monday-morning quarterbacks would have it, then Kaiser Wilhelm would have been able to use innocent (or not so innocent) dupes in the media and politics in order to hamper the war effort.

Controversy over the war would have prolonged the conflict, increased American casualties, and hampered the reconstruction of postwar Europe. We see that from what happened when “free speech” was restored after the war – Wilson’s fight for peace was hampered and obstructed and paved the way for another war. Thus, free speech helped lead to Hitler.

By censoring wartime dissent, Wilson at least delayed the Hitlerification process. If his successors had followed his example, maybe a united America could have nipped Nazism in the bud, instead of retreating into irresponsible isolationism.

Finally, repudiating Wilsonian censorship led to the modern “free speech” regime. History is repeating itself, as seditionists flourish and common-sense efforts to curb misinformation get smeared as evil.

Prove that mirror-image me is wrong!

[ducksalad]

Despite being intentionally over-the-top, it’s still more coherent, developed, and convincing than the actual arguments made by free speech opponents.

[Martinned2]

In the world of sports, the big news is that legendary Hamburg cult-club St. Pauli have been promoted to the Bundesliga, for the first time since the 2010-11 season.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_St._Pauli

[Martinned2]

I just now noticed that Red Star FC, the almost equally cult/lefty football club from Paris, was bought by an American private equity firm in 2022. It will never cease to amaze me that investors buy football clubs expecting to make a return on that investment directly. (As opposed to through sportswashing or because of the sheer ego-boost you get from owning a prominent football club.) And if I was ever going to buy a club, Red Star wouldn't be my first choice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Star_F.C.

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe they confused it with the yeast.

[John F. Carr]

"New car, caviar, four star day dream, think I'll buy me a football team."

I would not buy a sports franchise because most leagues expect owners to have a public appearance of good moral character. There are better ways to turn a large fortune into a small one.

[Martinned2]

LOL, if owners of football clubs had to have "a public appearance of good moral character", half of them would be disqualified, from the emir of Qatar to Roman Abramovich to all of these guys: https://www.mansionbet.com/blog/sports/other-sports/five-worst-football-owners/

[John F. Carr]

America must be stricter. See Marge Schott, for example.

I think both Schott and Kaepernick should have been left alone. We have a strange image of what people who throw, hit, or kick balls should be like, and what people who own people who throw, hit, or kick balls should be like.

[Martinned2]

Of course American sports is stricter. American sports leagues are communism: they divide everything equally (ish) and set strict top-down rules for everything.

[David Nieporent]

American sports leagues are communism: they divide everything equally (ish)

That's not even close to true. Only the marginal leagues (soccer, or the WNBA when it was founded, for example) do that.

[Kazinski]

HHS has announced that Eco-Health Alliance has been formally disbarred from receiving any government grants for at least 3 years and all current grants are frozen.

https://x.com/COVIDSelect/status/1790762370823847999

Peter Daszak is a.pretty smart guy: "he and other disease ecologists had warned the WHO in 2018 that the next pandemic "would be caused by an unknown, novel pathogen that hadn't yet entered the human population", probably in a region with significant human-animal interaction."

He is also impatient, when the pandemic didn't come soon enough he orchestrated a grant to the Wuhan lab to engineer it using forbidden gain of function research. Which is why Eco-Health is being disbarred.

It seems like jail would also be appropriate.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I should think so. You're accusing him of being Dr. Evil.

[Sarcastr0]

'HHS has bowed to the political pressure. This proves the political pressure was based on facts.'

This...is not how politics works.

But even if it were true, it wouldn't be nearly the level of evidence required to establish your thesis. Which even your source did not do.

Finally, for the love of God Kaz, *stop taking partisan committee posts as factual!* There is no realm more full of spin and half-truths this side of Jacobin or Breitbart.
It's baseline media literacy.

[Kazinski]

If HHS didn't find the committee report convincing they wouldn't have acted. And its hardly "partisan" if the committees ranking opposition member praises the decision.

"The move comes 2 weeks after a bipartisan House of Representatives panel grilled EcoHealth President Peter Daszak about allegations the group had violated NIH grant rules. Members of the House’s Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic cited missteps such as the group filing a late progress report on its bat virus studies and highlighted allegations that EcoHealth misrepresented the risks of experiments conducted by its collaborators at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

The announcement also comes 1 day before a top NIH official is scheduled to testify before the same panel. Representative Brad Wenstrup (R–OH), chair of the subcommittee, called HHS’s actions “a victory for the U.S. taxpayer, but also for American national security and the safety of citizens worldwide.” The panel’s ranking member, Representative Raul Ruiz (D–CA), also praised HHS’s action. While noting Democrats on the panel do not believe EcoHealth helped create the pandemic, he pointed to EcoHealth’s “failure” to “meet the utmost standards of transparency and accountability to the American public.”
https://www.science.org/content/article/federal-officials-suspend-funding-ecohealth-alliance-nonprofit-entangled-covid-19

I don't remember you being so skeptical of the partisan Jan 6th committee report.

[Sarcastr0]

Holy shit the political pressure was bipartisan.

Kaz, "the group filing a late progress report on its bat virus studies" is not exactly hard-core research misconduct.
Highlighting allegations is also kinda weak.

EcoHealth may have done some bad stuff, but that's not really established in your first post or this one.

When the J6 report took the time to lay out actually facts it ascertained with actual investigations, I took them as fact. It did that a lot.
Maybe you just didn't link to some report that did that here, but all I see is fearmongering.

Especially by you: "[Peter Daszak] is also impatient, when the pandemic didn’t come soon enough he orchestrated a grant to the Wuhan lab to engineer it using forbidden gain of function research."
No one but you seems to have come up with that supervillain nonsense.

[Kazinski]

I wasn't trying to establish they did something bad, HHS did that. I just was referercing that.

Here is what they said, but its hardly the entire 11 page memo explaining why they did it. From the Science link:

"In an 11-page memo, HHS suspension and debarment official Henrietta Katrina Brisbon echoes the select committee’s concerns, including questions about whether EcoHealth should have reported an experiment finding unexpected growth in mice of a chimeric virus distantly related to SARS-CoV-2. “I have determined that the immediate suspension of EHA [EcoHealth Alliance] is necessary to protect the public interest and due to a cause of so serious or compelling a nature that it affects EHA’s present responsibility,” the memo states."

The conspiracy theorists are are calling from inside the house.

[Sarcastr0]

I said: "‘HHS has bowed to the political pressure. This proves the political pressure was based on facts.’"

If there is a memo with factual justification *link to the memo* not a GOP committee report.

[Kazinski]

The Science magazine link above has an embedded link to the 11 page HHS memo. Science magazine is a left leaning non profit that is hardly sympathetic to a GOP dominated house committee.

The quote above in italics was taken by Science directly from the 11 page memo.

I posted that over 2 hours ago. Don't claim I'm only posting from partisan sources without even checking the links.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, I didn't read to the 9th paragraph of the article you linked, as it went through the political blow-by-blow.

For other folks, here is the memo:
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Tab-2-EHA-SUSP4D-ARM_05.15.2024_signed.pdf

It does seem to offer sufficient evidence, though the finding is important to note:
"grantees that function as pass-through entities must monitor the activities of subrecipients, including foreign subrecipients, to ensure that subawards are used for authorized purposes in compliance with relevant laws and the terms and conditions
of the subaward."
...
", the NIH’s review of the Year 5 I-RPPR submitted by EHA, more than two years late, determined that an experiment by WIV, shown in Figure 13 of the report, had possibly yielded a greater than 1 log increase in viral activity, in violation of the terms of the grant. The NIH gave EHA and WIV several opportunities to disprove this finding, but EHA and WIV failed to do so."

Notably, Kaz's statement: "when the pandemic didn’t come soon enough [Director of EcoHealth orchestrated a grant to the Wuhan lab to engineer it using forbidden gain of function research. Which is why Eco-Health is being disbarred."

That is way way more than this memo establishes.

And this is why primary sources with established facts are good to dig up, and Congressional press releases will make you say wrong and often ridiculous things.

[Kazinski]

Well that memo doesn't have everything, here is the Intercepts article, which includes the link to the actual 2018 grant request to:

"Among the scientific tasks the group described in its proposal, which was rejected by DARPA, was the creation of full-length infectious clones of bat SARS-related coronaviruses and the insertion of a tiny part of the virus known as a “proteolytic cleavage site” into bat coronaviruses. Of particular interest was a type of cleavage site able to interact with furin, an enzyme expressed in human cells."

https://theintercept.com/2021/09/23/coronavirus-research-grant-darpa/

Now reread what I said and tell me what I got wrong. Yeah, I am speculating on his motivation. But the facts are pretty indisputable.

[Nige]

'But the facts are pretty indisputable.'

'He is also impatient, when the pandemic didn’t come soon enough he orchestrated a grant to the Wuhan lab to engineer it using forbidden gain of function research.'

You're implying he made the virus, which is nowhere in anything you linked to, and released the virus, which seems like an earthshattering accusation to make against someone without even a shred of evidence.

[Sarcastr0]

Another thing you didn't bother to link or refer to before.
Looks quite a bit like you're trying to retroactively shore up your bullshit.

It's not working very well. This is still not proof of anything like your Covid was caused by a supervillain thesis.

It was a rejected grant proposal.
You seem to be taking it as proof they did the things in the proposal.

Yes, that if you think that’s proof, you’re wrong. Unless you can find evidence they did anything like this, you have no proof they did anything like this.

[Kazinski]

I was specifically posting about the just announced decision from HHS.

I don't think I really need to post everything that's been discovered in 4 years of investigation leading up to this.

But I will ask just what kind cocoon you are in that you don't know Daszak and Eco Health filed a grant proposal in 2018 to do gain of function research on bat coronavirus.

It was rejected then they got a new grant from NIH,

Seems kinda important information

[Nige]

'a chimeric virus distantly related to SARS-CoV-'

The conspiracy theorists are calling from a very long way away, you can hear ther voices distantly, on the wind.

[Kazinski]

That's pretty funny because you are actually referring to a direct quote from the Health and Human Services official in her official memo explaining her decision.

[Nige]

YOU said they released the virus and killed millions. Where does it say that on the memo?

[Kazinski]

Well actually I think it escaped accidentally after they intentionally created it

[Mr. Bumble]

Are you talking about Nige or SarcastrO?

[Nige]

All you lack is any actual evidence that it happened, but that never stopped you before.

[Drewski]

Debarred, not disbarred. Different words with different meanings.

[Krayt]

So this is bar as in a bar blocking him, or a lawyerly bar, literally originally a courtroom fixture, not unlike a foot bar in an alcohol establishment, so he’s banned from appearing at that bar?

You could use a bar to block him from the bar, so he’d simultaneously be enbarred and disbarred or debarred.

[Nige]

'He is also impatient, when the pandemic didn’t come soon enough he orchestrated a grant to the Wuhan lab to engineer it using forbidden gain of function research. Which is why Eco-Health is being disbarred.'

Oh yeah, seems a bit low-key if they have actual evidence of your claim that he basically murdered millions of people for shits n' giggles.

[Kazinski]

Well doesn't it seem just a little bit suspicious that:
1 In 2017 Eco Health submitted a grant proposal to do gain of function research at the Wuhan lab on Sars-Cov viruses.

2. Daszak warned the WHO in 2018 there could be a Sars-Cov virus worldwide pandemic.

3. A virus crops up in Wuhan in 2019 and spreads around the world causing a pandemic.

4. The NIH admitted that illegal gain of function research on Sars-Cov viruses was done on an Eco Health grant funded by NIH at the Wuhan lab.

Of course that could be all coincidence.

And no I'm not going to post all the links to that now, but don't doubt me cause I have plenty of time until Sunday's thread to dig those up. It's all out there, and it's from the NIH, not some blog or committee report.

[Nige]

A guy studying the disease warned that the disease was dangerous and could be a pandemic? That’s suspicious, is it? That an expert on the subject was right about the thing he was expert on? This bewilders and scares you as a concept? Is it like some sort of dark magic or what? Is ‘gain of function’ some sort of evil magic spell you chant to scare small children? Whatever it is it seems to take two or more years of study to determine whether something actually qualifies or not. Why are you conflating allegations with admissions?

[Kazinski]

It's illegal to use US grant money on gain of function research.

[Sarcastr0]

And the only finding you have provided about Ecohealth is negligence not knowledge.

That and a supervillain story.

[Don Nico]

Wow, you deliberately want to live in a bubble.
What has been quoted is a lot more probable that the wild infection theory that has no direct evidence in any species.

[Sarcastr0]

“[Peter Daszak] is also impatient, when the pandemic didn’t come soon enough he orchestrated a grant to the Wuhan lab to engineer it using forbidden gain of function research.”

No, this is bugfuck nuts actually.

[Nige]

‘What has been quoted is a lot more probable that the wild infection theory’

Absolutely nothing has been quoted other than that someone did some research on something distantly related to a particular type of virus and then got into a dispute over their funding.

[Nige]

'Illegal?' What law is it against? They don't fund gain of function research, in spite of that this crowd did stuff that may actually have qualified as gain of function research, all that means is they either fudged their grant application or they were working from differing defintions of gain of function, but 'illegal?' Where is that established?

[Sarcastr0]

The memo that is thus far the only factual findings involved pointedly does not find that EcoHealth knew about the gain of function research.
Generally slapdash diligence is in fact why they are disbarred.

Maybe they did know and lied about it, but from HHS there is no evidence establishing that.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Impossible. We have been repeatedly and adamantly assured by no less than Dr. Anthony “I am science!” Fauci that that the NIH “has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” How dare you challenge science.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Are you complaining about your credulity? Sorry to hear it, but the solution is to engage your brain when it might make a difference, not complain about it later.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Are you complaining about your credulity? Sorry to hear it, but the solution is to engage your brain when it might make a difference, not complain about it later.

Uh...WTF are you babbling about now?

[not guilty]

An appellate court in New York has upheld the gag order imposed on Donald Trump by Judge Merchan. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/trump-gag-order-first-department.pdf

I wonder how long it will be before Trump accumulates his next contempt for violating the order.

[Mr. Bumble]

It seems like Bragg's case in chief is over. Will Trump's team present a defense? Will they move for a directed verdict of acquittal?

[not guilty]

There is further cross-examination and redirect examination of Michael Cohen, after which the prosecution will likely rest A defense motion for judgment of acquittal is de rigueur, and such a motion is almost never granted.

It remains to be seen whether Donald Trump will insist on testifying. His lawyers will likely counsel against it, but the decision is Trump's alone. See, Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751 (1983). A defendant who has a lawyer relegates control of much of the case to the lawyer except as to certain fundamental decisions reserved to the client, including whether to testify at trial. People v. Ferguson, 67 N.Y.2d 383, 390 (N.Y. 1986).

[Commenter_XY]

NG, POTUS Trump will be found guilty of something. The charged testimony of the last few days (that I read about) convinced me of that.

Does Judge Merchan release him pending appeal?

[not guilty]

I would expect a sentence of probation, such that release pending appeal will not become an issue unless probation is violated.

[Commenter_XY]

Probation? For felonies?

[not guilty]

For a defendant without prior convictions, a sentence of probation for someone convicted of a low grade felony is the norm.

[David Nieporent]

And if there were going to be confinement here, there's virtually no chance it would be anything other than home confinement. Donald Trump is not being sent to Rikers, let alone Attica.

[Frank Drackman]

Ahhh...you sound sad.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Nothing wrong with home confinement, especially if crafted to resemble prison (no travel, limited internet access, no mobile telephone, limited visitors, etc.).

The judge might require a few nights of incarceration, however, with respect to adjudications of contempt.

[Mr. Bumble]

So Trump Tower will become the new White House?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Will Trump still own Trump Tower after his creditors have their way with him?

[Nige]

He's up for a spell in the phantom zone, seems to me.

[shawn_dude]

As a resident of Florida, he'd be ineligible to vote until he completed his probation and repaid any restitution, fines, etc. That would likely make him the first presidential candidate unable to vote for himself.

[David Nieporent]

As a resident of Florida, he’d be ineligible to vote until he completed his probation and repaid any restitution, fines, etc.

This is the MAGA-era GOP. Don't you think they'd pass a law to create a special exception that is written in such a way that it applies only to Donald Trump?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Probation? What would be the conditions of probation?

There is an election under way. Trump is a demonstrable danger to go all out on election tampering, plus being a likely candidate for a coup attempt if he loses. Does anyone suppose those risks are not real? Does anyone suppose there are any conditions of probation possible to constrain those risks?

Why wouldn't Trump go all in on risk, despite any conditions, given the other trials he would have to face after an election loss, without any remaining prospect of above-the-law deference? Is it even possible for the legal system to recognize that its usual practice to evaluate a dangerous miscreant ought not be limited to comparatively trivial dangers—like the guy might re-offend by knocking over gas stations if you let him out? When does the nation get to the point where protection for American constitutionalism kicks in?

[Don Nico]

"plus being a likely candidate for a coup attempt if he loses"
Your speculation about the future is hardly a reason to imprision anyone

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Your speculation about the future is hardly a reason to imprision anyone

Lathrop is already in favor of stripping 1A protections for the unwashed masses, advocating for preemptive incarceration for future crimes isn't that much of a stretch for him.

[shawn_dude]

The concepts of "flight risk" and "likelihood to reoffend" are "speculation about the future." IANAL but there are plenty of circumstances under which our legal system uses risk of future criminality to determine sentencing.

[Kazinski]

You don't actually think Merchan will try to impose probation conditions that would affect his ability to campaign?

I think that would be a red line.

Trump doesn't drink, use drugs, have any criminal associates other than Cohen, and Roger Stone. And he lives in another state.

[windycityattorney]

I think you forgot a few names. Steve Bannon, Paul Manafort, Rudy Guilliani, Mark Meadows, Peter Navarro, Rick Gates, George Papadopoulos, Mike Flynn, Eric Trump, Don Jr... Sydney Powell...shall I go on??

"He only hires the best people."

Don't forget to donate or buy a bible. He needs YOUR money. To hire more of the best.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

. . . Allen Weisselberg, Elliott Broidy, Kenneth Chesebro, Scott Hall, one or more Kushners, plenty of insurrectionists . . . and that list is likely to grow.

[shawn_dude]

I don't think the law says that probation conditions have to let you pursue employment. They could, for example, prevent him from leaving his home state or travel internationally. They can require regular, in-person meetings with counselors or other professionals, drug testing, etc.

Why should Trump get special probation consideration that other US citizens don't get?

Also... doesn't use drugs?! The guy that thinks the law doesn't apply to him and who chases hedonistic pleasures and brags about them? That guy "doesn't do drugs?" He may not, but the likelihood is low.

IANAL.

[Kazinski]

I don’t see it, although I haven’t been following the testimony word for word. But based on the summaries, it seems the prosecution is missing one key piece: tying Trump to the key “crime”, falsifying the business records.

I was wondering if Cohen would actually testify Trump told him how to characterize the invoice Trump’s controller used to make the business records entry, that seemed the only path to link Trump to the actual crime of intentionally recording a false business expense. In fact Trump seems pretty confused about the particulars in Cohen’s recording:

Trump: Listen, What financing?

Cohen: We’ll have to pay him something.

Trump: ( Inaudible) pay with cash.

Cohen: No, no, no, no, no, I got it.

Trump: Check.

https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/24661047-trump-cohen-recording-transcript/?embed=1

[not guilty]

Slate magazine has some interesting discussion of application of People v. Luciano, 277 N.Y. 348 (N.Y. 1938), to the pending prosecution of Donald Trump. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/05/trump-trial-people-v-luciano-mob-case-hush-money-prosecutors.html

There the Court of Appeals of New York upheld prostitution related convictions of the mob boss Charles "Lucky" Luciano on what amounts to vicarious liability for the acts of co-conspirators, even though the indictment did not charge conspiracy. The Court there opined, "As the principal and leader of the whole enterprise, Luciano did not take an active part in the daily operations of the business, but that he was the directing head and moving force behind it all, the evidence adduced on the trial leaves no doubt." Id., at 356.

The Court of Appeals opined:

While no conspiracy is charged in the indictment, there was ample proof of a conspiracy among appellants to organize prostitution on a basis most profitable for them. Their bookers placed the girls in the houses, collected a commission for so locating them, and their collectors levied upon each girl who operated in any of the houses. The acts and declarations of the conspirators in furtherance of the joint enterprise were admissible against all of those participating in the conspiracy.

"When a conspiracy is shown, or evidence on the subject given sufficient for the jury, then the acts and declarations of the conspirators, in furtherance of its purpose and object, are competent, and in a case like this it is not necessary, in order to make such proof competent, that the conspiracy should be charged in the indictment." ( People v. McKane, 143 N.Y. 455, 470. See, also, People v. Cassidy, 213 N.Y. 388; People v. Becker, 215 N.Y. 126; People v. Miles, 192 N.Y. 541.)

It is not necessary "in order to make such proof competent that the conspiracy should be charged in the indictment." ( People v. Cassidy, supra.)

227 N.Y., at 358.

[Kazinski]

Which is completely inapt here because the Trump org is not a criminal enterprise running hookers. There is no evidence that the controller making the entries had any criminal intent, and certainly was not a mobster running girls and paying a take.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Tax crimes should not be ignored in this context.

[not guilty]

Nothing in the language of Luciano that I quoted is limited to prostitution related offenses.

[Kazinski]

Organized crime related offenses.

But the point you are missing is Trumps controller didn't commit a crime characterizing the expenses as legal expenses. He was making a good faith effort to assign the expenses properly. So there is no crime by an underling for Trump to be held accountable for.

The way I hear it though Cohen got immolated on the stand today, I didn't see it but Anderson Cooper did:
https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1791167225988342181

[shawn_dude]

There's evidence in Weisselberg's handwriting and Cohen's handwriting on the same document working out the details for how to repay Cohen, make it look like a regular legal expense, and then add extra cash on top to make it tax-neutral for Cohen since the ruse they were cooking up would be subject to taxes. If it was a real legal expense in Weisselberg's mind (your "good faith" argument) then he would have balked at the tax-neutral addition since real legal expenses already have anticipated taxes rolled into them. Instead, this scheme came from Weisselberg (and possibly Trump) and Cohen balked at it because he wanted a lump sum. (He was leaving the Organization and Trump was likely to stiff him on the repayment.)

We know that Trump signed the check, that he routinely reviewed all checks and often asked detailed questions about them, we know he was tight with his money and routinely underpays his contractors, and yet here he just let this 6-figure check float out the door to a guy who was leaving his company? Weisselberg, the CFO (not just comptroller), who was convicted of tax evasion for the Trump Organization, made this obviously cooked-up entry (see handwritten notes in evidence) in good faith? I believe that you want to believe that but that doesn't make it so.

[Stephen Lathrop]

XY is convinced Trump will be found guilty!

Time to start speculation about what excuse SCOTUS will cobble together to throw out the conviction, and how quick they will do it. Will the SCOTUS opinion be some kind of legalistic farce? Or will it be a gravely reasoned consequentialist caution, mumbling against political upheaval, while announcing a new legal rule not to short-circuit with a trial the political process of a presidential election? The advantage to resort to that second option to dispose of Trump's other cases will tug at the Thomas/Alito axis.

Worries about damage to the Court's legitimacy should be no more than a minor inhibition; not much of that left to lose.

Any suggestions from right-wingers? Any pessimistic projections from pseudonymous lawyers who think the testimony already does warrant conviction—or will professional inhibitions continue to demand a wait for the end of cross examination, and fulfillment of the near-certain expectation that Trump will not testify?

For my part, I think XY is right, but I have no idea what SCOTUS will do with the case, or how quick they will do it. I suppose if there is a conviction, and Marchan orders Trump to jail, SCOTUS will spring him right quick.

[not guilty]

SCOTUS has no jurisdiction unless and until an appeal has worked its way through every level available in the state court system. Review by certiorari is available only as to a final judgment or decree rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, and then only as to such federal issues as have been properly preserved in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a); Supreme Court Rule 14(1)(g)(i).

[David Nieporent]

And just to make it explicit: there's absolutely zero chance that it gets to SCOTUS before the election, which means that the effect of the prosecution on the election will not be a consideration for SCOTUS.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I thank both of you for that no-doubt sage legal advice. I means that sincerely.

Just to be sure I understand, however, do any different prospects open if Trump is imprisoned, and goes to SCOTUS for a writ of habeas corpus? If that did happen, what constraints would SCOTUS be under that would limit what it could order?

[David Nieporent]

Federal habeas is not available until one has exhausted state court remedies.

[not guilty]

That is correct, and habeas corpus proceedings are not within the original jurisdiction of SCOTUS.

[Stephen Lathrop]

So ng, to be sure I understand, hypothetically Trump could be found guilty in New York. Judge Merchan, considering carefully all relevant circumstances, including the totality of Trump's tawdry legal history, sentences Trump to 18 months imprisonment, and remands him to prison pending the outcome of an appeal. Nieporent, of course, is baffled it is not 3 weeks of house arrest, given how important it is to Trump to get back on the campaign trail.

Against a backdrop of MAGA political uproar, and assuming New York higher courts agree with Merchan, Trump can find no way to get a rescue from the federal judicial system until after the election?

Note to self: to gauge degree of surprise, check back with ng and dn if things turn out differently.

I wish I did not think this, but my hunch is that the federal judicial branch these days commands unseemly levels of energy and despatch—with those qualities judged broadly to encompass also hand-sitting to get to preferred outcomes when delay best serves the purpose. Again and again, right where conventional theory predicts those qualities to be at lowest ebb, they have cropped up conspicuously, and not just in Trump's cases.

It makes me cautious. So much of what happens legally these days seems defiant of familiar notions of custom, process, or purpose.

Of course I will be delighted to be proved wrong. And not knowing what to expect can be suspenseful and entertaining; too much reliance on conventional plots is such a bore.

[not guilty]

The subject matter jurisdiction of all federal courts, including SCOTUS, is limited and fixed by Congress. The only statute conferring jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court to review state court proceedings is 28 U.S.C. § 1257, which states:

(a) Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is drawn in question or where the validity of a statute of any State is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution or the treaties or statutes of, or any commission held or authority exercised under, the United States.

(b) For the purposes of this section, the term “highest court of a State” includes the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

The content of a petition for writ of certiorari is prescribed by Supreme Court Rule 14. Subsection (1)(g)(i) of that rule states in relevant part:

If review of a state-court judgment is sought, [the petition must include] specification of the stage in the proceedings, both in the court of first instance and in the appellate courts, when the federal questions sought to be reviewed were raised; the method or manner of raising them and the way in which they were passed on by those courts; and pertinent quotations of specific portions of the record or summary thereof, with specific reference to the places in the record where the matter appears (e. g., court opinion, ruling on exception, portion of court's charge and exception thereto, assignment of error), so as to show that the federal question was timely and properly raised and that this Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment on a writ of certiorari.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ng, and then after all that about Congress and the Court limiting certiorari, the Court takes the case, and orders parties to brief whatever policy question it most pleases the justices to decree. That's how we got Citizens United. That's how the Court gutted the Clean Water Act. That's how we got encyclopedic rumination about a former president's multifarious hypothetical immunities.

Seems to me the notion of jurisdiction over cases and controversies puts a fundamental limit on Supreme Court jurisdiction. I don't see much evidence the Court thinks that.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Just to be sure I understand

Given your track history I think the chances of that are vanishingly small.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Who are the parties in this case?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Why should Trump take any chances at all, now that he is backed by a phalanx of right-wing politicians to parrot aloud his every contemptuous inclination? If Trump wants to attack the Judge's daughter, he can just get the Speaker of the House to do it.

Question, if the Speaker of the House comes to New York, sets up a mic in front of the courthouse, and falsely defames her there, does Marchan's daughter have a viable libel claim?

[Brett Bellmore]

" and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.""

I'm pretty sure New York isn't in either House, so, yes, she would.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

How bizarre was that?

At least Trump didn't force him to "kiss the ringpiece" on the courthouse steps, I guess.

[Michael P]

If results on objective, structured medical board exams correlate with patient survival and readmission, does that mean health is a white supremacist value?

https://hms.harvard.edu/news/resident-physicians-exam-scores-tied-patient-survival

[Gasman]

Not dying as a hospitalized patient is a white person value.
Disparities in health outcomes is because other groups do not value not-dying.

[Michael P]

Not all is dark in Europe -- exports to Kyrgyzstan are sharply up since EU countries imposed sanctions on Russia!

https://twitter.com/robin_j_brooks/status/1790381588255002998

[Michael P]

Is Hamas still deeply embedded in UNRWA, or just taking advantage of a weak bureaucracy that chooses to work with terrorist groups?

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2024/05/14/hamas-is-still-launching-attacks-from-un-schools-n2639057

[Commenter_XY]

MP...Both could be true.

[Martinned2]

Or neither.

[Michael P]

If you say "neither", that's a strong argument for "both".

[Martinned2]

How about you find some evidence that wasn't created by the IDF?

[Michael P]

Ad hominem. Classy.

[Martinned2]

On the contrary, you brought in the ad hominem, and I suggested having a conversation on the basis of evidence and facts

[Commenter_XY]

Don't trust your lyin eyes, I know. The photo was staged, right?

[Martinned2]

In a war I don't trust information provided by either side. We just had that conversation about claims from Hamas.

[Michael P]

My dismissive response to you wasn't an ad hominem argument because you didn't actually make an argument that I was trying to rebut, you were just being your usual quarrelsome self. It's what Gaslight0 likes to call credibility determination!

[hobie]

Ad hominem??

[ThePublius]

"How about you find some evidence that wasn’t created by the IDF?"

I knew you were going to say that! You fools who swallow the stats from the Palestinian Health Ministry without question, question everything Israel and IDF says, if it cuts against your preferred narrative.

Israel and the IDF have proven to be reliable, accurate reporters of war stats, and the PHM has been proven to be full of it! Note that the UN downgraded the civilian casualty figures by 50% this week. 50%!

Open your eyes.

[Nige]

You said that before, and the link you provided had none of those supposed reductions. The death-toll has been static at at least 30,000 for weeks now, while attacks and bombardments are ongoing and the infrastructure for reporting and recording deaths has been completely destroyed. Maybe crowing about an inability to count the mounting dead isn't a good look.

[ThePublius]

You're so full of it. Don't you read the news? The UN has admitted the PHM numbers are wrong, just this week.

[Nige]

Yeah, and I followed the link you gave, and the numbers didn't reflect that at all.

[Joe_dallas]

The UN did issue a downward revision in the hamas/gazian death toll. The UN is now reporting that the downward revision was wrong.
Numerous media organizations, such as CNN, Al Jazeri, AP, etc. are repeating the the repudiation of the downward revision. Of course those are some of the same news organizations that claimed they were unaware of a hamas HQ in the same building as their news organizations.

Kinda hard to trust the credibility of CNN, Al Jaz, AP, etc with their history of the accuracy of their factual reporting.

[Nige]

They're reporting accurately - better not trust 'em.

[Joe_dallas]

CNN , AP have a long history of inaccurate reporting. Further, their offices were in the same building as a hamas HQ, yet pretended they did not know that.
Yet - NIGE believes their were reporting accurately. Zero excuse for such extreme gullibility.

[Nige]

You described them reporting something accurately, then decided not to trust them because of it.

[ThePublius]

"IDF Footage Shows Hamas Terrorists Using UN Vehicles in Rafah, Shooting Civilians Seeking Aid From UNRWA Compound
IDF drone footage shows “a Hamas terrorist firing at Palestinian civilians trying to get aid at an UNRWA compound east of Rafah in the Gaza Strip.”"

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/05/idf-footage-shows-hamas-terrorists-using-un-vehicles-in-rafah-shooting-civilians-seeking-aid-from-unrwa-compound/

[Nige]

The IDF have killed just under 200 UN personnel, I can see why they'd need to put this about.

[Bob from Ohio]

"UN personnel"

Hamas members so fair game.

[Nige]

See, the IDF just wish they could say that and the only response would be yes-men like you cheering them on and they could keep killing whoever they felt like, including lots of members of the IDF. Maybe they were Hamas too?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Animal rape apologist endorses indiscriminate murder. Classy stuff as always, asshole.

[Bob from Ohio]

My stalker comments.

I also think we should have shot every SS officer after WW2 on sight. Eliminating Hamas is utterly moral.

[Nige]

Which SS crime do you hate the most? Because massacring civilians is out.

[Bob from Ohio]

Hamas = SS you dope

[Nige]

I know what you were trying to say. The question stands.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“ utterly moral”

You are an apologist for using rape as a tool to suppress political dissent. You have NO standing to declare what is and isn’t “utterly moral.”

You don’t know anything about those 200 people and their lives but you gleefully celebrate their deaths. You are as bloodthirsty and thuggish as the criminals you love to decry. But because you got As and Bs in High School you became a small-town effete lawyer instead of violent shithead you are at heart

You’re an apologist for rape and murder, Bob. Everyone here needs to know it. You should be confronted with it every single day. When you look in the mirror and see someone else other than that, I’ll be here to remind you what you really are.

[Bob from Ohio]

"small-town"

Cleveland has lost a lot of population but 362,000 still isn't a small-town. 2nd largest in Ohio!

"I’ll be here"

Yes, standard stalker behavior.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Interesting I know a lot of Cleveland lawyers, and I don’t know of any Pinochet rape-apologists and mass-murder supporters so I suspect you’re using “Cleveland” to mean Ashtabula or Sandusky or something. Which is super lame but par for the course with you.

As for being a stalker, I have no interest in interacting with you real life. I tend to avoid sociopaths if I can help it. But I will serve as mirror for you here. If you want to call that stalking, so be it. It can’t be worse than being an apologist for using animals to rape women opposed to a regime.

[Bob from Ohio]

"But I will serve as mirror for you here."

America thanks you for your service!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

[missing context]

On second thought, don't enlighten me!

[mulched]

Which UN employees did they kill? The UN employees holding the hostages, the UN employees diverting aid to Hamas, or the UN employees shooting from trucks?

[Nige]

'If the IDF killed them they must be Hamas.'

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Everyone likes a simple solution!

[Sarcastr0]

Is Gaza gonna follow in the footsteps of our ME adventurism and become a normalized decades long foreverwar?

[Frank Drackman]

No, the Israelis aren't as stew-pid as we were/are.

[Don Nico]

Unfortunately, that is quite likely.

[Sarcastr0]

If only there were some way to have predicted this.

Seriously, though, COIN is really hard. Israel went in quick and hot, and I continue to believe that they should have learned from us not made that mistake and spent much longer planning some less direct approaches.

[santamonica811]

I'd agree...except the Hamas animals taking hostages changed that entire calculation. The longer Israel waited, the more time Hamas had to hide hostages, spread out the hostages, etc.. Israel actually did wait some time before going into Gaza. Lots of people (and not just the usual gang of right-wing extremists) wanted an even quicker response, which was to be expected, of course.

[Sarcastr0]

That is a fair point. And note the specific victory condition baked in!

Concatenating the hostage rescue with the 'wipe our Hamas' seems tempting, but it gets you this.

To be fair Netanyahu doesn't seem at all put out by a foreverwar.

[Nige]

All the evidence they were vanished almost as if it never existed in the first place, so probably not, and re-evaluate your sources.

[apedad]

Supreme Court Backs Majority-Black Congressional District

The US Supreme Court reinstated a Louisiana congressional map that adds a second majority-Black district for the November election, giving Democrats a likely pickup in the battle to control the House.

The justices put on hold a lower court order that declared the map an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The new map could mean the ouster of Republican Representative Garret Graves, whose Baton Rouge-area district was carved up to create the new lines. Graves has said he will run in the new district.

The complexities of the case flipped the court’s normal ideological divide. The three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented, with Jackson saying she would have given Louisiana lawmakers time to come up with a revised map.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-backs-new-majority-black-congressional-district

While redistricting was the main point, it looks like this decision turned on timing and that by, " . . . blocking the order Wednesday, the Supreme Court pointed to a 2006 decision, Purcell v. Gonzalez, that has come to stand for the principle that federal judges shouldn’t change voting rules too close to an election."

[Brett Bellmore]

I believe that some of the conservative justices, possible enough to grant cert, really want to put a stake in the heart of the notion that the VRA actually mandates racial gerrymandering. But they don't want to do it this close to an election, because they wouldn't have time to do it properly, let alone do it property and have the new map drawn and go into effect. They actually MEANT Purcell, it wasn't just an excuse.

The liberal justices, by contrast, really support racial gerrymandering, so long as it favors blacks anyway, but are concerned that just putting the anti-gerrymandering ruling on hold is really teeing things up nicely to challenge racial gerrymandering after the election is safely past.

[Sarcastr0]

Thing is gerrymandering is going to have a racial component just from correlation. So the idea of a 'non-racial gerrymandering' is pretty naive.

But sure, look at those noble conservative Justices protecting the sanctity of our elections even to the point of not dong the Constitutional good thing so they can have it be unassailable when they finally do the good thing.

Meanwhile the liberal Justices want to grind down whitey anytime, anywhere.

Your speculative double standards are getting more and more cartoonish.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, Sarcastr0, the definition of "gerrymandering" isn't "Districts I don't like". It's "Odd shaped districts drawn to generate a particular outcome."

The problem in Louisiana is that the blacks are distributed through the state in such a manner that a 2nd black district simply does NOT naturally show up, you have to grossly gerrymander to generate one.

And this is a pretty gross gerrymander, regardless of whether or not you approve of the motive for doing it.

I'm not defending gerrymandering here, you're the one doing that.

[Sarcastr0]

Except if you look at the actual practice of gerrymandering, race is such a correlate it's been used as a proxy for party affiliation by the GOP a number of times in the past.

And yeah, if you end up such that after a partisan gerrymander, black voters basically don't have a voice in a state's House delegation, I do see that as an issue.

As I said, you can't realistically pretend race is an independent variable here.

I'm not going to play 'is this a good gerrymander or not' I'm talking about the legal principles here.

As well as nothing how amusingly open and extreme your telepathically-based finding is: 'conservative Justices are humble and patient and liberal Justices are racist and active'.

[Brett Bellmore]

"And yeah, if you end up such that after a partisan gerrymander, black voters basically don’t have a voice in a state’s House delegation, I do see that as an issue."

Black voters are in no different position from any political minority in that regard. You want to solve that problem, proportional representation is the answer, not funky districts.

[Sarcastr0]

Well yeah, majority minority districts is not only a black thing.

[ThePublius]

The U.S. government, and State governments doing anything with regard to race is wrong, and unconstitutional. Period. This minority congressional district stuff is crap.

[Sarcastr0]

Area man strong defender of what he believes the Constitution to say.

[Noscitur a sociis]

There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.

Look at that dumb area man, thinking the Constitution says anything about racial equality.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it's also a latino thing. So, racial/ethnic gerrymandering.

[Mr. Bumble]

It has nothing to do with race except as in so far as race is equated with political affiliation.

[SimonP]

"the blacks"

The mask always slips at some point, doesn't it?

[Michael P]

The University of Amsterdam deplatformed biologists because of ideological concerns about things they said that were unrelated to the talk the biologists had been invited to give -- a talk on "The ideological subversion of biology".

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024/05/14/ive-been-deplatformed-at-the-university-of-amsterdam-for-having-the-wrong-stance-on-the-palestine-israel-conflict/

[Martinned2]

No, it didn’t. *Students at the University* did, as they are entitled to. I happen to think they’re idiots, but then so are most commenters on this blog. I wouldn’t deny you the freedom of association any more than I would the students at the university.

https://www.betabreak.org/

[Ed Grinberg]

"No, it didn’t. *Students at the University* did, as they are entitled to."
So is the university, but that's not the point.

[Martinned2]

The university is a state entity, and therefore doesn't have freedom of association.

[Armchair]

The historical challenge to our modern society for the next two hundreds years is hitting its tipping point this year. The massive drop in global total fertility rates. 2024 is marking the year when the entire world falls below replacement fertility rates.

https://fasterplease.substack.com/p/fewer-and-faster-global-fertility

It's hard to underemphasize what a long term problem this is. As the population shrinks and ages, more and more resources are used to support the elderly, with less and less children being born. Debt loads become unsustainable as economies shrink and are born by less people...not more. And it's difficult to reverse as the ball gets going, outside of...drastic..measures. It's time to seriously consider a number of modifications to our nation's policies, which can encourage more children to be born, while maintaining our liberal democratic values.

[Armchair]

For those who think increased immigration is an answer...it's not. It's a band aid at the best, which steals from Peter. This is a global fertility drop. Everywhere. Mexico is already below replacement fertility.

Policies which encourage more fertility in the US are required.

[Moderation4ever]

Mexico is not the sole source immigrants. They are plenty of people that would like the opportunity to live and work in the US. By taking in new immigrants, we reduce population pressures in their home country and often help that home country as some of the immigrant's wages are sent back to family. Immigration is the opportunity to benefit all. America has a problem in that we are not willing to fix our immigration system to better accommodate the needs of our country and the immigrant.

[Armchair]

You don't get it. It's a global drop in fertility rates. Global. You don't like Mexico? Then where? Brazil...under replacement fertility. India...currently dipping under replacement fertility. China? Well under replacement fertility.

You can't immigrate your way out of the problem.

[Sarcastr0]

And by making it a global problem, you push the time horizon way out and only add more potentially confounding effects between now and when it becomes a problem.

[Nige]

Guess the women in those countries are finally getting access to birth control and oh my God it's the end of the world!

[Commenter_XY]

I'm not sure I agree re: immigration. Isn't it really a matter of who we are letting in and the criteria used? We could be using immigration laws to cherry-pick the best and brightest on the planet, but we don't explicitly do that. Big mistake.

I want the Elon Musks and Jim Simons of the future here in America.

[Nige]

‘Only the worthy will be saved.’ Just eugenics all over the place. Terminal CEO brain - the people who do the actual work aren't worthy of consideration.

[Moderation4ever]

The problem with your suggestion is that we need people at a variety of levels in the economy. You can not get the best and the brightest to come here to be agricultural laborers, to work in restaurant kitchens, or as hotel maids.

[Commenter_XY]

Not a problem at all.

That is why God created teenagers = You can not get the best and the brightest to come here to be agricultural laborers, to work in restaurant kitchens, or as hotel maids.

There is always someone willing to dig a ditch. I'll take the best and brightest...you can have the rest.

[Nige]

You think all those jobs are currently being done by teenagers? I know Republicans are keen on child labour, but still...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"I’ll take the best and brightest…"

That rules out the superstition-addled yokels. Take the reason-based people . . . someone else can have the rest.

[Don Nico]

"This is a global fertility drop. Everywhere. "
I suggest that you look at the demographic trends in Sub-Saharan Africa.

[Armchair]

I have. Take a look. It's dropping dramatically in Sub-Saharan Africa too. Used to be they would have 6-7 children per woman. Now it's down to 4.5 on average. They're just 20 years behind the rest of the world. By 2100 only 3 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are predicted to have above replacement rate fertility.

Kenya's a good example. It's only sitting at 3.3 births per woman. As recently as 2000 it was above 5.

[Armchair]

Rather, a system of carrots and reduced regulations are needed to start tweaking at the edges.

On one end, a massively expanded child tax credit will help to a degree. We're looking at $5,000 to $10,000 a child, or more.

On another end, reducing regulations...especially around child care...can help dramatically reduce costs. There's no reason a child care worker taking care of a 3-year old needs a college education. Yet, that's the requirement in DC. Strip out these unnecessary requirements, and child care prices can drop. With a drop in child care, more children become affordable, and more can be born.

[Martinned2]

That didn't do much good when your friend Victor Orban tried it: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2023/02/hungary-incentives-of-the-day.html

[Armchair]

They need to be large, and consistent. Not a short one-term thing.

In many way the drops on unnecessary restrictions is a much better solution.

[Brett Bellmore]

Child birth subsidies work, the problem is that nobody's spending enough on them, given the measured relationship between subsidy size and change in birthrate. You really need a subsidy high enough that a middle class woman would view being a mother instead of pursuing a career outside the home as a financially rational decision.

The secondary problem is that the people most easily influenced by subsidies are, quite naturally, the poor. But the poor tend to pass on to their children the cultural values that made them poor, so you end up buying an increase in poverty.

Nor do you want to encourage single motherhood, which is VERY strongly associated with negative outcomes for people of ordinary means.

The obvious solution is to do something like a massive lifetime reduction in tax rates for couples filing jointly, for each child. Maybe a a 1/3rd reduction in taxes for the rest of your life for each child, so that at 3 children you'd live tax free. THAT would be big enough to get the birth rate up, while providing no incentive for single motherhood or a baby boom among the poor.

You'd probably want to cap it, though, just because it interacts badly with progressive taxation; If applicable to the wealthy the extra births would be extraordinarily expensive.

But, you know, this is all just theoretical until governments stop viewing importing people from the third world as a cheap and acceptable solution.

[Martinned2]

Hungary passed a law in 2019 exempting women with four children from income taxes, for life.

That's your idea of not spending enough?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, because you had to reach 4 children before it kicked in. There's no marginal benefit before that, so you're hit with the full cost of the first three kids, never knowing if you're going to even be medically able to have the 4th.

Also, it's only applicable to the mother's own income, so it's totally worthless for stay at home mothers being supported by their husbands, which is what you really want to encourage from a child rearing standpoint. How many women do you expect to have 4 kids while holding down a full time job?

It's really just a terrible design from the perspective of functionality.

[Nige]

Also, women might think it's not actually worth going through pregnancy four fucking times to satisfy creepy ethno-nationalist irredentists.

[David Nieporent]

Child birth subsidies work, the problem is that nobody’s spending enough on them,

No, they don't work. And it's astonishingly bad faith of you to argue that every single welfare program ever created is evil, but oh if we just spend a trillion dollars bribing women to have kids…

You can make the lives of families easier by giving them various welfare benefits (which don't cease to be welfare benefits just because you're giving them to the middle class), of course. You can't convince people to have kids that way. And certainly not at economically feasible levels of benefits. The opportunity cost to women of them leaving the workforce is much greater than the cost of raising the kids. (And, yes, most women want to work.)

[Brett Bellmore]

No, Nieporent, regression analysis has been done on this, they do work, it's just that the subsidies you see are normally at least 10 times too small to have enough effect. You want to argue that non-linearity mean you can't extrapolate out that far, I'm game: I think the non-linearity works the other way, once the subsidy becomes large enough the woman can quit her job, but it's absolutely an empirical question which has not been answered.

And, you know, I'm totally on board with using moral reasoning about government programs, but that should always be an independent analysis from what would achieve the goal.

For purposes of achieving the goal here, the birth of children likely to be economically productive, you absolutely want to target the subsidies at the middle class, not the poor. Both because the birth rate of the poor is already high enough to not need help, and because the children of the poor are almost always going to be poor themselves, so you'd be subsidizing additional poverty.

[Stephen Lathrop]

For purposes of achieving the goal here, the birth of children likely to be economically productive, you absolutely want to target the subsidies at the middle class, not the poor.

So the notion is a pro-birth policy targeting only the middle class. Maybe a tax on everyone else, including the poor, to underwrite it.

My suggestion? Will your brain to science. Someday, means will become available to explore even outcomes far out on the tails of the mental-function curve; then your contribution will prove fascinating.

[Brett Bellmore]

While it's true that, as an Aspie with a 155 IQ, I might have an interesting brain, I kind of want to keep using it myself for as long as possible. And given (depressing) family history, it's likely to be in pretty bad shape by the time I'd be donating it.

"So the notion is a pro-birth policy targeting only the middle class."

Yes, the poor already are above replacement, and they're not the people you want more of anyway. And the wealthy are too expensive to incentivize, and too few to have enough babies to matter. That does sort of leave the middle class.

"Maybe a tax on everyone else, including the poor, to underwrite it."

What's the point in taxing the poor any more, when they don't have the money in the first place? No, the tax would fall on the middle class who didn't bother reproducing, and the wealthy for the same reason Willie Sutton frequented banks.

[SimonP]

While it’s true that, as an Aspie with a 155 IQ,...

*rolls eyes*

As a self-diagnosed "Aspie" who's also a dues-paying member of Mensa, you're probably oblivious to the way this comes across, but sometimes it's better to brag less about these kinds of things, and let your speech and behavior speak for themselves.

Because, certainly, if your speech and behavior is any indication, you're not as bright as you'd like us to believe.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I'm not as bright as I used to be, and I'll probably be a lot less bright in a few years. Like I said, depressing family history, don't expect me to be commenting here 10 years from now.

[SimonP]

Also:

No, the tax would fall on the middle class who didn’t bother reproducing,...

Above, you postulated that a per-child cash subsidy could incentivize (presumably straight) couples to have children, if the subsidy was sufficiently large as to make it economically advantageous for one parent (you said, "mother," though I don't see any economic reason why it'd have to be targeted that way) to give up their job and devote themselves to child-rearing.

The actual figures involved might not be gobsmacking if we're talking about a subsidy aiming for the net difference between a low-earning parent's potential income and childcare costs associated with enabling that parent to work. But you get to middle class couples, you're talking about a much larger gap to clear, in order to create the incentive. A mom working at McDonald's full-time may be eager to quit her job, if each kid she has earns her more than she could make (net-net per kid) working at McDonald's. A mom whose earning potential is far greater is going to need a heftier subsidy to make the choice you want her to make, isn't she?

So, what - you cap it? Poorer, less-educated people reproduce more, raise their kids at home, while richer, more-educated people subsidize them, and maybe receive some subsidy if they choose to have kids?

And if the policy achieves its intended result - what then happens? If the subsidy is big enough to get people to quit their jobs, you'll have a shrinking pool of people available to tax to subsidize parents. The more you tax them, the more attractive child-rearing becomes, financially, and then... what? Every person who can have kids is? Good news for population growth, but who pays for that? Rich people? Gay and single people who haven't had kids yet? Who's left?

And that's just for the per-child subsidy! Who's paying for public schools and childcare? Same shrinking pool of people?

Christ. It's hard to think of a more economically disruptive policy. You'd drive even people like me to emigrate.

[Nige]

'and they’re not the people you want more of anyway.'

Oh, right, poverty is genetic. Or is it CULTURAL? Let's perpetuate middle-class mediocrity!

[SimonP]

Brett's proposal is:

"Subsidize more white, MAGA babies raised by tradwifes. Screw the rest."

[Brett Bellmore]

No, poverty is, leaving out exceptional cases, cultural. Why, are you proposing that we pay poor people to have children and adopt them out to middle class families before they've had time to pick up destructive values?

[Nige]

If the only way you can conceive of to lift people out of poverty is to steal their children then holy shit you're intellectually impoverished yourself. Maybe that's just the culture of the right these days?

I'm curious, though, where the cultural aspect comes in whenever some industry goes bust, or often as not gets busted, and plunges regions into poverty? Or, say, when civic authorities use their powers to deprive certain neighbourhoods of investment, infrastructure, amenities, policing, maybe deliberately build a few highways over or through them, effectively fracturing communities and creating the conditions for cycles of poverty and crime, then blaming the people in the neighbourhoods, and their 'culture.'

[Armchair]

"No, they don’t work"

As Brett mentioned, they absolutely do. It's just a question of the relative amount.

If you subsidize someone $1000 to have a child that will end up costing them $100,000 to raise....not much of an effect. By contrast, subsidize someone $10,000 a year for 15 years....suddenly the math changes, and you see a more dramatic effect.

In reality...it's in between. People have a kid, see their finances drop with $15,000 a year in childcare, and figure they can't afford a second one. But...if that childcare ends up not being that expensive, and is only $2000 a year after everything. Well, perhaps they can have another child or two.

[SimonP]

It’s honestly very odd reading conservatives arguing here for massive, top-down cash subsidies designed to engineer a profound social change in the American economy. A few decades ago, we called these mothers living off of government largesse and not working for a living “welfare queens” and did everything we could to cut benefits and impose "personal responsibility" on them. What changed?

Let me guess.

[Armchair]

Math changed.

[Moderation4ever]

Here is a better suggestion. Increase legal immigration. People will come into the country, work in low paying jobs, and pay taxes. Their children will go to school and advance to be part of the technological and professional work force in the future. The low wage workers will take some government resource, but that will be made up in taxes. This solves the problem at little or no cost. The only thing necessary is for the government to get out of the way, sounds pretty libertarian to me.

[Brett Bellmore]

This does not solve the problem, any more than moving to the highest point on a sinking ship solves the problem. It just locally delays the disaster, while accelerating it elsewhere.

[Moderation4ever]

Again, the disaster analogies. The boat is not yet taking in water and your worried about it sinking. The world population is getting bigger not smaller.

[Sarcastr0]

You know how the right complains global warming predictions of catastrophe and the need for policies now to address issues coming decades from now?

You don't even have a model. You have a trendline.

It's way early to say this is will be problem worldwide, and a bit racist to say this is or will soon be a problem nationally.

Now China? They have a problem. Largely self-imposed.

[Michael P]

There are several boatloads of studies documenting the decline in fertility among developed countries and proposing models for how much is explained by various factors. There are, in fact, models and projections of world population: https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/MostUsed/ (and these are broken down by country).

It's also cartoonish of you to jump straight to accusing him of racism for thinking that US population shrinkage is a credible risk. And to think it's too early to start worrying about how to solve a problem when the current solution takes two decades to yield results.

[Moderation4ever]

Read your own comment, "developed countries" is just a euphemism for white majority counties. Yes, there are a few countries with majority non-white populations, but by and large developed = white majority.

[Brett Bellmore]

Congratulations on defining racism in such a way that anybody disagreeing with you becomes racist.

[Nige]

Congratulations on abstracting people *making these particular arguments* to 'people disagreeing' to elide the racism.

[Martinned2]

And Japan. and South Korea. (And presumably Taiwan if it was an independent country.)

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

[Moderation4ever]

Great map pretty much shows the demographics of developed countries.

[Armchair]

Michael's wrong here. While the problem is longer documented in developed countries (and primarily worst in Asian countries), total fertility is dropping worldwide. Brazil, India, Europe, Iran, Thailand. South Africa is barely above replacement rates.

[Michael P]

Are there lots of studies about the decline in fertility for developing countries?

I was speaking to Gaslight0's claim about not having a model, not asserting anything about population growth in developing countries. Wikipedia graphs the projections I linked to, making clear that the global population is projected (via models!) to peak before 2100: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth#/media/File%3AWorld_population_growth%2C_1700-2100%2C_2022_revision.png

[Armchair]

Absolutely. Here's a nice article.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)00550-6/fulltext

[Sarcastr0]

Is your concern, Michael, that world population will one day peak?

[Brett Bellmore]

Engine blows up on plane. Sarcastr0 asks, "Is your concern that our altitude will eventually peak?"

No, the concern is the crash that will happen after that peak.

[Sarcastr0]

That is even LESS established by the evidence.

[Commenter_XY]

I keep reminding you that you are arguing with a government bureaucrat who is defined by the phrase, "Just good enough for government work". 😉

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Read your own comment, “developed countries” is just a euphemism for white majority counties.

As if anyone needed yet another reason to not take you seriously.

[Sarcastr0]

Michel, I don't give a fuck about who is from developed countries and who is not; people are people.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, right, let me know when you get on an airliner flown by a Somali Pilot.

[Sarcastr0]

And to think it’s too early to start worrying about how to solve a problem when the current solution takes two decades to yield results.

Yeah, climate. Which has science behind it. Unlike this which has 'number go down - scary!' behind it.

[Armchair]

Demography is clearly a science, and the data here is VERY clear.

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't real.

[Sarcastr0]

Demography is a *descriptive* science. And that’s good stuff!

If you want to predict the future, you need a theoretical foundation as well.

You don’t.
And if you did (you don't so far!), you'd be on par with global warming. Which is a science you reject. So while you might convince me (I have nothing in principle against policies that provide support for childrearing), you would suffer from being massively inconsistent.

[Nige]

The population peak has been predicted for a while now, mostly ignored as people scream about the impending horrors of overpopulation. *Women getting access to birth control* is the main thing, really. One supposes all the muttering about making contraception illegal and divorce more difficult from right wing fundamentalists will meet this Great Replacement terror from the less *Christian* fundamentalist right and there will be a happy meeting of minds.

[Don Nico]

"If you want to predict the future, you need a theoretical foundation as well."
Horse-hockey. You just are trying to deny any intellectual foundation by calling demography "descriptive science."

Of course one can make predictions. Your employer does that every single day.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm insisting on policymaking based on empirical evidence. I'm denying no 'intellectual foundation.'

Yet again, for the thousandth time, I implore you to read the thread. Especially the OP.

Armchair is saying:

1) Worldwide population will peak. No real timeline given.
2) This is very bad. No real reason given.
3) We need to start doing some serious policy changes in America to deal with this issue. What changes, and what impact he hopes for is unclear.

It's policymaking based on a vibes-based crisis. It's bad policymaking, Don.

[Nige]

2. - he identifies some likely outcomes, he just doesn't want to address them, he just wants to go all King Canute.

[Armchair]

For the rest of the forum.

Any time Sarcastr0 writes "Armchair is saying"...just assume Sarcastr0 is wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

Nige is right, you do a bit go into why it's bad. With a lot of speculation that calls things that are risks full-on true.

Here's you OP in case you forgot about it:

"The historical challenge to our modern society for the next two hundreds years is hitting its tipping point this year. The massive drop in global total fertility rates. 2024 is marking the year when the entire world falls below replacement fertility rates.

https://fasterplease.substack.com/p/fewer-and-faster-global-fertility

It’s hard to underemphasize what a long term problem this is. As the population shrinks and ages, more and more resources are used to support the elderly, with less and less children being born. Debt loads become unsustainable as economies shrink and are born by less people…not more. And it’s difficult to reverse as the ball gets going, outside of…drastic..measures. It’s time to seriously consider a number of modifications to our nation’s policies, which can encourage more children to be born, while maintaining our liberal democratic values."

1) Worldwide population will peak. No real timeline given. [check]

2) This is very bad. No real reason given. [reasons are given - speculative reasons presented as bank-on-it fact]

3) We need to start doing some serious policy changes in America to deal with this issue. What changes, and what impact he hopes for is unclear. [Yep no specific changes here].

No, Armchair, you're still making policy based on vibes not evidence.

[Armchair]

See previous comment.

Any time Sarcastr0 writes “Armchair is saying”…just assume Sarcastr0 is wrong.

[Artifex]

"Any time Sarcastr0 writes “Armchair is saying”…just assume Sarcastr0 is wrong."

Come on Armchair. This is on you. It's not like you are new here. You know what you are getting when you interact with Sarcastro. At some point it is like yelling at your cat for not getting a calculus problem. Is there a deep human need to argue a point ... even with your toaster ? Every once and a while the weapons grade stupidity can produce an amusing absurdity, but it amazes with me that people engage.

Most of the LLMs have better sentence parsing and comprehension capabilities at this point than Sarcastro. Maybe there is a business model here. I could put together a forum where ChatGPT argues with people and get advertising cash.

[Nige]

You're panicking because after a few centuries of spectacular growth, population is about to peak. You're not going to be able to shape policy to prevent it, especially if its global, short of going full Handmaids Tale, but since we know it's coming we could shape policy to prepare for it. know, planning for the future is anathema, but still.

[Don Nico]

"Unlike this which has ‘number go down – scary!’ behind it."
That is an amazing know-nothing claim jsut because you want toargue with Armchair, who is also off the wall in his concern

[Sarcastr0]

No, it is a harsh but fair characterization of the argument Armchair and Michael have managed to offer.

I'm asking for predictive evidence not speculation if you want to make policy.

This is an issue that causes stuff to be sent back for a redo at my job regularly; I don't understand your pushback on my pushback.

[Armchair]

By the time it becomes a "problem" it will be far too late to solve with modest methods. It will be an escalating decline.

The time to stop it is now.

Plus "racist"? Not sure how you get that. The US has many different races.

[Sarcastr0]

As I said, you sound like the most dire of global warming folks, except you don't even have a model for your sociological crisis narrative, just a trendline.

If you think there are no variables to potentially countervail something as complicated as worldwide birthrate trends, you are a simpleton.

'We must assure our natives breed enough to avoid relying on immigration' isn't racist? I suppose you could argue it's about national origin, but given the racial mix of our immigrants as compared to our current demographics, hard to avoid seeing White.

[Armchair]

I've already mentioned why immigration doesn't work. Global birth rates are dropping everywhere.

That's not racist. That's just a fact.

But, keep the strawmen going.

[Sarcastr0]

You are advocating for a national policy to deal with a global problem?

You seem confused.

[Mr. Bumble]

You mean like having the US reduce CO2 emissions to save the planet?

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, like that.

[Nige]

You mean, the global population might settle down at something stable but lower than what it is currently? It’s not that much of a disaster, it’ll just take some adjustment, especially during the transition. Making young people slaves to serve and support the whims of the old would be a bad approach, for example. Elevating young people to near worshipful status by virtue of just being young a la Children Of Men would be the other bad extreme.

[Don Nico]

"The time to stop it is now."
Leet being be. The planet already has too many people.

[Armchair]

Don,

Here's the problem. If you "let it be"...where does it stop? If you never figure out how to have replacement-level fertility in a society with regular consistent birth control...it just keeps shrinking. Until the birth control supply is eliminated, either through societal collapse or government action.

Figuring out how to have replacement-level fertility in a society with birth control takes time...generational time. Best to figure it out now. Rather then when it may be too late for modest means.

[Sarcastr0]

it just keeps shrinking

Does it? Have you any evidence it'll just keep shrinking?

Or are you just talking out of a single trendline?

[Armchair]

Any evidence it won’t? No?

You figure that fertility rates will “magically” bounce back once the magic 4 billion number is reached? Wow! Convenient.

Gosh... Guess what? Global warming will magically stop once we hit 2 degrees warming. Just stop right there. Do you have any evidence it won't? Why do you think it would possibly keep going? No evidence at all?

You're a joke sometimes.....

[Nige]

I would suggest you first might want to address the issue that's threatening to make the planet less pleasant to live on in the coming decades. That's really going to put a dampener on fertility.

[Bob from Ohio]

"You don’t even have a model."

Oh noes! No model! How can we even think!

[Nige]

We are literally being granted a ring-side seat to how you weirdos are thinking about this.

[Moderation4ever]

We are a long way from worrying about replacement population. Global population is still rising. Let start by making sure we are working for all the people before we start worrying about population declines here and there.

[Brett Bellmore]

The engine caught fire and blew up, but the plane is still coasting upwards on momentum, no need to worry about it until we're losing altitude, even though we can see the smoking hole on the wing where the engine used to be.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, our policies should be evidence based. You come in here with this melodrama.

[Brett Bellmore]

Evidence.

[Sarcastr0]

You're a better scientist than this.

[Brett Bellmore]

You predictably reject any evidence contrary to your own position.

[Sarcastr0]

First, you’re making a national push off of Armchair’s global push. Different these.

But the same flaw in the evidence presented.

I explained why it’s not probative multiple times Brett. Read the fucking thread. https://reason.com/volokh/2024/05/16/thursday-open-thread-191/?comments=true#comment-10562381

[Armchair]

Exactly

[Moderation4ever]

You will note that spike in late 1950s to 1960s, that the reason we are having problem with SS and Medicare right now. And this is the US world population is still rising.

[Don Nico]

"melodrama."
you love your dismissive of ipse dixit:
Drama
drama-queen
melodrama
Conspiracy
plot,
etc.

[Sarcastr0]

It's called engaging with the comments and finding them wanting.

You actually do a better job of that than most, in that you at least argue against what you think I say, and not just who you think I am like some of the more shallow on here.

Though this offering, where your pushback on my comment is that you just doesn't like the vibes of word I often use, is not eve at that level.

[Mr. Bumble]

Faint praise.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, your one of those who doesn't engage. You're smart enough, but it's rare to see you bother.

I don't know why you comment at all, as lazy as your comments usually are.

[Bob from Ohio]

"your one"

you're

[Sarcastr0]

VC is not a typo-police zone.

Pinochet-loving, amorality-embracing, AND typo policing.

Just the worst.

[Moderation4ever]

Brett, we are not even to the point of the engine overheating and you are already panicked. I hope I am never on plane that you are also on, you are probably like William Shatner in the Twilight Zone.

[Brett Bellmore]

The total fertility rate in the US is at 1.62. Actually, it's been below replacement for native Americans since the 1970's, we were papering it over because immigrants used to have higher than replacement fertility rates. Recently that has changed, and the immigrants are below replacement, too.

Anything below 2.1 is a bit of a problem, 1.6 is low enough to cause severe dislocations.

And the big problem is that we've seen enough countries go through this transition to have a good idea what comes next: The decline keeps getting steeper and steeper.

[Sarcastr0]

1.6 is low enough to cause severe dislocations

This would strike me to not be a statement you can make out of the context of the specific society - different societies will be able to support different levels of churn.

And you ignore immigration.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course I'm ignoring immigration. Immigration doesn't PREVENT dislocations, it RELOCATES dislocations. You reduce them here at the cost of making them worse there.

[Nige]

So at worse it's a wash.

[Sarcastr0]

If a dislocation is threshold-based, and then the metric is spread out, the threshold will not be met and the dislocation will not occur.

[Nige]

Where is this apposite analogy when climate change heaves into view flooding cities and burning down strings of small towns?

[Armchair]

Do you care about women's rights?

Here's the problem. By the time it becomes a dramatic issue, only dramatic solutions will be the answer. The authoritarian countries of the world will have a simple answer. Ban women's birth control.

We don't do that here, of course. The concept is abhorrent to our values. But as a result...those countries which value women's rights will shrink, and be dominated by those which don't.

The solution...stabilize our birth rates now, with values that are acceptable to liberal democracy

[Sarcastr0]

those countries which value women’s rights will shrink, and be dominated by those which don’t.

So much for worldwide birth rates being the issue.

[Armchair]

You're clearly not able to simultaneously consider national and global effects. Leave the discussion to the adults who can.

[Nige]

'The authoritarian countries of the world will have a simple answer. Ban women’s birth control.'

Like Republicans are mulling over and hinting at? To say nothing of abortion? Is this just that thing where you demand we do the thing the authoritarian wants us to do before the authoritarian even asks us to do it?

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe stop killing a million unborn babies every year? Would be a start.

[Krychek_2]

Sorry, but I'm not seeing why this is a problem. Suppose we woke up tomorrow to find that the human population had declined by 50% and was now only 4 billion. 4 billion is still a lot of people, and it's a lot more people than the planet has had for most of its existence. It's not like there's any danger of humans becoming an endangered species. And candidly, fewer humans would be a good thing for the rest of the planet.

I understand that it would cause economic pain but I think the economics of it could be sorted out. So why is this a problem?

[Commenter_XY]

Tell you what, you be in the 4B that drop dead. I'll take the alternative. Then tell me why it isn't a problem. 🙂

[Krychek_2]

I’m not suggesting that anyone should be killed. I’m just asking why it’s a problem if our numbers were to decrease through lower birth rates.

And a greatly reduced human population would do wonders in terms of pollution, other species facing extinction, climate change, and probably a lot fewer wars too.

[Brett Bellmore]

The reason it's a problem is that it's not a Thanos snap removing people impartially regardless of age, or an epidemic killing off old geezers like me, it's a reduction in birth rate.

People aren't immortal, we go through a regular lifecyle of dependence, productivity, then again dependence, before we die.

So if you reduce the birth rate, you first get less dependent children, which makes your productivity look good. But then a while later you start losing people in their productive years, while having an elderly population based on your EARLIER birth rate!

Declining populations end up skewed towards the dependent elderly, who aren't producing, but consume a lot of expensive goods like medical care. It REALLY messes you up, economically.

[Krychek_2]

OK, but here's the thing: There are essentially two possibilities. One is that we keep over-populating until there just aren't enough resources to take care of everyone and there's massive misery because of that, or we reduce our birthrates so that the planet as a whole remains viable for all living things, which results in the misery you describe.

Either of those scenarios will create some misery. I'd just as soon have the one that is good in the long term, which is reducing birth rates.

[Brett Bellmore]

Or, you know, we could just try to achieve replacement, instead of pretending that the only choices are exploding or imploding population.

[Krychek_2]

You know, Brett, the women who are choosing not to have babies are being perfectly libertarian about it: My body, my choice, and social consequences be damned. I'm surprised you're not celebrating them.

[Nige]

There's no especial reason why replacement levels need to be at *current* population numbers, rather than stabilising at something lower.

[Brett Bellmore]

A gradual decline would not be horrific, emphasis on "gradual". The current fertility rates do not imply a gradual decline, though.

[Nige]

I'm sorry you're not going to stop it or even slow it with badly-conceived (lol) child subsidies. You'll want national bans on contraception, abortion, divorce and women in the workplace. Don't worry, Mike Johnson's on it.

[Sarcastr0]

The current fertility rates do not imply a gradual decline, though.

You have created a hidden rate threshold here. Or just vibes disguised as a threshold.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Actually, XY, we all drop dead.

Population attrition without excess mortality is possible, and potentially wise policy. It's a matter of timing, of course.

To manage it would deliver policy conundrums no doubt. But it would not be all challenge and downside. Pressures on natural resources exploitation would ease, making many commodities—energy, metals, and agricultural commodities, for instance—capable to meet needs better by use of a more-efficient mix of producers. Generally, less demand means prices go down.

The major policy change pressure, of course, would affect distributional policies. Growth-habituated economies avoid confronting those questions. Their managers insist, often mistakenly and in bad faith, that a rising tide will lift all boats. Contracting populations inconvenience that style of policy, but so what? Lower prices and fairer distributional outcomes are not an obvious bad choice for a population as a whole.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I think 1 billion would be a good number, which we might get down to by 2200. The last time we were at that number many were in poverty and oppression but we know a lot more now. The United States, so long as Republicans have any power, is too stupid to accept any kind of long term planning but most affluent countries are in touch with reality and will be able to make the necessary adjustments as the years go by.

[Mr. Bumble]

Return with us now to the thrilling world of 1804 when the world population was one billion.

[Krychek_2]

And of course nothing else has happened since 1804.

[Nige]

Yeah, it's the population numbers which determine whether we tie children to sticks and shove them up chimnies.

[David Nieporent]

Suppose we woke up tomorrow to find that the human population had declined by 50% and was now only 4 billion. 4 billion is still a lot of people, and it’s a lot more people than the planet has had for most of its existence.

It's not the raw numbers that are the problem. As you say, 4 billion is still oodles of people. It's the demographics that are. To be clear, I'm not talking race here; I'm talking age. Declining birthrates mean that the young population is shrinking and the elderly population is increasing. Worldwide. But elderly people aren't productive, and worse, need to be taken care of.

[Krychek_2]

I get that, but look at the alternative. Continuing to increase our population means fighting over fewer resources like fresh water and arable land. It increases pollution, causes other species to go extinct, and results in more violence. There is such a thing as too many people.

And I think better technology means you don't need as many productive people.

[Brett Bellmore]

How about just maintaining our current population, then, instead of crashing it abruptly? You know, 2.1 children per woman, instead of 0.9 like you see in South Korea?

[Krychek_2]

Because our current population is not sustainable in the long term. It's not just a matter of everyone having a place to stand; it's a matter of clean water and waste disposal and loss of habitat for other species. Because of human activity there is already a danger of bees becoming endangered; if the bee population crashes you absolutely will see mass starvation.

There is no misery-free solution. We should have stopped reproducing at bunny rabbit rates centuries ago.

[Michael P]

Paul Ehrlich, is that you?

[Mr. Bumble]

Beat me to it.

In 1968 when he wrote "The Population Bomb" the population of the world was 3,546,810,808.

[Nige]

Basiclaly you've swung round to a reverse-Ehrich.

[Krychek_2]

If Ehrlich turns out to be wrong, reducing the population will still have been good for the planet. If he turns out to be right and isn't listened to, we're looking at catastrophe. I'd just as soon take the first risk.

[Mr. Bumble]

What do you mean turns out to be wrong”? Read the book.

[Krychek_2]

I read the book when it first came out. Some of his numbers and specific projections turned out to be wrong, but that doesn't mean that overpopulation isn't a problem.

[Mr. Bumble]

Name ONE thing he got right.

[Krychek_2]

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/08/is-overpopulation-a-legitimate-threat-to-humanity-and-the-planet/paul-ehrlichs-population-bomb-argument-was-right

[Michael P]

That opinion piece doesn't actually point to anything that Ehrlich got right. It argues that Ehrlich will eventually be right, at least if you're generous with what "right" means.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Kinda sucks for the people who want to have kids. Not to mention the people who won’t exist.

[Krychek_2]

How broadly are you defining "the people who won't exist"? If you compare the number of sperm produced by the average male against the number of children he actually fathers, almost none of the people who theoretically could have existed ever actually do. To say nothing of the fact that if they never exist they won't know they missed anything.

And it's a sad fact of life that it kinda sucks for lots of people who want to do lots of things they'll never be able to do.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"How broadly are you defining “the people who won’t exist”?"

I'm defining it in based on your comment: "If Ehrlich turns out to be wrong, reducing the population will still have been good for the planet." Reducing the population is bad for the hypothetical people who are reduced. I'm not sure "the planet" has interests outside of people. If you say reducing the population is good for those who remain, that's a different story.

[Bob from Ohio]

"there is already a danger of bees becoming endangered"

"Bee colonies: Worldwide population on the rise" Statistisches Bundesamt

"The buzz around the increasing bee population
America’s honeybee numbers at an all-time high, according to government data. What do skeptics say?"
Published: April 1, 2024, 1:28 p.m. MDT Deseret News

[Nige]

They were actually listening! (Farmers, landowners, hobbyists etc, not the bees.) People say these problems are intractable, impossible, irrelevant, not even real - other people actually do something about it. Good for them!

[Nige]

'You know, 2.1 children per woman,'

Do the women get a say?

[Mr. Bumble]

Only about the .1.

[Nige]

So Handmaid's Tale - .1

[David Nieporent]

And I think better technology means you don’t need as many productive people.

You may want to entrust your grandma to ChatGPT, but I don't think of that as a good idea for mine.

(Actually, mine have both already passed, but you get the idea.)

[Krychek_2]

There are some jobs that will always require humans, but there are lots that don't, or at least require fewer humans. But even if we're talking about your grandmother, elderly people require fewer caregivers than they used to because of technology. I haven't had a face to face visit with a doctor in probably two years but my prescriptions are regularly refilled, my lab work is done and monitored, and if I had a health care matter that actually required a doctor's visit I could get one.

[Moderation4ever]

How many things do you trust to technology now? I am guessing about everything you do. AI isn't completely new it's just a progression down the road we are all on.

[Nige]

The way tech is going at the moment, I reckon humans are on their own.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“ You may want to entrust your grandma to ChatGPT, but I don’t think of that as a good idea for mine.”

Yeah, let’s hope no one ever gets the idea to use AI for medical image analysis

[Nige]

They better not use chatGPT.

[Krychek_2]

Given the amount of human error, do you know for a fact that AI would screw up any more often?

[John Rohan]

It's only a problem for countries that based their pension plans on a ponzi scheme that depends on an ever increasing population. Which is pretty much every major country.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yup. Sounds like folks better invest in private retirement accounts.

[Armchair]

"Sorry, but I’m not seeing why this is a problem. Suppose we woke up tomorrow to find that the human population had declined by 50% and was now only 4 billion."

-Call this the Thanos situation. In many ways, it's not as bad. The dropping birth rate...is far worse. Instead it looks like...

"Suppose we woke up tomorrow to find that the human population had declined by 50% and was now only 4 billion. And 20 years later it was only 2 billion. And 20 years later it was only 1 billion. And...we didn't know how to stop it".

See the problem?

[hobie]

Less humans would mean great things for the planet. But it could imperil Armchair's 401k returns. So we need to keep shtuping

[Sarcastr0]

My pushback is not against the idea of programs to defray the cost of having children and support childcare. There are plenty of good reasons for such programs.

My pushback is that this is not one of them - this is not evidence based policymaking.

No, a demographic trendline is not alone predictive.

Finally, people need to be clear about there thesis. You have people talking purely about the US, people talking about 'the developed world; and people talking about the world. Often it's the same person talking about multiples.

All in all, it's weird.

[Don Nico]

"No, a demographic trendline is not alone predictive. "
"Not alone" does all the work, just like Mann's hockey stick.
However, there are many known economic, sociological and political underpinnings that make give the trendline substance albeit with large associated uncertainties.

[Sarcastr0]

there are many known economic, sociological and political underpinnings that make give the trendline substance albeit with large associated uncertainties.
Then provide those. Or link to someone who does.

This was shallow and not well thought out, and you know it.

[Armchair]

I've provided several links in this thread. As have others. Educate yourself.

[Sarcastr0]

After your initial substack link, I haven't seen you link to anything on this thread. But maybe I missed it.

Others linked to stuff about different theses than you.

[Armchair]

That just proves you can't read.

Leave the discussion to the adults, if you can't actually review a thread and find where a second link is.

[Nige]

I mean, the US, especially the right, hates the young. Expensive childcare, chidren's education should be profit-driven and the loathing for students at universities is staggering, sending the poor ones off to fight in foreign wars. Meanwhile they can't afford to buy or rent, work multiple jobs to stay afloat and needing healthcare is an economic catastrophe.

Of course you lot also hate the immigrants and refugees who might keep the population dynamic and growing.

[SimonP]

It’s literally senseless to start talking about policy solutions to this problem, without even a working theory for why it’s happening.

People want to have kids. Maybe even most. Straight, gay, whatever – people are naturally inclined to couple up, and they naturally want to have and raise children. (Go figure.)

I don’t know why they’re not, but when you look at places like China or the US, the basic problem seems clear: people do not feel economically secure enough to have or raise children. Your proposal is to address that feeling of insecurity by heavily subsidizing childrearing, and cutting childcare costs on the back end by deregulation. (Do childcare providers need a college degree? Probably not. Do they need to be carefully screened and trained so that they do not kill or harm the children in their care and are temperamentally suited to handling a large group of small children? Do childcare standards need to meet certain staffing, safety, and cleanliness standards to ensure that children left in their care don’t come away with injuries or illnesses? Maybe ask a parent.)

But I think a better way at addressing that insecurity is to address the underlying economic conditions that give rise to it. A person who earns enough to comfortably pay for childcare and other child-rearing expenses doesn’t need a fat subsidy to make ends meet. A parent who doesn’t face a risk of termination or demotion in their career if they get pregnant or have or rear a child is one who more confidently will do so. A couple that owns a home in a thriving community and is relatively unburdened by student loan and medical debt will be ready to have children and be able to raise them well.

A subsidy might do the trick, but the size of the subsidy that you’d need to outweigh all of the economic uncertainty that couples face when considering whether to have (more) children would be enormous. The basic problem is that the way we’ve ordered our economy creates all of these externalities that weigh on the decision whether to have kids. Any subsidy sufficient to lift that weight needs to be at least as large as the cumulative effect of those externalities. It would be better, more direct, and more efficient – and more compatible with free markets and personal freedoms – to address those underlying economic conditions.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think there are a number of causes.

Old age pensions create the illusion that you don't need children in order to be secure in your old age. But you do, they just don't have to be YOUR children. So everybody relies on somebody else having the kids.

Urbanization: Cities have been population sinks throughout all human history, the places people went to do everything but reproduce. It's even a fundamental aspect of mammalian biology: At high population densities most species stop reproducing.

And along with urbanization comes nation-wide policies made by people living in urban areas, who don't try to make it easy on the breeding population because they're not doing it themselves.

There may be a pollution aspect: We're seeing reproductive problems with species in the wild, too. Apparently a lot of persistent chemicals using in modern society can be hormone mimics, and act like low dose birth control. Not just industrial chemicals, soy has that effect, hence the slur, "soy boy".

[Nige]

‘who don’t try to make it easy on the breeding population because they’re not doing it themselves.’

All those rural red Republican voters crying out for affordable childcare, maternity and paternity leave, affordable rents and housing, and socialised healthcare being crushed by the urbans.

'Apparently a lot of persistent chemicals using in modern society can be hormone mimics, and act like low dose birth control.'

Should have listened to the tree-huggers, eh?

[SimonP]

Brett, since you're a card-carrying member of MENSA, I expect you to do a little better than provide just-so stories inspired by the Handmaid's Tale.

Old age pensions create the illusion that you don’t need children in order to be secure in your old age.

People are so myopic, when it comes to planning for old age, that they can't be arsed to set aside enough of their paychecks each pay period, and to keep the money they save invested in long-term growth investments. You think that anyone is undertaking the significant task and present cost of having children just to support themselves in old age?

Historically, people had kids because (1) that's naturally what happens when you have unprotected sex, (2) kids tended to die regularly, and (3) kids could begin supporting the household as soon as they're capable of manual labor. That is much more plausible, as a motivation for having kids, than what might be needed some sixty years down the line. That adult children could then go on to support elderly parents certainly is a part of many traditional cultures, but would be a poor motivator, in itself.

We also don't see evidence that expected insecurity in old age is much of a motivator, in current trends. Traditional pensions are being phased out; people are more skeptical than ever that Social Security and Medicare will be there for them when they retire; 401(k)s are not picking up the slack, and healthcare costs post-retirement are not showing much sign of easing. People have more reason than ever to fear being unable to support themselves in old age. But they're not having more kids to compensate, are they? No, they're just saying (unrealistically), "I'll work until I die."

And that's the Republican policy pitch for 2024!

Urbanization: Cities have been population sinks throughout all human history, the places people went to do everything but reproduce. It’s even a fundamental aspect of mammalian biology: At high population densities most species stop reproducing.

Evopsych, eh? Can't say I'm surprised to see it turn up in your comments. Fits the profile. Well, I guess we'll have to pile that onto the pile of hidden costs that a child subsidy would have to clear, right? We have to pay people so much to have kids that we can compensate people not just for their opportunity costs of not seeking gainful employment, but enough to override fundamental incentives built into a modern, industrialized economy.

I don't think population density has anything to do with it. Mammals don't biologically reproduce less, when they're crowded together; they reproduce less, when there are fewer resources available, more competition for what resources are available, and so on. (Really, what a fundamentally bizarre assertion to make. Is there not a rat population problem in New York?)

Urbanization, with industrialization, may have more of a role to play, insofar as it shifts the incentives for having kids. In an agrarian economy, a five-year-old has value once they can help with everyday chores. In an industrialized economy, there are fewer everyday chores to do, so there's less value in a five-year-old unless they're sweeping chimneys, packing meat, serving alcohol, or doing whatever it is that Republicans think they could be doing more of these days. So unless you mean to reverse that trend - towards greater economic productivity made possible in a modern economy - perhaps your best suggestion is not a per-child subsidy of - what, maybe $25k per year per child? - but rather loosening child labor laws so that a five-year-old's full economic potential can be unlocked?

[Martinned2]

Things on New Caledonia have kicked off again. That's been an interesting mess for some time:

Protests blew up earlier this week after French lawmakers passed a draft law which would allow all citizens who have resided on the island for more than 10 years to vote in local elections. New Caledonia’s pro-independence movements have argued it would weaken the representation of indigenous people, the Kanaks.

Four people have died and hundreds have been injured, France’s interior minister Gérald Darmanin said.

[Martinned2]

There's a headline I didn't see coming: "France accuses Azerbaijan of fomenting deadly riots in overseas territory New Caledonia"

https://www.politico.eu/article/france-accuse-azerbaijan-fomenting-deadly-riot-overseas-territory-new-caledonia/

[Martinned2]

La Quadrature du Net (a prominent French privacy and digital rights NGO) has already challenged the Tiktok shutdown in court: https://www.laquadrature.net/2024/05/17/la-quadrature-du-net-attaque-en-justice-le-blocage-de-tiktok-en-nouvelle-caledonie/

[Michael P]

On the topic of population declines and demographic disasters, Detroit had a dead cat bounce: https://apnews.com/article/detroit-us-census-population-1f1f2ef32a46d4310e95dfc5e9c5a2c4

[Martinned2]

Just in case some of you missed the news out of Georgia (the Caucasus country, not the US state)

Georgian MPs approved controversial plans to brand hundreds of NGOs and media outlets as foreign agents on Tuesday, paving the way for the bill to become law despite growing domestic dissent and condemnation from the U.S. and EU.

In a vote, parliamentarians supported the proposals brought forward by the governing Georgian Dream party by 84 votes in favor and 30 against, after weeks of contentious debate that saw several brawls break out in the assembly chamber and one senior lawmaker assaulted. Crowds gathered outside the graffiti-daubed parliament building with whistles, vuvuzelas and even hitting pots and pans in a bid to make themselves heard by the lawmakers inside.

Under the new rules, civil society groups receiving more than 20 percent of their income from abroad will be required to register as “organizations serving the interests of a foreign power,” a label that critics fear will be used to silence anti-corruption campaigners and others critical of the government.

The president has said she will veto the bill, but that veto can be overridden.

[Ed Grinberg]

It's been done:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_foreign_agent_law

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes, its been done.

22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq

[hobie]

On Monday I rented a U-Haul and paid two homies from the hood all the food, booze and pot they could intake along with $70 each to drive with me to southern Ohio to pick up some lovely barn finds of Victorian furniture I noticed on Facebook Marketplace. The two places happened to be on the backroads near the West Virginia border. On the way we were delayed nearly three hours by the number of construction projects in nearly every town and on every road we passed. Mayor Pete was sly to apply the Biden infrastructure act to red hayseeds first. If Pete was smart he'd make a little victory tour to remind the drug-addled, entitlement-loving hicks who their daddy really is.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey! I bought that story from Kramer, you can't use it to.

[hobie]

It was more like Blazing Saddles. My neophyte mates were like 'And isn't it a lovely day, ma'am?' at every stop sign and gas station. With the requisite response being more or less, 'Up yours, nigger!'

[Bob from Ohio]

"homies from the hood"

Back to living in east side of Cleveland I see. Earlier this week it was MAGA country.

[hobie]

I WORK in the sticks (Trumpland). I LIVE in the hood. The worst of both worlds

[Bob from Ohio]

Wow, that's dumb. Plenty of cheap housing in the "sticks" here.

You should have asked for advice.

[hobie]

Dude, inner city Cleveland is the best kept secret housing market in America. I live in a freakin' mansion for $80k.The only issue is a conspicuous lack of white people. Their loss.

[Moderation4ever]

I have not seen anything like being humble about infrastructure projects. All here in Wisconsin are clearly marked as being funded by the Biden's Infrastructure Act. I suspect the area you were driving through was Republican and they burned the signs behind the city garage, rather than put them out.

[hobie]

I saw only a handful of Trump signs compared to Texas. Perhaps the orange Caligula's influence is waning. Besides, these hayseeds couldn't bother to remove the trash from their own yards.

[ducksalad]

So the orange cones and traffic jams are his fault.

[hobie]

Exactly!

[OtisAH]

Yes, as are the drivable roads and the bridges that remain standing.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Is it true that the DOJ can open an investigation on itself and then use that as a pretext to deny/reject any transparency requests from outside investigators?

[hobie]

Why not. Happens in state houses and police departments all the time

[apedad]

Which "outside investigators" would have jurisdiction over the DOJ?

[Brett Bellmore]

Congress, obviously.

They seriously need to kick the janitor's supplies out of their dungeon, and fire up the "inherent contempt" machine again.

[Michael P]

So much for colleges negotiating successful ends to occupations by pro-Hamas thugs: https://www.dailycal.org/news/campus/group-of-pro-palestine-protesters-break-in-take-over-anna-head-hall/article_6206c50e-130b-11ef-a209-2b1216039f67.html

[Don Nico]

MIT had its "thugs" block the employee parking garage yesterday until 6:00 pm

[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
right-wing bigots -- has operated
for no more than

NINE (9)

days without publishing at least
one racial slur; it has published
racial slurs on at least

TWENTY-SEVEN (27)

occasions (so far) during 2024
(that’s at least 27exchanges
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, ugly thinking,
here is something
worthwhile.

This one, similarly featuring
John Barbata, is good, too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones report:

First, a promising sound check from Las Vegas.

Next, a more complete version.

[Commenter_XY]

How about some Eagles...

[Mr. Bumble]

Look who is asserting executive privilege:
Biden asserts executive privilege over Robert Hur interview tapes.
“Because of the President’s longstanding commitment to protecting the integrity, effectiveness, and independence of the Department of Justice and its law enforcement investigations, he has decided to assert executive privilege over the recordings,” Siskel wrote Thursday.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/3006125/biden-asserts-executive-privilege-hur-tapes/

[Sarcastr0]

Has anyone on the VC said executive privilege isn't a thing?

[Noscitur a sociis]

1. I’m pretty sure they have.

2. They’ve certainly criticized specific applications when it’s transparently being deployed for politically convenient purposes. Like blocking a recording where the transcripts have already been made public.

3. Come on.

[Bored Lawyer]

# 2 -- I see you beat me to it. Credit to you for that comment. You are spot on.

[Bored Lawyer]

I forget. Can Congress seek enforcement of their subpoena in federal court? Usually in these situations, the privileged material is reviewed in camera by a judge or magistrate, who then rules on the claim of privilege.

[Sarcastr0]

Noscitur – I was unaware the transcripts had been made public.
If so then yeah, this is petty and ridiculous. And stupid.

[OtisAH]

Might be ridiculous but not sure about petty. Congress has the transcripts. MAGA only wants the recordings so they can be edited at their leisure and released.

[Zarniwoop]

I agree that exec privilege is a poor fit when the transcripts have been released.

At the same time, what's the Congressional investigative justification for the request for the recording?

Congress says "transparency", Exec Branch says "ongoing harassment". If the only reason for a position is the political valence of Congress and the Exec Branch, I start to think everyone involved is full of sheet.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Congressional investigative justification"

The mental condition of the President of the United States

[Brett Bellmore]

I would assume the use of the recording would be to confirm the accuracy of the transcripts.

You know, like the Democrats needed Trump's tax returns for legislative purposes?

[Bored Lawyer]

What privileged information will be revealed by the tapes that was not already revealed by the transcript, which was released? That’s the question.

I have had many attorney-client privileged communications in my career, and even asserted it sometimes in discovery. If I said to an adversary, you can have a transcript but not the recording, I would expect to be laughed at by any judge with a brain in his or her head.

[Commenter_XY]

BL...Do you think the DOJ will be forced to cough up the interview recording?

[Bored Lawyer]

If they seek an order from a court. They can do that, but not clear to me whether they will nor what kind of vote they need.

[Sarcastr0]

I hadn't tracked that there was a transcript; I thought it was about preserving frankness in such investigations, similar to other privilege.

If the full transcript is out, that is not the case here. I'll lay flat on this being legit - seems bad to me.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, that's refreshing.

[Voize]

The transcript I've seen was redacted. It is supposedly the same document that was released by the House Judiciary Committee Democrats. Comer and Jordan wrote a letter in March demanding unredacted transcripts and audio recordings. I presume they would indeed reveal information that the redacted transcript did not.

[David Nieporent]

Has anyone on the VC said executive privilege isn’t a thing?

I’ve expressed skepticism of the concept, but I have not said that it isn’t a thing. (What I have said isn’t a thing is executive privilege as a shield for a former president against the current president. There’s only one president at any given time.)

[ThePublius]

I've gone electric.

My gas lawn equipment is just too big for this tiny lot I now have. So, I went for a 14" battery electric mower, and matching hedge trimmer, line trimmer, and blower. They are all Worx brand, all use the same battery, 'though there are differing capacity batteries, from 2.0Ah to 4.0Ah. The mower uses two 4.0Ah batteries.

I'm hoping this makes things easier, since I won't have to mess with gas and cords.

Anyone else gone cordless for lawn gear? How is your experience with it?

[Bob from Ohio]

I have had a Black and Decker cordless lawnmower since 1997 and mostly cordless for everything else. No complaints.

[ThePublius]

Wow, 1997 - that's 27 years ago! Are the batteries still good?

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes they are. I took it in only once for a tune up.

I think its a freak its still working but I think it was US made.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've got a Ryobi cordless string trimmer. Wouldn't hold a charge long enough to get the job done until we bought an over-sized after market battery. But since that it's been fine. But our string trimming needs are pretty minimal. At least it's quiet enough I don't need hearing protection using it, unlike a gas string trimmer.

I don't think I'd go electric on the mower, I appreciate that I can just haul it out and mow the whole lawn without stopping to charge, and I already have the gas mower. I'd consider it if this one died, because I now live on a postage stamp. I used to live on 16 acres and mow 2 of them, and an electric mower would have been madness.

[ThePublius]

I hear you. I'm on a postage stamp now. My back yard is literally 13x16', and then there's the strip of grass between sidewalk and curb, and that's it! The Honda gas mower is even hard to maneuver into the back yard. 🙂

[Bob from Ohio]

"strip of grass between sidewalk and curb"

Its called a "tree lawn" in NE Ohio.

[ThePublius]

Thank you! I actually looked into it once, and there are lots of regional variations on what that's called.

Road verge, grass strip, nature strip, curb strip, and so on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_verge#:~:text=Verges%20are%20known%20by%20dozens,which%20is%20often%20quite%20regional.

Mine, and those in my region, are kind of boring. I'm considering re-doing mine with sod, as it's uneven and has weeds, etc. But then, the dogs going by will just "water" it, anyway. 🙂

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The cordless electric tools will handle that with no problem.

[ThePublius]

Yes, thanks, I think so. My results with the cordless hedge trimmer have been great.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

A couple of years before we abandoned the suburbs my old gas mower and line trimmer head unit both crapped out on me, so I took that opportunity to switch to Ryobi's 40v cordless electric versions thereof. I'm not a fan of most of Ryobi's shop tools, but their lawn stuff seemed to get pretty good reviews so I took a shot. I haven't been disappointed. Although the mower is certainly less powerful than a gas version, it does the job well enough if you have enough battery (or batteries) to handle your yard size...and don't let things get out of hand (the motor bogs down fairly quickly in really overgrown stuff). On the other hand, as far as I can discern the trimmer head works every bit as well as my gas one did. And Ryobi uses the industry standard for attachments rather than a proprietary system, so all of the attachments I already had from other manufacturers work with it, and new compatible attachments are easy to find at competitive prices.

A little over in mid-2021 we sold our suburban home and moved to a place on 2.5 acres in an unincorporated area, so needed something with a lot more capability than a push mower. I originally considered a good zero-turn mower, but ultimately went with a 24-HP subcompact tractor with a 60" mid-mounted mower deck. Think a diesel riding mower on steroids. If all I wanted to do was mow grass and weeds the zero-turn would have been the way to go, but I decided I wanted to be able to do other things as well, like roto-till a huge vegetable garden, have a front-end loader for various tasks, etc. I've since acquired a few other 3-point implements to assist with the gardening, and quickly realized that I couldn't take care of this place without it, especially at my age.

But the cordless lawn tools are still very much in use, as I still need to weed-whack and edge (in fact, do even more of both here) and the mower is needed for the spaces where I can't fit/maneuver the tractor, and they still do a fine job at their respective tasks.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I should add that since the move I've also added a leaf vac and an earth auger to the Ryobi 40v arsenal. While I had seen and read many glowing reviews about the auger's performance, I was still surprised by how well it worked when I used it to dig a bunch of 8 in wide, 2 ft deep post holes for my goat paddock. The thing has boat-loads of torque, and does an impressive amount of work on a single battery (albeit a 6 Ah battery).

[MoreCurious]

Works for me. I have a mower, leaf blower, hedge trimmer, and snow blower, all by Ryobi. No problems and no complaints. What I really need is a teenage son or daughter to do the work for me, but I guess it's too late for that.

[Magister]

Another tragedy of lowered birthrates.

"I guess it's too late for that" will be a widely useful phrase in the future.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

For me the tragedy is that both of my kids are in their 30s and have their own homes to tend to.

[Commenter_XY]

Weed whacker, auger, leaf blower, hedge trimmer are all battery operated. I am waiting for my gas powered lawnmower to die (it is 15 years old, and refuses to die, damn it).

If you have the extra batteries on hand, it is definitely better, to me.

[Harvey Mosley]

I have a battery powered mower, hedge trimmer, weed wacker, and blower, all Ego brand. I’m happy with the lack of gas cans and extension cords. One benefit is that I can pretty much get a free tool every time I buy a battery. The difference in cost between a battery and, for example, a chainsaw and a battery is negligible.

From what I can tell I've given up nothing in performance and gained in convenience. I like the fact that the lawn mower is significantly quieter and even has headlights.

[ThePublius]

"I like the fact that the lawn mower is significantly quieter and even has headlights."

Do you mow at night? 🙂

I had a neighbor who would operate his loud backpack leaf blower at night. It was disruptive! I mean, I couldn't enjoy music on my stereo, or watch TV without it disturbing me. What a jerk. He was out there with a head light thing on his head. I confronted him once and he stopped. Less jerky.

[Harvey Mosley]

Not necessarily at night, but occasionally late evenings or early mornings when the work schedule gets in the way. The mower is quiet enough that you can't hear it in our house so I know I'm not disturbing the neighbors.

[Josh R]

In the recent Sienna/Times polls which had Biden behind in six battleground states, he is polling on average 9%-points worse than the Democratic Senate candidate in the four states (WI, PA, NV, AZ) with Senate elections. But why such a disparity?

Is it Biden’s age? Do people hold Biden more accountable for inflation than they do Democrats in general? Are the Democratic candidates (Baldwin, Casey, Rosen, Gallego) appealing in their own right or the Republican candidates (Hovde, McCormick, Brown, Lake) objectionable in their own right?

[Sarcastr0]

It's nothing until after the conventions when it's actually campaign season.
Lots of people aren't terminally online and aren't paying attention right yet.

Even then, it's a sucker's bet to treat polling as a lock after 2016.

[Josh R]

Of course, polls this far out aren't as accurate as they are the day before the election (on average they miss by 8%-points this far out and 4%-points the day before a presidential election).

But, I suspect the disparity between Biden and the Democratic Senate candidates reflects either a real problem for Biden or a real problem for the Republican Senate candidates. That is as people pay more attention, is there a reason the disparity would lessen (or vanish) rather than opinion moving in concert for or against Democrats?

[Sarcastr0]

When people aren't yet locked in, numbers get more random and so none of the numbers should carry much weight no matter how you slice it.

I could be wrong, and feel free to pay attention now, if you think it's probative or even if it's just fun.

I'm not digging into these numbers yet myself, though.

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R....per the Bob from Ohio rule: Polls are trash (at this stage)

Is it Biden’s age? Do people hold Biden more accountable for inflation than they do Democrats in general? Are the Democratic candidates (Baldwin, Casey, Rosen, Gallego) appealing in their own right or the Republican candidates (Hovde, McCormick, Brown, Lake) objectionable in their own right? -- If you do not know why there is such discontent in the electorate by now, you never will.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The half-educated bigots sure seem riled by all of this damned progress.

The superstitious hayseeds seem bothered by the increasing diminution of religion in an improving America.

The disaffected rural write-offs seem unhappy about the deplorable, self-inflicted conditions afflicting the can't-keep-up backwaters they inhabit.

The un-American insurrectionists are still crabby about their failures (although you'd figure they'd be accustomed to that by now).

[Josh R]

I'm not buying that the disparity between Biden and Senate Democratic candidates is trash.

If you do not know why there is such discontent in the electorate by now, you never will.

I'm not following how your statement is relevant to my query as to the disparity between Biden and Senate Democratic candidates.

[David Nieporent]

Those same polls show that 17% of Democratic voters blame Joe Biden for Dobbs.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Plenty of ignorant people in America. Not all are Republicans, although it sometimes seems that way.

[OtisAH]

There is a not-insignificant number of Americans who believe that behind every malicious Republican act is a democrat who failed to stop them.

[Zarniwoop]

S.Ct. holds CFPB funding mechanism is constitutional, overturning unanimous 5th Cir. opinion. Thomas writes the 7-2 majority opinion.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-448_o7jp.pdf

[Sarcastr0]

Pre-founding history supports the conclusion that an identified source and purpose are all that is required for a valid appropriation. The concept of legislative appropriations grew out of the broader
struggle between Parliament and the Crown for popular control of the purse in England.

Oy.

[Zarniwoop]

The nut of Kagan's concurrence (joined by Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett):

I write separately to note that the same would have been true at any other time in our Nation’s history. “ ‘Long settled and established practice’ may have ‘great weight’ ” in interpreting constitutional provisions about the operation of government. Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U. S. 578, 592–593 (2020) (quoting The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U. S. 655, 689 (1929)); see also The Federalist No. 37, p. 229 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). And here just such a tradition supports everything the Court says about the Appropriations Clause’s meaning. The founding-era practice that the Court relates became the 19th-century practice, which became the 20th-century practice, which became today’s.

So only four votes for "we've been doing this for the last ~250 years, it's not suddenly 'unconstitutional' because the 5th Cir has a political outcome they want to achieve".

[nystateofmind]

I think there are actually 6 votes for this, but for a number of practical reasons, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Jackson did not join the concurrence. First, nobody in the majority disputed that Justice Thomas's reasoning was sufficient to dispose of this case so why cause a needlessly fractured opinion (7-2 on most, 6-3 for this) that might cause issues with lower courts following this opinion? Second, you don't go out of your way to antagonize a colleague when the outcome is not going to change. Finally, having these specific justices joining the opinion makes the bench slap of the Fifth Circuit more bipartisan (you have 2 Obama appointees and 2 Trump appointees) while keeping the Chief Justice out of it and Justice Jackson probably cared the most between her and Justice Sotomayor to pen a separate concurrence.

[apedad]

"By the time of the Constitutional Convention, it was uncontroversial that the powers to raise and disburse public money would reside in the Legislative Branch. The origins of the Appropriations Clause confirm that appropriations needed to designate particular revenues for identified purposes, but beyond that limit, early legislative bodies exercised a wide range of discretion."

It's amazing that Thomas so dearly wishes we were living in 1790.

Of course he would've probably been a slave but oh well.

[not guilty]

Clarence Thomas is still on the (Republican) plantation, "Candyland." He goes by the nom de guerre Stephen Warren.

[Sarcastr0]

"What is more, the dissent never offers a competing understanding of what the word “Appropriations” means. After winding its way through English, Colonial, and early American history about the struggle for popular control of the purse, the dissent declares that “the Appropriations Clause demands legislative control over the source and disposition of the money used to finance Government operations and projects.”
The dissent never connects its summary of history back to the word “Appropriations.”"

Good outcome, but this fight between originalists is really doing some damage to the idea that originalism is not history-flavored mush, with as bad if not worse transparency and predictability than other methods of interpretation.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It was kind of fun reading Alito mocking Thomas for “consulting a few old dictionaries” to determine the meaning of “appropriations” in the Constitution.

It was also fun reading Alito get savaged.

FWIW, I agree with J. Jackson:

Today, the Court correctly concludes that, based on the plain meaning of the text of the Appropriations Clause, “an appropriation is simply a law that authorizes expenditures from a specified source of public money for designated purposes.” Ante, at 5. The statute that Congress passed to fund the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau easily meets the Appropriations Clause’s minimal requirements. See ante, at 15. It authorizes the Bureau to withdraw money from “the combined earnings of the Federal Reserve System,” 12 U. S. C. §5497(a)(1), in order “to pay the expenses of the Bureau in carrying out its duties and respon- sibilities,” §5497(c)(1). In my view, nothing more is needed to decide this case.

[Harvey Mosley]

After reading that President Biden was concerned and distracted by his son's upcoming trial I have a suggestion for him. He should pardon both Hunter and Trump for all federal crimes.

[Zarniwoop]

Who has pardoned more of their close political associates (both before and after felony convictions) - Trump or Biden?

FFS, Trump tried to rehire convicted felon and Putin supporter Paul Manafort as a campaign aide, before even the usual sycophants decided those optics were ... not great.

[Harvey Mosley]

My thinking on this is that Biden should pardon both for personal reasons. I disagree with Biden on just about everything but if I were in a position to pardon my child for process crimes I would and that means I couldn't hold it against Biden for doing the same.

By pardoning Trump as well he gets the appearance of helping both sides. I think the political reality would actually help Biden with some voters who are against both Biden and Trump but don't like the prosecution of the opposing candidate.

I don't know. *shrug* Just some random thoughts.

[David Nieporent]

Tax evasion is a "process crime"?

[SimonP]

So North Carolina is proposing to ban face masks in public.

I realize that the MAGATs here will emphasize that this is about public security; people who engage in crimes in public shouldn't be able to use face masks and a putative concern over airborne infections to evade identification and capture. So you can miss me with that bit.

I want to point to the fact that, notwithstanding that ostensible motivation, it's also about making protesters (and, in particular, protesters in the pro-Palestinian protests) easier to identify and punish, via extra-legal means. There are plenty of pro-Israel trolls online who will doxx these protesters and try to make trouble for them at work, at school, wherever.

It also seems bound to sweep too wide, by barring mask-wearers who have legitimate reasons to wear face masks in public. The "defense" has been that there is at least an argument that the law wouldn't apply in this fashion; but what seems clear (even from this defense) is that the law by its terms would sweep too broadly. Defenders are just counting on selective and discretionary non-enforcement to avoid the over-reach problem.

These raise two concerns that I hope the resident MAGATs will at least arguably acknowledge to be a problem. First, it seems like legislation that is intended to facilitate a "cancel culture" around the pro-Palestinian protests. Second, it creates a "rule of law" problem, insofar as the law by design is expected to be enforced based on the whims and judgments of particular officers. That cancer patient walking out of a hospital with a loved one? Not a problem, despite it being apparently illegal. That other individual who is walking with a group of friends downtown? It's an offense, the law's the law!

You can also miss me with "the wokists started 'cancel culture!'" I'm no friend of leftist cancel culture, either, and I won't defend what they're doing. I'm just asking to see if MAGATs would maintain consistency on this issue.

[Nige]

The same people concerned about the global population were pretty down on efforts to reduce the spread of a highly contagious airborne virus that's gone on to kill about seven million.

[SimonP]

Well, in Brett's version of the world, we're all living in small agrarian villages in a subsistence economy, so there's no COVID epidemic in the first place.

[Bob from Ohio]

Multiple states have existing anti-mask laws originally aimed at the KKK.

[Bored Lawyer]

Stop confusing him with the facts. He has a narrative to promote.

[SimonP]

BL, if you can stop being glib for a moment, you can try to engage with the point.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Pro-tip: if you actually want engagement with the point, probably don't lead with "MAGATs"...

[SimonP]

I think you overestimate the value of receiving comments from people who are so offended by the use of the term "MAGAT" that they are moved not to respond.

When people insult me here - which happens all the time, trust - either by direct name-calling or by wasting my time with lies or bad-faith arguments, it's up to me whether I look past the insult and try to engage with some underlying point. I don't declare the conversation over just because they've failed to act with the level of deference or respect I believe I'm entitled to.

I am sufficiently confident in my abilities that I don't need to throw temper tantrums over perceived slights. People who do are not, in my view, worth engaging. So if it puts you off, good! Get bent, loser.

[SimonP]

I'm aware, Bobbie. David has been very helpful in pointing out that these laws exist and can be selectively applied to the pro-Palestinian protests, in order to enable the police to shut them down. My point is that North Carolina is proposing to add this restriction in order to enable online-mob enforcement and selective enforcement, for the same reason that David is calling on Virginians to do so.

Anyway, the fact that the laws exist, or have long existed, elsewhere, is completely irrelevant.

[Commenter_XY]

Why is it irrelevant? I would think other states having those laws is very relevant for NC to consider during their legislative process.

[SimonP]

Fucking idiots.

Look, my original comment posed the question:

Q: "North Carolina is proposing a new law for these apparent purposes. Isn't that a problem?"
A: "Well, other states have the law, too."

Are you unable to see how that response is completely irrelevant? Or are you motherfuckers just so committed to the act that you can't engage in an honest conversation, for once in your goddamned lives?

[ThePublius]

SimonP has a potty mouth.

[SimonP]

Only when pressed, Pubes.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

At a blog that habitually publishes racial slurs and an unrelenting stream of bigotry, you're upset by "potty mouth?"

You sound like a disingenuous dumbass.

[Commenter_XY]

No, I do not see how my question is irrelevant. Why shouldn't NC consider the experience of others states who already have the law (or very similar) on their books. It might be enough to dissuade the NC legislature from passing that law.

[SimonP]

There is an argument you could be making, where the other states' laws could be relevant. But you're not making it, so I'm not going to sketch it for you, and I'm not going to respond to it.

You're instead making this asinine and irrelevant point about a hypothetical rationale that the North Carolina legislators could have cited in favor of adopting the law. You're not talking about what is actually motivating these legislators, based on their public statements and responses to criticism.

I'm not talking about some kind of rational basis review to uphold the law, fuckwit. I'm talking about passing a law with the purpose of cracking down on dissent, by facilitating mob justice via "cancel culture," whose potential excesses are expected to be mitigated by discretionary and selective enforcement.

[Nige]

Well good, keep them aimed at the KKK, leave everyone else alone.

[Ed Grinberg]

Uh, wouldn't that be "selective application" (to quote SimonP above)?

[SimonP]

Nige isn't obliged to line his comments up with mine.

Anyway, I'm confident that you would understand my point, if the legislators who banned masks ostensibly in order to target KKK lawbreaking were actually more concerned about the KKK's assembling and protesting in favor of white supremacy, and were passing the law so that everyone could know who the members of the KKK were.

[Nige]

It's a law against the KKK or it isn't.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I'd have thought NC already had an anti-Klan law. In fact, yes they did. They're mostly closing some loopholes that got opened during Covid to allow people to wear their emotional support face diapers.

HOUSE BILL 237:
Unmasking Mobs and Criminals.

"OVERVIEW: The Proposed Committee Substitute (PCS) for House Bill 237 would do the following:
• Repeal the health and safety exemption from certain laws prohibiting the wearing of masks in public.
• Enhance the criminal punishment if the defendant wears a mask to conceal the defendant's identity during the commission of another crime.
• Prevent the executive branch or local governments from distinguishing between religious institutions and other entities during an emergency.
• Impose criminal and civil liability on individuals who obstruct emergency vehicles during demonstrations."

Most of this seems reasonable, but I've got a niece who's had a bone marrow transplant after successful treatment for leukemia, and she actually DOES need to wear a mask in public, because she's immune compromised. 99% of the masks you see people wearing are just emotional support face diapers, but there are some people with a genuine need for face masks.

They could have just required a doctor's order to do it legally, and I'd have been good with the whole bill.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Yes, Brett - everything the government does is authoritarian bullshit - but he's okay with having to get permission (with a doctor's note!) to wear a piece of cloth on your head?

This has been another episode in "Don't tread on me, but please lie down while I tread on you."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Faux libertarians are among my favorite culture war casualties.

I will try not to enjoy it too much when these disingenuous clingers are begging the culture war's victors for magnanimity and leniency.

[Nige]

'to allow people to wear their emotional support face diapers.'

How many people just utterly trashed their integrity and sense of the public good to adhere to MAGA bullshit? Here's one.

'99% of the masks you see people wearing are just emotional support face diapers,'

Ironically, 'emotional support face diapers' is an emotional support phrase for assholes, especially those who say it in exactly the same breath as admitting that they work and people wear them for good reasons.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Yes, this from the allegedly 155 IQ guy who hates feels. If only this was intentional parody, it would be hilarious.

[SimonP]

Brett – are you familiar with pollen?

This season, in NYC, it’s been especially bad. A lot of people donning masks in public are doing so because they’re allergic, or they just dislike inhaling pollen (which can make breathing uncomfortable and trigger coughing fits). People also wear masks when entering the subway (due to subway pollution), have in the past worn masks during the wildfire haze days, or otherwise prefer whatever minor health benefits wearing masks in the city can provide.

There are also some people in NYC (i.e., women) who wear masks in order to avoid engaging with strangers whose advances might not be welcome.

Doctor’s notes required, for all of that?

[Nige]

No! Masks not for personal health! Masks now political culture war marker! Masks bad! Defunct! No good! Against the law!

[Ed Grinberg]

re: "MAGATs"
Fuck you, asshole!

re: cancel culture - consistency
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/11/03/nate-silvers-free-speech-is-in-trouble/?comments=true#comment-10303111

[Nige]

Are you, a *Trump* supporter, mad because someone came up with a mean name for Trump supporters?

[NOVA Lawyer]

The irony is strong in this one.

[Harvey Mosley]

In a related situation, California has a law against carrying a gun in public while wearing a mask. Durid Covid, California required masks in nearly every public setting. When those of us with CCWs pointed out the fact that we would have to choose between breaking the law against masks while armed, violating the "not really just guidelines" requiring wearing a mask, or going unarmed we were told "no one is going to enforce that law" and we just had to take it on faith.

I guess if NC passes their law we will just have to take it on faith that it won't be used for nefarious purposes.

[SimonP]

In another comment, Brett calls face masks "emotional support face diapers."

Carrying a gun in public, in contexts where a mask would typically be required, seems like a similar "emotional support" tool.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Brett Bellmore is an antisocial, bigoted, autistic right-wing misfit. His comments should always be considered in that context.

[Nige]

Huh. In that context, masks must have saved way more lives and protected the personal health of way more people than privately-owned guns in the last few years.

[Noscitur a sociis]

North Carolina is not, in fact proposing to add this restriction: it already has anti-masking laws:

No person or persons at least 16 years of age shall, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, be or appear upon any lane, walkway, alley, street, road, highway or other public way in this State.

No person or persons shall in this State, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the State, or of the State of North Carolina.

All persons violating any of the provisions of this Article ... shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 14-12.7, 8, and 15.

Maybe it would be more productive to look at what the bill actually does before commenting on it? (I recognize that your interlocutors didn't really do that either.)

[SimonP]

Don't worry, Brett added that context. I acknowledge that the legislators are actually removing a "health" exception to the general anti-masking law you've cited, an exception that was originally passed to permit mask-wearing during the height of COVID.

That doesn't make a difference to the actual point I'm making, but thanks for stopping by anyway.

[Gasman]

Why are you wearing a mask; were you burned by acid or something?
Oh no, it's just that they're terribly comfortable. I think everyone will be wearing them in the future.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It is reported that Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Hooterville) accompanied defendant Trump to court today. Will we get video of her groping whichever male is seated closest to her?

[Moderation4ever]

I think it would be a waste of time. Stormy had sex with Trump and still did not get the Apprentice gig. A simple grope not going to be enough.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why discount the prospect she'd be doing it for reasons other than just kissing Trump's ass?

Maybe it's just her "family values" and "Christian conservative" servant leadership and example.

[hobie]

I'd pay Boebert $50 to fondle me. You think she'd accept?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I'd make it 50-50.

[ThePublius]

"(R-Hooterville)"

That's actually pretty fun, Rev. 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It seemed apt in more ways that one.

[Commenter_XY]

It was a pretty good one, Arthur.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Many readers may be unfamiliar with Hooterville (in one sense). Here is a refresher.

Here's another angle.

(Did I read that Boebert moved from Hooterville to Mayberry R.F.D. because she figured she had overstayed her welcome in Hooterville? Did she alienate her constituents by getting caught with an associates degree, showing up in a (relatively) new car, or drinking a Bud Light?)

[Balisane]

The Democrats are now cheering the stock market as proof that Bidenomics works.

Funny now that they're the party of the rich.

[Nige]

Is this just your way of saying the stock market is doing well under Biden?

[Balisane]

No. It’s my way of saying that the stock market no longer has any connection to the economy. It’s purely a gambling casino for the rich (the top 5% own nearly all of the stocks in America). Whether or not it does well is based on whether “investors” think the Fed is going to print more money for the Wall Street banksters.

And to be clear, I said the same thing when the idiot Trump was bragging about stocks on Twitter.

[Nige]

Don't disagree, actually.

[Balisane]

Mark the day!

[Nige]

Historic!

[Jmaie]

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/08/who-has-retirement-accounts.html#:~:text=Among%20working-age%20individuals%20%28ages%2015%20to%2064%29%2C%20the,13.5%25%20had%20a%20defined-benefit%20or%20cash%20balance%20plan.

A little over half of working age individuals have either 401k plans or IRA's. The rich may own 95% of all stocks but there's a lot of us jumping in as well.

Not that I disagree with you, comments from random Fed governors have far more influence than do inconsequential things like "profit."

[Balisane]

Sure, half of people have 401Ks, but the average balance (not median) is like $80,000 or something. The average American is not positively or negatively affected in a material sense by gyrations in the stock market. The rich are.

[Michael P]

https://www.fool.com/retirement/plans/401k/average-balance-by-age/ says the average 401(k) balance is more like $112,572.

[Balisane]

Fine. My point still stands.

[SimonP]

The Democrats have always claimed that their policies "lifted all boats." Biden's economic message has been to build the economy from the "middle out," which means bolstering the middle class so that people who work hard can make a real life for themselves, but it also means benefiting all. Biden has repeatedly affirmed his belief that wealthy people deserve the success they've earned, as have many other national Democrats. They just think the rich should pay their "fair share."

The difference between the two top-of-the-ticket candidates is that one is publicly proposing to increase taxes on the nation's wealthiest individuals and corporations, while the other one sits behind closed doors at his resort-as-residence proposing an explicit policy quid pro quo in exchange for his rich donors raising $1 billion to support his campaign.

[Balisane]

We don't need to raise taxes on the "rich." We need rational monetary and fiscal policies such that we don't have enormous asset bubbles, which benefit the rich

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>Biden has repeatedly affirmed his belief that wealthy people deserve the success they’ve earned, as have many other national Democrats. They just think the rich should pay their “fair share.”

Empirically, what are the results of their policies? What does the data say on the wealth gap?

Narrowing under Democrats? Or widening to record proportions?

But who cares about empiricism!?!? We got a dogmatic belief in the pureness and truthfulness of what politicians say to uphold!

I bet you are one of those guys who says “But the bill’s title was Inflation REDUCTION Act, so of course that’s what it does!!”…

[SimonP]

Empirically, what are the results of their policies? What does the data say on the wealth gap?

So is your argument: Democrats claim to care about wealth inequality, but don't do much to solve it; while Republicans just don't give a shit about wealth inequality. Thus, Democrats are the party of the rich!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Wrong. My argument is
"why the hell do you believe what these people say when you can see with your own eyes they are lying to you"

I mean, you can see with your own eyes that Democrat policies in the real world, aka applied Democrat ideology, makes the rich much much richer. But you still tried to present them as some noble creatures because they whisper sweet nothings about vengeance and envy in your ear.

[SimonP]

Democrats are not the party of vengeance and envy. That's Trump and company. A policy platform based on "retribution," claiming to "take America back," attacking the coastal elites and higher education and media, and on and on.

I mean - it's even empirical. You look at Trump's biggest supporters, who are they? They're a generation of middle-aged white men from parts of the country that have been left behind by the modern American economy. They're insanely envious, which they're channeling into a political movement centered on simply punishing the "winners" of this economy.

I absolutely agree that Democrats listen too much to their big-money donors, tend to gravitate to consensus positions as a party that just serve those donors, and they're properly to be criticized when they don't deliver the results they promise. Hell, that's why they're losing support in the Black and hispanic communities, this basic problem of delivering. I don't exalt them by any means.

I just prefer their approach to doing things to the one the kleptocrats running the Republican party are trying to install.

[Balisane]

Middle class Americans of all colors have not been "left behind." Conscious decisions were made to hurt them.

[Nige]

That's been going on since Reagan, though.

[Balisane]

Agree, and possibly even as far back as Nixon.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It's been going on since FDR, the unconstitutional (allegedly) income tax, and Wickard.

[David Nieporent]

Middle class Americans have been continually getting better off this entire time.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>I mean – it’s even empirical.

The words the politicians say are empirical, yes. The actions politicians take are empirical, yes. The characterizations of one politicians words by an adversary are also empirical.

The politicians words reflecting the actions politicians take is not empirical as it cannot be observed.

The Democrats characterizations of the Republicans reflecting the actions Republicans take is not empirical as it cannot be observed.

>They’re insanely envious, which they’re channeling into a political movement centered on simply punishing the “winners” of this economy.

You mean like with wealth taxes and 100% income taxes? Or vilifying them and blaming them for your policy failures?

>I just prefer their approach to doing things to the one the kleptocrats running the Republican party are trying to install.

You mean you prefer the approach the Democrats say they will do over the approach the Democrats say the Republicans will do.

Reality doesn't square with any of these politicians words.

[Don Nico]

MIT students can do more than demonstrate for Hamas.
CNN reports that "Two former MIT students charged with stealing $25 million of crypto in 12 seconds .....Federal prosecutors in Manhattan called the scheme perpetrated by Anton Peraire-Bueno, 24, and James Peraire-Bueno, 28, “novel” and said the case marked the first time that such a fraud had ever been the subject of U.S. criminal charges. "

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Can you do anything other than shill for a bunch of superstition-driven, immoral, war-criming right-wing assholes and terrorists?

What draws you to those low-lifes? The violent right-wing belligerence? The childish superstition? Both?

Carry on, clinger. So far as your betters permit.

[Commenter_XY]

My, my....what are they teaching them at MIT. 🙂

[Magister]

In this case, not how to get away with it, I guess.

[ThePublius]

Robert Reich

Does anyone else think he's an unhinged cuckoo? I subscribe to his email blasts, but can't comment on his blog as that requires a paid subscription. I subscribed just to keep track of what the "other side" is thinking.

He's suffering from intense TDS, among other things. Among the things in today's newsletter:

"Which brings us to Trump himself. I don’t care that he had extramarital affairs. But when a presidential candidate tells his fixer to buy off someone — “Just take care of it” — so the public doesn’t get information before an election about a candidate that they might find relevant to evaluating him, it undermines democracy."

What? Undermines democracy? What the heck is this guy thinking?

[Brett Bellmore]

The attack Yorkie has been nuts for as long as I've been aware of him.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He's nuts and short.

You're an autistic, worthless bigot.

Everyone has problems.

[Nige]

I agree he’s overstating it on this particular example. People voting for a guy who routinely suppresses information about himself he doesn’t want public, on the other hand, people thinking no, that’s cool and proper behaviour? That’s not great for democracy. But they're already voting for a guy who tried to illegally overturn an election using fraud and threats and massive endless lies, so democracy isn't really a factor for them any more.

[SimonP]

I think he's hyping up the New York criminal case because it might be the only one that concludes before the election.

Personally, I don't buy it. I don't think it much matters if our president is lousy in bed and kind of gross sexually. If a candidate wants to pay someone to keep quiet about their lousy sex, then it's his money, it's a free country.

If he does that to help his own campaign, and then falsifies business records in order to obscure what he's doing - if it's a crime, then it's a crime, whatever. It's a dumb decision to hide some lousy sex, like lying under oath over a blowjob. Some may view it as disqualifying, even impeachable conduct. But personally, it's not something I'm fuming over.

There are other Trump indictments that are a little more outrageous, in my view, like stealing classified documents he was entrusted with, for personal reasons not yet explained, or engaging in a criminal conspiracy to subvert the will of the people.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Whenever I read one of his syndicated articles I get the feeling that he's either dumbing everything down to an almost absurd degree...or he's really not that smart.

[ThePublius]

Let's talk about hamburgers. I always think of them as a quintessential American dish, but I imagine they are international in appeal. I love finding old hamburger joints and going back in time. I recently found "Stanley's Famous Burgers" in Central Falls, RI.

http://www.stanleyshamburgers.com/

It was like going back in time, going there, and enjoying their burgers. Sat at the counter, of course, and had burgers and fries and a shake. Classic.

BTW, Rhode Island seems to have a lot of these "stuck in time" kind of places.

Anyone else? Favorite burgers, or burger joints? Any other White Castle aficionados?

[Don Nico]

In Rhode Island, a shake is called a cabinett.

[ThePublius]

Oh, really? Wow, didn't know that. I'm pretty close to RI now, I should investigate. 🙂

[ThePublius]

Here's what I found out:

"A coffee cabinet is an ice cream-based milkshake found almost exclusively in Rhode Island consisting of coffee ice cream, coffee syrup, and milk. The ingredients are mixed in a drink blender or milkshake blender.[1]"

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

[Mr. Bumble]

Coffee syrup seemed to be a New England thing. When I was a kid spending time at my grandparents in CT I got hooked on Coffee Time and milk. No Bosco for me.

https://newengland.com/yankee/history/coffee-milk/

[Brett Bellmore]

I ate at White Castle once, to see what the fuss was all about, but I really found their burger too small to be satisfying, and wasn't at all happy about the strange looks the staff gave me when I ordered just one.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

but I really found their burger too small to be satisfying, and wasn’t at all happy about the strange looks the staff gave me when I ordered just one

Eating a single WC burger is like the Spanish Inquisition. Nobody expects it.

[Mr. Bumble]

They're not called sliders for nothing. You buy them by the bagful.

[ThePublius]

I think the expression is "sack full." Sack o' burgers. 🙂

[ThePublius]

I like White Castle. It might just be sentimental, i.e., comfort food from the Bronx. But, geez, you have to have at least four! I remember when they were a dime. 🙂

Best burger I've had in recent memory was at the Civic Kitchen and Drink, which is the bar and restaurant at the Westborough, MA Country Club, a town-owned 9 hole golf course. I lived 2 miles from there. Mondays were half-priced burger nights, and man, it was a superb, gourmet burger on a brioche bun. Half price was $9. I miss that. I know, it's tough to explain, and impossible to reproduce, but just great ground beef, about 1/3 pound, grilled with a nice "crust" sear, and medium rare, nice toppings...oh, man. So good.

[ducksalad]

See no merit in White Castle. Haven’t been to a real one in maybe 50 years but occasionally get served that style (small, thin, steamed rather than grilled, damp soft bread) and it doesn’t do it for me.

I also think In-and-Out is overrated. Not that there’s anything very wrong with it, good (but smallish) burgers executed competently, just can’t see what all the fuss is about.

Recommendations for burgers in Texas:
DFW – Airline Burgers in Arlington within sight of the Cowboys stadium.
Austin – G&M Steakhouse, despite the name it’s primarily a burger and fries place. But haven’t been there in decades and it’s a new owner, so who knows.
Rio Grande Valley – Starlight Burger AKA Megachicken.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

When I lived in Texas, some of the memorable spots were Bert's Bar-B-Q (which once, as I understand it, burned to the ground because the fire department delayed response, figuring "that's just Bert, smokin' up some clod"); the Iron Works (beef ribs); Dan's Hamburgers; and Threadgill's ("homestyle" fare).

I was at Chuy's on opening night. It seems to have done well since then.

Venturing a bit, the Kreuz Market was well worth a short drive from Austin.

[ducksalad]

If you're driving as far as Kreuz in Lockhart, I'd say go to Black's instead.

But I'm about to give up BBQ. Went to Willie B's in Edinburg on Tuesday, asked for 1/2 pound of brisket and four ribs, no sides, and a lemonade. It came to $41 before the tip. Ate boiled turnips at home for two days to make up for it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I know nothing about Black's. (Most of my time in Austin was four decades ago.)

[ducksalad]

We may have overlapped, I was in the area 1977-1994. If you’re the guy that stole my bicycle I forgive you. If you’re the guy that stole the spare tire from under my pickup, which I didn’t discover until I really needed it, we’ve got a score to settle.

[hobie]

Our go-to burger chain in Texas is Whataburger: large burger, tons of chopped sweet mild onion, mustard, pillowy bun. You get enough of it as a kid and you're hooked. Similar to Dairy Queen's

[ducksalad]

It's the best of the large chains with drive ups.

[ThePublius]

One of the best chains, maybe THE BEST chain for burgers, is Fudruckers. I walked into one in Sunrise, FL and they had a glass cased room with sides of beef hanging up, from which they ground the meat for burgers. Superb!

[hobie]

In Texas they have almost all closed

[ThePublius]

Oh, that's too bad! I loved that place. I used to go to FL on business regularly, and always went there for a burger and a shake.

[Mr. Bumble]

Next time, hot dogs.

[Brett Bellmore]

We have one not far from here.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I'm normally in the "The civilized way to counter speech you disagree with is with more speech" camp, but sometimes that's not applicable, and what's really called for is a good old-fashioned severe ass-kicking.

https://twitter.com/KatieDaviscourt/status/1790945222970716203

[Sarcastr0]

From the Post Millenial official photographer,
"#BREAKING: Antifa militants armed with weapons harass and assault press at @UW Gaza camp.
They shined green lasers in his eyes which can cause permanent blindness"

"I captured the lead up to the laser assault.
Antifa emerged from their tents to target this photojournalist like a pack of wildebeests—No press allowed at Gaza camp."

"Antifa is staying in tents at @UW Gaza camp and they are running security.

I found out which tents they are staying in."
"I walked through UW Gaza camp and you will never guess what they are building….more to come tomorrow "

No word how she figured out they were Antifa. Or how much she knows about wildebeests.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Antifa isn't an official registered organization licensed anywhere so they don't even exist!

They're like Bigfoot! People claim to see them everywhere but there's no proof because they aren't chartered or licensed by any official government entity!

Because only then will they manifest in the universe, before then they are just fevered dreams of conspiracy whackos!!

[Sarcastr0]

Here is what I said: "No word how she figured out they were Antifa."

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

What about all those times you argued essentially what I was parodying?

Do those not count?

[David Nieporent]

Nobody argued essentially what you were parodying. I have said many times that antifa is not an organization. Not that it's not an "officially registered" organization, but that it isn't an organization at all. It's just a label that loons use. (Yes, you.)

That does not mean that there aren't left wing/anarchist activists out there that engage in concerted activity from time to time. But they're just random people, not part of some organization or conspiracy. It's like the difference between you being a white supremacist and you being a member of the Klan.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It’s just a label that loons use. (Yes, you.)

It's not a label that someone else applied/applies to them. They use for themselves, you moron. They even have a logo that they routinely display on flags at protests/riots.

https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/e58c3b83f5fd4b92bc3fa12a4406da6e_18.jpeg
https://i2.wp.com/revealnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Y5I5110.jpg
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/los-angeles-california-usa-may-600nw-1975350932.jpg

And on, and on, and on.....

[Nige]

You're not disagreeing, though.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Congress has found Merrick Garland in contempt for ignoring their lawful subpoena's.

Will Merrick service jail time like Navarro and Bannon?

[Sarcastr0]

This is wrong, but you do you.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I like how you didn't demonstrate my wrongness, only asserted it.

As if your words had so much weight and gravitas, that's all that is needed.

[Sarcastr0]

You aren't worth really engaging.

But yeah, you're wrong.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Klassic SarKastr0 Kibitz

[apedad]

Fine Jesus, you want somebody to prove your wrongness?

On Thursday, two House Committees (House Oversight Committee and House Judiciary Committee), advanced resolutions to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress.

House committees are not "Congress."

The House is not "Congress."

Why you insisted that someone describe your error is puzzling.

[Bored Lawyer]

Just saw this Bill Maher clip. I don't always agree with him, but for a liberal he is sane. This one is hilarious, especially at the very end.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uN724ztjoxc

[Sarcastr0]

"Bill Maher Subtly DEFENDS Trump, SLAMMING Agitative Media. #shorts #short"

For a liberal, Bill Maher is not very liberal these days.
Happens with all the post-left from Tim Pool to Glen Greenwald to Brandi Weiss and now Bill Maher - people try to use them to say 'even the left thinks (some very right-wing thing)'.

Naw, dude, they aren't 'sane for liberals' they now have jobs sayin 'as a liberal, the left is bad.' And you are the audience for that grift.

[Bob from Ohio]

Heretics!

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, that's what I said, Bob. Good reedin'.

[Nige]

Heretic.

https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/15/texas-granbury-isd-school-board-courtney-gore/

[Commenter_XY]

WTF is 'post-Left'? That is a new one.

[Bored Lawyer]

Maybe try watching the clip. It’s clear Maher has little use for Trump. He just doesn’t think the world will come to an end if Trump is elected, and that Trump’s past performance is indicative of what will happen.
And the point of Maher is not that liberals think some right wing things, it’s that he recognizes that the left in this country has gone off the rails and is in loony territory. Hubert Humphrey would not recognize today’s Democratic party. (I don’t mean the donkey, I mean it’s positions.)
And, of couse, Maher is actually funny. The last line about being hit with a Boeing door is hardly right wing, but I was laughing out loud.

[Sarcastr0]

Nah, Maher rubs me the wrong way. I got what I need from that headline.

My point is only your 'but for a liberal' prefix is the product he's selling, and you're buying.

[Nige]

‘it’s that he recognizes that the left in this country has gone off the rails and is in loony territory.’

Yeah he’s gone back to the eighties with his ‘I’m so edgy and anti-PC’ schtick. Surprised the joke wasn't about being hit with a Boeing in-flight meal.

[David Nieporent]

[Maher] just doesn’t think the world will come to an end if Trump is elected,

Here's the thing, though: even if Trump is elected and the worst-case predictions of anti-Trump people come to pass, the world won't come to an end for him. Unless Trump starts a nuclear war, which doesn't seem likely, Maher will be fine. It's a lot easier to shrug when you yourself don't have anything on the line.

And, of couse, Maher is actually funny.

Was this post of yours stuck in the ether for a quarter century, and just made it out now? Maher hasn't even tried to be funny in decades, let alone succeeding. He goes for clapter, not humor.

[M L]

For whom will the world end if Trump is elected?

[Martinned2]

Well, how about these people? https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/05/17/putin-says-no-plans-to-take-kharkiv-blames-ukraine-for-new-offensive-a85152

[Sarcastr0]

DMN said "the worst-case predictions of anti-Trump people come to pass."

You left that off your question here.

What a bad faith reading of his comment.

[M L]

That part is implied, obviously.

In the next sentence, DMN acknowledges that some of the worst-case predictions of anti-Trump people that Maher discusses here would, in fact, affect Maher, but dismisses it because it “doesn’t seem likely.”

So, rephrasing the question for those of you who struggle with comprehension:

For whom will the world end if (a) Trump is elected, and (b) the worst-case predictions deemed sufficiently likely by DMN come to pass?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why don't you engage with the comments instead of trying to pick fights, Sarcastro?

[Harvey Mosley]

In a related situation, California has a law against carrying a gun in public while wearing a mask. Durid Covid, California required masks in nearly every public setting. When those of us with CCWs pointed out the fact that we would have to choose between breaking the law against masks while armed, violating the "not really just guidelines" requiring wearing a mask, or going unarmed we were told "no one is going to enforce that law" and we just had to take it on faith.

I guess if NC passes their law we will just have to take it on faith that it won't be used for nefarious purposes.

[hobie]

For 50 years I've managed to walk around in society without a gun and not freak out for having done so. You'll be alright, bro. The fact that you still have the red ass over this four years later could infer a pathology you might want to have checked out.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

One can tell that your comment is clever because you act like it’s ok to criminalize a constitutional right simply because it isn’t one you care about.

If your audience was composed entirely of middle-schoolers, I’m sure you would have received an applause.

[hobie]

I also haven't personally panicked that I cannot recite Muslim prayers in middle school or yell 'fire' in a courtroom. Just because we cannot have our favorite toys or ambitions every single place on earth all of the time doesn't make me mad. Other people live on this planet apart from you

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Rather than rethink your position when confronted with the fact that your argument boils down to "What Constitution?," you instead double-down on stupidity.

Remarkable.

[OtisAH]

Apparently the NC law has a carve-out for The Proud Boys and other similar sorts of “protestors.” I don’t know you so I won’t speculate whether that soothes your particular concerns.

[John F. Carr]

Local officials make similar assurances about traffic regulation. The no parking rule won't be enforced when it would inconvenience residents. The new speed limit for bicycles won't be enforced but we can't not have a speed limit.

[ThePublius]

David Sanborn passed away May 12th. R.I.P. Great saxophonist.

https://www.davidsanborn.com/

I have just recently taken up saxophone in my retirement. I've played guitar since I was a kid, including a 6 or so year stint of classical guitar. Sax is not easy or trivial, by any means. Having started on it I have new appreciation for sax artists. It's not just "blow in here, push a button, and a note comes out," by any means!

I'm listening to Paul Desmond right now, who played with Dave Brubeck, and wrote Take Five, by the way!

[Dan Schiavetta]

Want to relax?
Hear jazz sax.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"How does sex matter in our everyday lives? And how should it be reflected in law and policy?"

It seems like an important question is whether distinctions based on self-identification ever have a place in law and policy. If the law is going to classify people, there needs to be a public purpose, and it's hard to see a public purpose in classifying people based on how they see themselves.

So there can't be a rational basis for gender-based classifications, to the extent that gender is based on self-identification.

[TwelveInchPianist]

oops.