Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

Trump to hold rally in Bronx. What kind of crowd will it draw? (both in numbers and in make-up)

[Kazinski]

He's not going to win in NY obviously, but the latest NYT-Sienna poll shows him down only 10 points, he lost in 2020 by 20 points in NY.

NH shows why Trump shouldn't write off anywhere, he's tied there and the last time a Republican won the state was in 2000.

“In comparison to exit polls from the 2020 presidential election, independent/undeclared voters in New Hampshire demonstrate significantly lower support for Biden, as Biden won around 60 percent of these voters in 2020, compared to around a quarter if the election were held today.”

Biden is struggling in the polls in several states Democrats have done well in for years. The latest numbers show Biden and Trump in a close race for Minnesota, which hasn’t backed a GOP presidential candidate since President Richard Nixon’s 1972 49-state landslide."

Of course there could be some unique factors at play in NH:
"Some Granite State political pros speculated that Biden’s weakness with swing or undeclared voters may be in part from his decision to dump the First in the Nation primary and his criticism of the Granite State as not diverse enough to be allowed to hold the Democrats’ first primary.

“He spent months insulting New Hampshire, and he wonders why he’s got a problem,” one Granite State Democrat and Biden supporter told NHJournal on background. “Politically active people, our party base, we understand the big picture, but the average voter thinks he was just being a jerk to us.”
https://nhjournal.com/shock-poll-trump-tied-with-biden-in-solid-blue-new-hampshire/

[David Nieporent]

NH shows why Trump shouldn’t write off anywhere, he’s tied there and the last time a Republican won the state was in 2000.

Biden is struggling in the polls. generally But, no, he is not tied in New Hampshire. That's not the way polls work. One outlier poll — and that one is a vast outlier — does not define the state of the race in a given state. There have been many polls, all of which show Biden with a beyond-the-MOE lead.

Moreover, that poll shows the race as 37-37-15 (RFK), which (a) we know won't happen because third parties always poll much better in May than in November; and (b) is missing a ton of voters even if RFK were going to get 15%. "None of these" is not going to get 12% of the vote in November. Also notably, this poll is of RV rather than LV.

[Commenter_XY]

Per Bob from Ohio...At this stage, polls are trash.

(now you can enjoy the day and not worry about it) 🙂

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that individual polls — whether in May or in November — are trash. If you want to know the state of public opinion on something, you need to look at polling aggregates, not individual results.

[Commenter_XY]

Agree = One should see the aggregate

[Bwaaah]

One should see the aggregate for what insight there may be in polls at this time, and then recognized that they are still, in some significant measure, trash.

[Kazinski]

Its not that far of an outlier, the last poll a month ago sampling few voters, showed Biden was only up by 6.

That puts NH in the tossup category. after all Georgia is still considered a toss up, even though there hasn't been a poll since March where Trump hasn't led by at least 3.

But you are right about outliers, the last Bloomberg poll in Nevada had it tied (459 RV moe 5), while the last NYT-Sienna poll had Trump up by 13 (614 LV Moe 4.5). I doubt likely v registered voters could explain that divergence.

[ThePublius]

NH was wrecked by liberals from Massachusetts moving to southern NH and bringing their politics with them.

[Brophy]

People in NH who commute to MA are subjected to Democratic propaganda all day long for years and only hear Republican propaganda when they're at home at night watching Fox News. The result is that NH has become Democratic.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Most people in NH work in Boston, they're driving 80-100 miles a day. Throw in utility & heating bills -- energy costs are a real issue.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

We are producing more oil and gas than any nation in history…energy hasn’t been expensive for over a year. Or do you believe energy companies should pay you to burn their natural gas like they did in March 2020??

[ThePublius]

Gasoline is about 50% higher now that it was when Trump left office. Natural gas is up. Electricity is up. What are you talking about?

[Frank Drackman]

Depends on what you think "Expensive" is. A 16ox Beer for $10.50 at Fenway Park works out to $84/gallon. My Double Old Fashioned at JFK is even worse. (only worse thing is experiencing JFK sober)

Frank

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Ok, hopefully energy companies will soon go bankrupt like they did in 2020 and pay you to burn their fuel.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Most people in NH work in Boston”

Lol where do you come up with this stuff. That makes no sense at all.

[David Nieporent]

Most people in NH do not work in Boston.

Actual data: https://www.nhes.nh.gov/elmi/products/documents/ec-0220.pdf

In 2017, 636,746 New Hampshire residents
commuted to work for their primary job, with 123,513 of those resident jobholders leaving the state.

So that's about 20% of workers — 10% of NH residents — who work out of state. Not all of them in Massachusetts, let alone Boston.

And that's pre-pandemic; a significant portion of those people likely WFH now.

[bernard11]

There are also such things as trains and buses.

[Estragon]

“Most people in NH work in Boston”

I don’t make stuff up!!

[Joe_dallas]

My recollection of one of those recent polls showing Trump ahead by 3-5 points in the 5 or 6 battleground states (Penn, AZ,MI, Wi, ?) also had the Dem senate candidate up by 5-8 points. Those poll numbers translate into a 8-12 point difference between the Democrat President candidate and the democrat senate candidate.
Its rare that the difference is every more that 2-3 points which indicates that the poll results favoring Trump in those states is likely to be overstated.

[Brett Bellmore]

Or that Biden is personally having trouble holding onto some segments of the Democratic base.

[Joe_dallas]

I agree that biden is having trouble holding some segments of the base and/or independents which explains the very large spread. I just dont think that spread between the dem president nominee and the dem senate nominee will hold at the end. I dont recall a spread of more than 2-4 points in the last few decades.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I agree that it's probably a lot easier for a long time Democratic voter to say that they'll split their ticket, than to actually do so, I'd expect at least some of that to hold up. He's going to under perform other Democrats.

[Kazinski]

Jonathan Chiat, the longtime liberal columnist points out in most of the Battleground ground states with senate races than the senate candidate is doing much better than Biden.

His conclusion is that the issue is Biden:

"The point here is that Democrats have a Joe Biden problem, not a partywide problem. Regular, mainstream Democratic candidates are holding up just fine in the purple states."

I live in Arizona, and I'm not surprised that Trump is up by 5 and Kari Lake is down by 10. She's a terrible candidate.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/no-your-pet-issue-is-not-making-biden-lose/ar-BB1mjFGW?ocid=BingNewsSerp

[Balisane]

New Hampshire is being ruined by worthless leftists from Massachusetts escaping their policies. Democrats should be prohibited from moving to red states, period.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Don’t you have to be in the court in five minutes to issue opinions? Better get going!

[Balisane]

Have you ever been inside of a courtroom other than as a defendant?

[bernard11]

“Some Granite State political pros speculated that Biden’s weakness with swing or undeclared voters may be in part from his decision to dump the First in the Nation primary and his criticism of the Granite State as not diverse enough to be allowed to hold the Democrats’ first primary.

Really? That's what these alleged "pros" think? Sounds like the dumbest reason in the world to change your vote from Biden to Trump. Besides, the whole kerfuffle will be long forgotten by the election.

First, I'd like the reporter, or a non-anonymous pro, to identify ten voters who are going to do this.

Second, I very much suspect that this is just space-filler provided by some pol or outright manufactured by the reporter.

If Trump does carry NH, it won't have anything to do with this.

[Brett Bellmore]

The truth is, in majority Democratic areas, where the Republican candidates are hilariously doomed, there are usually SOME Republicans, and they're really starved for a chance to do something with other Republicans, besides carefully refrain from having yard signs and bumper stickers so that their homes don't get firebombed.

So, give them a chance to go to a rally, they show up. Doesn't mean the Republican candidates aren't doomed, though.

The election isn't won in the rallies, it's won at the polls, and meh votes count just as much as enthusiastic votes.

[ThePublius]

I grew up in the Bronx. I know the demographics have changed quite a bit in the 42 years since I left. But there was always a huge silent majority there. It's a working class borough, and those people, regardless of country of origin, ethnicity, culture, and so on, still work and pay their bills, and go food shopping, and so on. I would not at all be surprised by Trump filling the Crotona Park venue hours before he appears (capacity is only 3,500), and for there to be large crowds outside. Plus, he's been doing a good campaigning job in NY with this trial going on.

It's sickening that most of the mainstream media coverage is about the Dem counterprotests anticipated (or planned) against "the enemy" Donald Trump.

I expect violence, precipitated by the counter protesters.

[Balisane]

The Bronx is 95% black and Hispanic. It doesn't matter how bad Biden is, racial solidarity comes first to these people.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/02/08/poll-black-and-hispanic-voters-fleeing-democratic-party-in-growing-numbers/

[Balisane]

Yeah, the "growing numbers" meaning the 95% will drop to 92%

Every election cycle, we hear about how blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, and anyone who is not a white Christian are fleeing the Democratic Party.

They never do.

[Brett Bellmore]

That does matter for Presidential elections, though, because what matters are the state-wide totals. Well, in almost every state.

So even votes gained in areas you have no hope of carrying matter.

[Balisane]

I agree on that, it can make a difference in the swing states, but the idea that the 80-95% bloc voting you see from these groups is going to drop to 50/50 is a fantasy.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's certainly not going to happen in one election cycle. Maybe in five or six.

The challenge for Republicans is to get a lot of blacks past reflexive Democratic voting, and to start genuinely comparing party positions.

At present it doesn't really matter if the GOP has a position on an issue that's more attractive to black voters than the Democratic position: Most black voters just attribute the policies they like to the Democrats regardless of what the reality is.

If they can get them out of that mindset and actually looking at where the parties stand on the issues, some significant fraction of blacks are going to jump ship, and the Democratic party actually needs to get most black votes in order to win elections.

[Joe_dallas]

I am involved the competitive cycling community which has a fairly large hispanic contingent in my region of the country. My typical saturday ride is about 2/3 hispanic. We rarely discuss politics, though what few comments that come out are almost always pro republican.

based on my observation, the gravitation to the republican party by hispanics is probably much deeper than reported.

[Bwaaah]

The Bronx is around 57% "Hispanic," which isn't even a race. "Black" pans out at 28%, which gives a total between the two of 85%. (Per this source.)

[Balisane]

I always love when Hispanic apologists say it isn't a race, but then accuse anyone who speaks negatively about Hispanics as being "racists."

You can't have it both ways. If it's not a race, one can't be racist against them.

[David Nieporent]

Shorter Balisane: "I'm not a racist; I'm a white supremacist jackass. And also a racist."

[Frank Drackman]

Calling someone a race-ist, the last refuge of peoples who have nothing else to say, oh btw, you're one to, see how that works?

[Nige]

Depends on which concert or rally previously held in the Bronx he swipes his pictures from.

[ThePublius]

You're pitiful.

Check the news.

[Nige]

SOMEone missed the fake photos of Trump's last rally they were sending round.

[ThePublius]

25,000 showed up for the event. The venue capacity was 3,500. Many waited for hours to get in.

[David Nieporent]

Did you look at the aerial photos? There were 25,000 people in much the same way that Trump's inaugural crowd set a record, which is to say only in Trump's mind.

[ThePublius]

"One brilliant moment occurred when Trump called former City Councilman Ruben Diaz Sr., a black Puerto Rican Democrat, up to the stage. In broken but heartfelt English, Diaz enthusiastically endorsed Trump for president. "

Trump’s bumper Bronx rally is a bad omen for Biden -
He promised to return to New York and sort out the anarchy

[Kazinski]

As often happens there was some disagreement on Sundays thread trying to figure out just what Biden possibly could have meant at the NAACP event in Detroit last weekend. I and ThePublius thought Biden got confused. (Here https://reason.com/volokh/2024/05/20/monday-open-thread-54/?comments=true#comment-10567808)

But helpfully the Whitehouse has officially corrected the transcript and the official verdict is: Joe Biden was definitely confused.

From Huffpost (which links the official transcript):

“In talking to the NAACP, Biden mistakenly implied he was vice president during the “pandemic,” which was crossed out while “recession” was added in brackets. He referred to “insurrectionists” as “irrectionists,” which was amended, and said his administration was “cracking down on landlords who keep rents down.” The “who” was crossed out and replaced by a “to.”

Biden told the civil rights group he was “humbled to receive this ‘organisation,’” when he meant “award,” the transcript showed.

He also committed a double gaffe on the matter of insurance premiums. He said his administration saved families “$800,000” a year, quickly changed it to $8,000 during the speech ― but the transcript altered it to $800.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/biden-called-out-for-numerous-corrections-in-white-house-transcript-of-speech_uk_664d9a1de4b087f368b58587

In a completely unrelated note, Bloomberg polling has started to test Trump head to head against Kamala Harris is some battleground states, just in case.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and all of this while reading a teleprompter.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz...POTUS Biden was not confused, POTUS Biden is experiencing cognitive (and physical) decline as he ages. That decline is normal, and expected. The rest of us can learn what happens cognitively when you get old, by watching POTUS Biden. Get a good look: That is what you have to look forward to. Also remember, you will never receive the standard of care a POTUS does. IOW, what you see is as good as it gets. And BTW, POTUS Biden is the guy who gets the proverbial 3am emergency call WTSHTF somewhere on the globe. Stop and think through that, and what that implies.

The problem I have is pairing the obvious cognitive decline with the Oval Office. We saw it with POTUS Reagan at the very end (I vividly recall an occasion of POTUS Reagan talking about Iran Contra - cringeworthy). It is never good for the country.

[Kazinski]

I agree, and I'm not glossing over Trump is just a few years behind Biden too, and also shouldn't be running. But Biden is definitely showing a lot more decline at the present.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it's not like Trump has a known history of brain bleeds, so he starts behind.

But they're both way too old, and just as a matter of mutual interest, we should push an amendment capping the age for higher office. Make it take effect 20 years out, if necessary, so every current walking corpse won't be personally effected.

[David Nieporent]

Well, it’s not like Trump has a known history of brain bleeds, so he starts behind.

Brett playing fake doctor again. Remember when you decided that Fetterman was permanently impaired?

[Commenter_XY]

He is permanently impaired. That is just an objective fact. Every stroke victim has some degree of impairment.

Now, the stroke seems to have affected his executive management and progressive parroting skills. How do we know? Witness him causing considerable heartburn in the Team D caucus with his loud and proud support of Israel, and mockery of Hamas supporters.

No, they are not real happy with post-stroke Senator Lurch right now.

[bernard11]

You seem, utterly predictably, unable to imagine that he is just honestly expressing his opinion, now and before.

And because he may have changed his position (I haven't followed the whole business) you, with your expertise in neurology and vast diagnostic skills - none of which exist outside of your fantasies - have concluded that he is "impaired."

Taken a look at Trump's political positions lately, if you can catch them in one spot? Model of consistency, is he? Yet no complaints from you about that - no carefully drawn points.

You're a joke. Really. You should be ashamed of yourself for parroting this dishonest, ignorant, crap.

[Commenter_XY]

Uh bernard11, I have been listening and watching Senator Fetterman’s antics in PA for a decade. Plenty out there to google. He was (and remains) a real PITA to PA Team D party machine. New Senator Fetterman and former Gov Wolf despised each other. You don’t know squat about PA politics, bernard11 (any more than I know Nashville TN politics)…so look into it a little. ????

There is no negative stigma to a stroke. None. It is objectively the case that Senator Fetterman is impaired, b/c of a stroke. There have been physiologic and psychological changes as a result of this stroke. There is no negative stigma to this. None. It happened.

It just so happens, that events have brought a confluence of events such that Senator Fetterman is not parroting the progressive narrative about Swords of Iron. Or about POTUS Biden, either. Now, that has negative stigma….for progressives, that is.

I encourage Senator Fetterman to keep speaking his mind. Loudly and proudly, bernard11. I bet progressives are really looking forward to Senator Fetterman speaking his mind during the convention later this year.

[Nige]

Why and how are you attributing this to his stroke?

[Nige]

No, you're constantly looking obsessivley for any tiny hint of a 'decline' until everything is proof of a decline, and Biden's never been short of gaffes. Trump thinks Biden tried to have him murdered.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Better than how Trump would react.

[David Bremer]

That's fine, and I agree. But if cognitive decline is a concern, then why do you support Trump? He has also shows signs of cognitive decline. If he were elected, he'd be older than Biden currently was at the time of his election.

It's real rich to hear Trump supporters argue, "Don't vote for Biden; he's too old. You should vote for my old and declining candidate instead."

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, the answer to that is that I DIDN'T support Trump in the primaries. DeSantis dropped out before reaching SC, and I skipped voting in the Presidential primary.

But even if they're both headed downhill, Biden's further down that hill and moving faster. And I really doubt that Trump is going to pick a VP who I'd dislike more than Harris.

[Mr. Bumble]

Doug Burgham for VP. Love to see a debate between him and Kamala.

[Frank Drackman]

Be careful what you wish for. She could show up sober for once.

[Kazinski]

Kamala would wipe the floor with him. Nobody would even remember he was in the room:

https://x.com/MattWolking/status/1793397210320638005?t=fburyaUVBuG-CsAKpHeYOg&s=19

[Frank Drackman]

With Sleepy you mean, she certainly did in 2019, good thing her fundamental unlikability kept her from getting a single delegate.

[Mr. Bumble]

"But if cognitive decline is a concern, then why do you support Trump? "
Lesser of two evils?
By the way, point to and example of Trump's "cognitive decline".

[Commenter_XY]

I am waiting for the Libertarian Party to pick their candidate, which happens this weekend, coincidentally.

[Kazinski]

I voted against Trump in the primary, and that was part of the reason, in fact its not hard to find a lot of reasons to vote against Trump.

But none of those are reasons to vote for Biden, or Kennedy for that matter. So I'm left with Trump being clearly superior to the alternatives, as flawed as he is.

[Brett Bellmore]

This is why the demand for the Hur tape is legit, despite having a transcript: When politics enter the situation, transcripts can no longer be trusted to be accurate.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The transcripts prepared by an independent court transcription service?

[DaveM]

Does President Biden play at “presenting as” old and confused, or is he in fact old and confused? I am intrigued by this phrasing. It’s been used extensively here on the VC in refefence to the Hur report, to make the point that Biden could just be “presenting” as a kindly old man with a bad memory to a jury as a strategy only, not a fact. I conceded that point because this is a legal blog, and those kinds of chess moves are everyday occurrences here.

But now I’m hearing this exact same phrase even from late night comedians such as Bill Mahr and the hostesses of The View! It does make me wonder: is this just a talking point? Did a memo go out with the approved language? Or is this just a popularized phrase that others are picking up on so they can admit to Biden’s decline without having to fully admit to his decline?

[Brett Bellmore]

Prior to the Journolist revelations, I'd always assumed that when the media adopted a new talking point en mass, it was just a sort of flocking behavior among like minded partisans. Turned out I was wrong, it actually WAS being coordinated behind the scenes.

I pretty much assume that when they shut down Journolist, it got replaced by a new group doing the same thing, only with better operational security.

[Nige]

Nothing was being co-ordinated. Journalists have their political preferences just like every other citizen of any profession.

[Brett Bellmore]

Riiight. Like I said, I actually believed nothing was being coordinated, until we found out otherwise.

As the Atlantic's Jeffery Goldberg said of Cabalist, the abortive Journalist 2.0, "In other words, members of Journolist 2.0 were debating whether to collectively respond to a Daily Caller story alleging—inaccurately, in their minds—that members of Journolist 1.0 (the same people, of course) made collective decisions about what to write."

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

You do realize the Journolist was about taking Hillary Clinton down?? So they were working on something you supported! And the right wing bloggers had their own Gmail groups at the time but the GOP nominee was always going to lose in 2008 and so only a few weeks around Palin being picked is when anyone cared about the right wing blogosphere.

[Nige]

So they discussed how to respond to an article *that was about them.*

[Brett Bellmore]

They discussed how to respond to a lot of things.

[Nige]

'How dare they talk shop.'

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Journolist was definitely unethical because it promoted groupthink and undermined objectivity a core tenet of journalism. But it helped defeat Hillary Clinton just like Trump…so maybe being unethical is sometimes good???

[Nige]

He was vp during a pandemic, and the rest are mis-stated words and figures. I mean, yes of course, as a presidential candiadate he gets subjected to more scrutiny than an ordinary person but holy shit.

[Brett Bellmore]

"He was vp during a pandemic"

I think you're confusing his failing memory with actual history. Unless you're talking about Swine flu, which was only an honorary "pandemic"; The '77 Russian flu killed more people, and it was hardly even considered worth reporting in the papers at the time.

[Nige]

Yes, the Swine Flu pandemic, which is actual history.

[Kazinski]

It's not listed as a pandemic by either the Mayo clinic or Wikipedia.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/history-disease-outbreaks-vaccine-timeline?mc_id=us&utm_source=newsnetwork&utm_medium=l&utm_content=content&utm_campaign=mayoclinic&geo=national&placementsite=enterprise&invsrc=other&cauid=100721

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually...

2009 swine flu pandemic

Kinda mild as pandemics go, but "pandemic" isn't defined by death toll, just the geographical extent of the outbreak. So the fact that it was no worse than a seasonal flu doesn't disqualify it.

[Nige]

Yes! It was a pandemic! What's so difficult about this?

[Kazinski]

You are still furiously spinning what the Whitehouse concedes are incoherent gaffs.

There was also this beauty (all edits by WH Press office):
"I protected and expanded the Affordable Care Act, saving millions of families $800,000 in prem- — $8,000 [$800] in — a year in premiums."

[Nige]

Biden? Making gaffes? That’s new.

I suppose it beats defending Trump's policies.

[mulched]

Biden made a lot more sense when he just stole whole speeches.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What are the stati of Trump's trials.

And the FBI was going to shoot the USSS?!?
Wow -- talk about Banana Republic.

[David Nieporent]

And the FBI was going to shoot the USSS?!?

No, you complete and utter moron.

[Nige]

Sure it's Ed but it's also Trump.

[Stella Link the dog]

“And the FBI was going to shoot the USSS?!? ”
Yes, with a hydrosonic missile.

[Noscitur a sociis]

stati

Swing and a miss.

Stop trying to sound smart, Dr. Ed. It doesn’t suit you.

[Estragon]

“Stop trying to sound smart”

Oh come on— and suck the comedic joy out of this deranged space? Keep on keepin on Ed! Don’t let the haters get you down! Embassies are sovereign territory!

[Kazinski]

They intentionally picked a time Trump was.out of state, so that's certainly was not the plan.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And here in the Brave New People’s Republic of Taxachusetts, we have the Karen Read trial — best described by columnist Howie Carr…

https://howiecarrshow.com/butt-dials-and-other-canton-oddities-in-the-karen-read-trial/

https://howiecarrshow.com/karen-read-trial-is-a-corrupt-canton-townie-sideshow/

“If Paul Revere could only see what’s become of Canton, he’d put the spurs to Brown Beauty and keep riding. Only instead of “The British are coming!” he’d be yelling something different.

“The white trash are coming!”

On a more serious note, this trial appears to be brazen police corruption with a level of arrogance rarely seen.

[Kazinski]

Howie Carr is an entertaining writer, his book "The Brothers Bulger: How They Terrorized and Corrupted Boston for a Quarter Century"

Billie, the politician probably did the most damage, Whitey the gangster was more of the sideshow. But Howie covered them both for decades.

[John F. Carr]

Howie Carr used to be good. I recommend The Brothers Bulger. His quality of writing went down when he turned into a Trump cheerleader. One local media watcher said his wife thought he would make more money that way.

[ThePublius]

Yesterdays testimony was incredible. I haven't been following closely enough to know all of the characters, but, to me, Karen is obviously innocent and being framed. I wonder if the. jury can acquit and also make a recommendation to prosecute someone else?

[Brett Bellmore]

Funny you should ask that. I've long thought that juries should have three verdicts available to them: "Guilty", "Innocent", and "Prosecutorial misconduct".

[David Nieporent]

For the record, Paul Revere almost certainly did not yell "The British are coming." That would've made no sense, given that everyone on both sides was British. He would've yelled "The redcoats are coming."

[Mr. Bumble]

So says Sherman (aka David Nieporent) after his most recent trip in the Wayback Machine with Mr. Peabody.

[Dr. Ed 2]

He didn't yell anything, he got caught.
And Canton is south of Boston -- on the rail line to New Haven --
while Arlington, Lexington, & Concord are west.

What the others yelled was "the regulars are coming."

But I think "the White Trash are coming" is a good line.
This is what happens when you pay police officers 6-figure salaries.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, or, alternatively, if the historical record shows Revere did yell, "The British are coming," that suggests a cultural divide greater than you suppose already existed between the colonists and Britain. An important historical inference.

More generally, when you find yourself using the, "would have," construction about history, you are almost always doing it wrong.

Still more generally, Nieporent has illustrated how subtle a vice present-minded historical interpretation is. Well, subtle among lawyers, anyway.

[ThePublius]

Revisit the Ride: What did Paul Revere Actually Say?

[ThePublius]

What will happen here when this trial concludes? Will any of these corrupt folks be prosecuted? The prosecutor? The cops? The state trooper? The witnesses (who perjured themselves)? They are all obviously in cahoots. Is there some kind of conspiracy charge that could be made?

And what of Karen Read? Will she sue in civil court for damages?

[John F. Carr]

Witnesses can not be sued for perjury. Criminal prosecution is a remote possibility. It is not customary in America to prosecute those who commit perjury during a trial, and especially so when the lies are for the benefit of the DA. There are too many lies and too few people to chase after them.

In federal criminal cases a defendant who is convicted after testifying in his defense will usually be given a longer sentence rather than charged with perjury in a separate trial.

[hobie]

The state dinner for Kenya's president will include: chilled gazpacho-style soup of heirloom tomatoes; Vidalia onion and cucumber with sourdough crisps; beef short ribs and butter-poached lobster plus baby kale and sweet corn puree; and a white-chocolate basket cradling nectarine paste and banana ganache as well as raspberries and peaches.

The part that gall's me is the beef short ribs. Until the Internet, this was a trash cut costing pennies and also a gormand's best kept secret. Apart from picanha, it is the beefiest beef of all. Now it costs more than ribeye and is showing up in the White House. Same goddamn think happened to skirt steaks. Now all three are luxury items.

My fourth place backup is brisket, but you typically have to buy the whole damn thing to get any.

[Brett Bellmore]

No kidding. I mourn for the days before chicken wings caught on; They sold for cents a pound for making stock, and I'd just salt and pepper them and throw them in a 500 degree oven, and they were crisply delicious. (Except for the tips, which did go in the stock pot.)

Now I still do that, or have them as Philippine adobo, but it's expensive.

[hobie]

True story:

I went to butcher here in Cleveland who owns his own shop and also raises all his meat on his own farm. I cornered him and said:

"Listen. I've been living in Portugal the last ten years and meat prices there are still relatively the same cheap cost they were before the pandemic. I attribute that to the fact that the cows the local butchers use are still the same ones living a couple miles over eating the same damn grass. So why is your beef so high? You control the whole process. Nothing has changed for you"

And he said to me: 'Greed'. He said the big three meat packers have all artificially inflated their meat prices and so he has followed suit because he can.

Aha! I knew it! Inflation my ass.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, when the government artificially inflates costs, they always blame it on private sector greed.

Why have beef prices gone up? Because you finish cattle on corn, and we're feeding our corn to cars, instead. Drop the ethanol mandate, and watch beef come back down.

[hobie]

You are definitely correct about the corn. American beef is so good because we finish the cows off on corn for 30-60 days in feed lots. An extravagance almost no other country can mimic

[bernard11]

Is that right?

I agree the whole ethanol business is a joke - but a lot of the impetus comes from the nature of our political system. The champions of federalism/EC have no business complaining about it. Why does all that money flow to Iowa, anyway?

Another question? Does the government require ranchers to finish beef on corn, or do they do it in response to market forces? If consumers just prefer corn-fed beef, then we are dealing, again, with market forces.

I've been to Argentina a couple of times, and eaten their excellent, largely, I think grass fed, beef. The taste is a little different, but just fine, and of course some like it better. Meanwhile, you can get grass-fed beef in the US, though it's not popular, so I'm not sure where this notion of the government forcing everyone to eat the corn-finished stuff comes from.

[ThePublius]

"Greed," or selfishness, regarding the marketplace is not necessarily evil. It's called "strategic pricing." I was enlightened years ago, as an engineer with a friend who was a brilliant marketer and who studied and specialized in pricing, which is a complex marketing 'science.' You strive to maximize profit, but more importantly, price to achieve the company's goals within current constraints. So, if that butcher can raise his prices and make more money, good for him.

[hobie]

I ain't faulting the man. But what I'm saying is between what I know about what's going on in Portugal, and what the butcher told me, meat prices could very well be lower than they currently are

[ThePublius]

That's probably so. If the butcher decides to lower prices so his profit amounts to a subsistence wage, sure. But at those prices he'd only have to work 1/4 day or less before he runs out of product!

[bernard11]

“Greed,” or selfishness, regarding the marketplace is not necessarily evil. It’s called “strategic pricing.”

And sometimes it's called price collusion, which is illegal in the US, as it should be, if not Portugal. So hobie's friend's story might well be true. Or not.

[Bob from Ohio]

The butcher's name - Albert Einstein.

[bernard11]

Or maybe Adam Smith.

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.

[Krayt]

Stew meat was chunks of meat, tougher, cruddy, cheap, because you boiled it 8 hours, useful for chili.

Now it's fat free pre-trimmed prissy stuff, of appropriate cost.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, yeah, because the stuff you're talking about had to be manually cut off a carcass, and now once they've got the big cuts off they mechanically strip it, resulting in at best hamburger, at worst a slurry. So all you've got left to sell as stew meat now IS the good cuts, with extra labor to cube it. You might as well just buy a chuck roast and cube it yourself.

[Don Nico]

You are better off buying a chuck roast and cutting it into sizes of your own preference.
Better flavor, better value.

[ducksalad]

Last cheap meat holdout is chicken leq quarters at $0.79/lb, or less on special. Ought to be better for adobo unless you're some kind of low-fat fanatic, in which case you shouldn't be eating Filipino food anyway.

[Brett Bellmore]

Chicken wings aren't exactly low fat either, even if the fat is in the skin, not the meat. And chicken wing adobo is a traditional Filipino dish, at least according to my Filipina wife. The collagen from the skin makes it all gooey and sumptuous.

But at the price chicken wings go today, yeah, mostly we get in the leg quarters, use the drumsticks for the adobo, and I bone out the thighs to make stock while we bbq the boneless thighs.

[Moderation4ever]

Blame it on the cooking shows which all show short ribs as a delicacy. The truth is that the some of the most undesirable cuts have now cycled to the top of people's menu. Next time you are in a BBQ joint look at the beef brisket. It the highest priced and started out as one of the toughest cuts. Corned beef brisket didn't start out as the Irish-American's favorite because of quality, it was cheap. Well not today.

[hobie]

Most definitely the cooking shows and influencers have caused this. Like Brett mentioned above: nothing has been spared. Chicken wings, ox tails, even fucking pork neck bones which I used in beans and southern dishes. Meat prices are probably the biggest downer in my life at the moment

[Moderation4ever]

My father was a butcher by trade, and he like to remind me that when you are buying meat like ribs that you pay the same price for the bones as you do for the meat. So, while some of the meat may look cheaper per pound than steak it might actually be more expensive.

[Brett Bellmore]

Very true, I try to take that into account. The meat along the bone may be the best tasting, (Like that little lump on the back of a bird known as the "oyster".) but it's usually pretty expensive.

[Don Nico]

For that reason my dad, also a butcher, cut and brought home "country-style ribs."

[mulched]

Love those and you can still get them pretty cheap if you're willing to wait out the specials.

[SRG2]

FWIW kosher brisket was always much more expensive than non-kosher, even after adjusting for the kosher premium.

[Commenter_XY]

That is true....Kosher brisket is pricey. Try getting a 15-lb kosher brisket for Pesach, or Rosh Hashana.

[bernard11]

Not much of a fan of short ribs myself, though many are.

The texture just doesn't feel right to me.

[Brett Bellmore]

Fair enough, it does have a rather different texture from a rare steak or roast. I mean, unless you do sou vide, in which case it's a lot closer.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Hobie, don't get me started. Decades ago lamb shoulder chops were cheap as dirt, until the food columnists caught on. Likewise more recently with chuck blade steak. Even flank stake was cheap thirty years ago. And now lamb shanks are so high the butcher can't wait to cut them off the leg and sell them separately.

I rebuke you, however, for outing some of my current recourses.

[ThePublius]

What, no dog on the menu?

You would think Biden would have a couple of dogs he'd like to "disappear."

[hobie]

Beware the meat from Noem’s farm. The specials are the result of whatever 'tough decisions' she had to make that day

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, it's probably only a matter of time before some genetic engineer cracks the biological difference between the short rib meat and, say, chuck, that's responsible for it tasting so "beefy", and engineers a cow to just taste super-beefy throughout.

[Dr. Ed 2]

More like the flavor that turns Pollock into Seafood Salad.
It comes in cryovaced blocks, I forget who invented the technology but think it was the Japanese.

[Commenter_XY]

hobie, beef prices are up. No doubt.

Brisket...I have previously posted a couple brisket recipes. I can get brisket (not organic) at 3.99/lb at Costco. Pretty cheap. Can also get stew meat at that price at Costco, from time to time.

Pork...This can be an alternative, you need to shop.

[hobie]

Yeah, I hear ya. But I could always make a great meal out of any cheap beef cut. But now every...single...cut of beef is nearly unattainable

[Stephen Lathrop]

My experience too. Most distressing has been to watch the inexpensive cuts skyrocket, while the top-of-the-line stuff barely budged. Made it feel like the stores were deliberately cutting off escape routes for price-conscious clientele.

I had been trying to hold the weekly budget line by sticking with the least expensive beef I could find, buying less of it, and using dried beans and dried chili peppers to make it all tasty. Then the beans skyrocketed.

Basically, I think what has been going on in the too-concentrated supermarket sector is that computerized inventory tracking now enables stocking formulas to squeeze maximum revenue per square foot—for every square foot store-wide. And that leads to more thoroughgoing attempts to eliminate bargains and thwart workarounds than any human would ever think of.

If the shopper’s job is to budget, the store’s response has been to counter-budget. That suggests to me it is time for a more Brandeis-friendly approach to anti-trust.

[Martinned2]

Any thoughts on why Rishi Sunak might have decided to announce the general election while standing in the rain, rather than using his £2m press room?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Besides that, would it have violated some obscure provision in the "unwritten constitution" to have had someone just hold an umbrella over the poor fella?

[Martinned2]

Having someone hold an umbrella over his head would have made him look even worse. Now he looked pathetic, but if he'd used an umbrella-guy he would have looked like an evil Monopoly Man. But why go outdoors in the first place?

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

[Martinned2]

Any thoughts on why Rishi Sunak might have decided to announce the general election now, rather than wait until December, given that he's going to lose massively regardless?

[SRG2]

Possibly thinking this was as good as it was going to get.

[Ed Grinberg]

re: why "Rishi Sunak...[is] going to lose massively"
(source)
As in the USA, British politics is dominated by two big old parties that millions of voters adhere to either from dumb loyalty or from conviction that none of the smaller parties is likely to win enough seats to form a government so best pick the lesser of two evils.
The Conservative Party, a.k.a. the Tories, have held power, although sometimes in coalition, for most of the past fourteen years. They have accomplished basically nothing — they have certainly conserved nothing whatsoever — and their voter base is seriously fed up with them.
Under Britain's constitution there has to be a general election in the next few months; the Tories look set fair for a major defeat.
The other big party, the Labour Party, is looking good by default, although they ran out of constructive ideas a generation ago.

[Martinned2]

conviction that none of the smaller parties is likely to win enough seats to form a government so best pick the lesser of two evils.

This. FPTP creates a collective action problem. Or, as Douglas Adams put it in the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy: "Why do you keep voting for those lizards?" "Because if we don't, the wrong lizards will get in."

[Mr. Bumble]

...and so it goes.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Sure, he wants the election to be a referendum on "Stop the Boats".

[Martinned2]

Which is why the 3rd of Labour's six point plan to fix the country is:

Launch a new Border Security Command with hundreds of new specialist investigators and counter-terror powers to smash criminal gangs and strengthen our borders.

Because god forbid you tell voters they're wrong every once in a while.

[Nige]

Keir Starmer is the Joe Biden of Tony Blairs.

[Martinned2]

Americans might also be amused to hear that UK commentary yesterday generally remarked that Sunak had opted for a relatively long campaign (i.e. six weeks). They wondered whether there was any kind of strategic reason why he might prefer a longer campaign, e.g. because that gives Labour more time to say or do something stupid.

[John F. Carr]

The limited American commentary I heard said the economy seemed to be improving. Six weeks could be the projected peak of voter optimism.

[loki13]

If they truly believed that the economy would be improving for any lengthy period of time, they wouldn't have called early elections now.

Which goes to show that American commentary on this is ... not well-founded.

(The primary analysis I've heard from more-informed people is that the Tories think that this is about as good as it will be, and waiting might cause more deterioration in their position. But yes, the six-weeks is both short enough that the economy likely won't factor into it beyond what we are seeing now, and also would allow Labor to score one or more own goals. Which, given past precedent, isn't a bad bet ... but given more recent precedent, you'd have to think that the Tories might be concerned about their own message discipline.)

[Nige]

The date might turn out to be incredibly inconvenient for young voters in some way - the Tories hate young people even more than they hate boat people.

[Martinned2]

Meanwhile, in the Netherlands we had an election six months ago, and we've finally gotten to the point where we know which parties will form the next government, but somehow we still don't know who will be prime minister. All we know is that it won't be one of the four party leaders.

https://www.dutchnews.nl/2024/05/five-weeks-to-form-a-cabinet-but-still-no-prime-minister/

[Martinned2]

In terms of UK election shenanigans, the Tory government changed the rules for how the local elections earlier this month were done, switching from a single transferrable vote system to first past the post. Here is an interesting blog post that tries to work out how that mattered: https://constitution-unit.com/2024/05/23/the-new-voting-system-for-mayors-and-pccs-how-it-changed-the-results/

(Note that, surprisingly, the Tories kept the additional member system for the elections of the London Assembly. I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that the London Assembly would have been almost entirely Labour if it was straight FPTP.)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Every time I read about these things I’m struck by how much better parliamentary systems are than ours.

[Martinned2]

They usually are, but maybe not the UK version. At least not anymore. The UK version of parliamentary democracy requires "good chaps" in order to work.

[Krayt]

Pols change the rules to benefit their faction, shocker.

[Don Nico]

Do you really think that the Israeli parliamentary system is better? It grossly distorts the government positions in the country.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its the worst. They need to get rid of the party list determining MKs and adopt single member districts.

[Martinned2]

Absolutely, because clearly what Israeli politics needs is more partisanship.

[ducksalad]

Not seeing the connection between single member districts and partisanship.

In first-past-the-post it's unlikely that fringe parties at the 5-10% level will win any seats at all, and therefore they won't be in a position to extract concessions like happened in their last election.

[Bob from Ohio]

"unlikely that fringe parties at the 5-10% level will win any seats at all"

Yes, that is the benefit.

First past the post would reduce the number of parties in the Knesset and let more stable governments be formed.

[Martinned2]

Run that one by me, remembering that Israel is not the US. Presumably a FPTP system would reduce Israel to a handful of parties: Conservatives (Likud), Settlers, Orthodox, Arab, and Centre (Benny Gantz et al.) How would that make governments more stable?

[Martinned2]

Not seeing the connection between single member districts and partisanship.

Having only two parties means that everyone has to reduce everything to an "if you're not with us, you're against us". In a system with more than two parties, where coalitions have to be formed, you can't afford to be that partisan.

[Frank Drackman]

the Parliament-Funkadelic is the best of all (Still Touring? that can't be right)

[Commenter_XY]

VC Conspirators, here is something potentially useful for you...a recipe for collard greens. Have you ever eaten collard greens? Nutritious, and worth the effort. Tasty too. They take time to make. It is scalable, and I strongly recommend batch. All ingredients at Wegmans. Or Whole Foods. Or a local growing Co-op.

Total time: 3 hours
Ingredients: 1 lb organic bacon (you can 'Kosherize' by using kosher 'turkey bacon', but it is not the same), 2 organic onions chopped, 6 cloves organic garlic chopped, 1 qt chicken stock or broth, 3 TBSP Apple Cider Vinegar, 3 TBSP sugar (can 'Keto-ize' by using 5 TBSP allulose in lieu of sucrose), 3 Lbs washed, [and de-stemmed] organic collard greens cut into 1"x2" strips (I remove stems; more effort, better end product on the dinner plate)

I listed ingredients in order of use in recipe.
Cut bacon into 1.5" bite size pieces, place into dutch oven, fry medium high to browned edges, but not crispy! Approx 10 mins. Do not drain. Lower heat to medium. Add onions, fry to translucent, stir as needed, approx 7 minutes. Add garlic, fry until fragrant. Approx 2 mins. Add chicken stock, vinegar, sugar. Bring to boil, taking care to scrape up those brown bits on the bottom of the pan! Approx 10 mins. Adjust heat to med-low. Add collard greens, mix thoroughly, they will shrink down as you add them. Approx 5 mins. Cover, let come to boil. Mix greens thoroughly. Lower heat to simmer. The greens do not need to be totally submerged, but liquid should bubble up at the start of cook time. Simmer collard greens for approx 90 minutes, uncovered, stirring every 30 minutes. The mixture will reduce over time. It is important to slowly simmer the collard greens, to soak up the ingredients over time. Serve hot.

This freezes well. What I like is that it is flexible, more nutritious than you think, and it is simple. Can be Kosher, can be Keto. Helpful Tip: With a good paring knife, you can quickly destem by folding the green along the stem line and excising.

Enjoy!

[Brett Bellmore]

The first time I had collards was when we moved to the South 15 years ago, and I still remember my wife saying, "Did a cat piss in this?"

Took years before I found out they'd just been cooked badly; We avoided them with a passion for so long, sticking to kale and Swiss chard.

Now we're experimenting in the garden with a perennial "Tree collard".

[Moderation4ever]

I have to cook my collards on the porch as my wife hates the smell.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Ocean Perch" is a good example -- for some of us, it remains "Brim", fit only for lobster bait.

[Brett Bellmore]

Growing up in Michigan eating real perch, (Though I preferred pickerel.) I can testify that the taste is not very similar.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It's "Bream" actually.

A 'brim' is the ridge of a ring or bucket or something like that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Acadian Redfish in the Atlantic, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/acadian-redfish

[Moderation4ever]

Love collards. Like the hobie's earlier comment on short-ribs, the collards were the toughest green, eaten by the poorest, and now back in style for the coolest. Wait till they price go up.

BTW - a lazy cook I use the crock pot for collards. Let them cook the day away.

[Commenter_XY]

Instant Pot works too; drastically reduced cook time, must scale down to 1-lb collard greens. However, the texture isn't quite right. But I would use an Instant Pot pressure cook variation for someone with bad teeth; IP breaks down the fiber.

To do this by IP, as I have done, you will need to use the saute function for the frying. Reduce liquid to max of 1 cup.

The big downside: Small serving for a lot of effort. You could make maybe 1-lb greens. Everything is scaled down. Cook time is 30 minutes, release, and then let sit, covered, in IP for 10 minutes. Serve hot.

[Mr. Bumble]

WTF is "organic" bacon?

[David Nieporent]

Bacon made from carbon-based pigs rather than the silicon-based ones.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK. That one is good.

[Commenter_XY]

Go to Wegman's or Whole Foods, Mr. Bumble. You can get organic bacon in either.

[Mr. Bumble]

You’re missing the point. What makes bacon or anything else “organic” and why do you think it’s better? Because it costs more?

[Stella Link the dog]

If you really wanted to know something you could look it up, that is if you are too dense to infer what "organic" might mean in this context.

That being said, if there are any benefits from organic bacon as opposed to inorganic bacon, it would be like shooting yourself with a .380 acp rather than .45 thinking it would be less harmful.

[Mr. Bumble]

My comment was to Commenter_ XY as to what he thought organic meant.
To me it's just another scam to get a higher price and it's gluten free too!

[Stella Link the dog]

So, rather than asking because you are woefully ignorant, you asked just to be a douche. Typical.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, I am woefully ignorant of what organic means to Commenter_XY.
Are you speaking for him. Who is the douche?

[Stella Link the dog]

"Yes, I am woefully ignorant of what organic means to Commenter_XY.
Are you speaking for him. Who is the douche?"

What part of “Open Thread” don’t you understand?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Stella, there is growing evidence that the widespread use of antibiotics in raising food animals is exacerbating the problem of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. There are some which we only have ONE antibiotic that will still work (for humans) and we're screwed when it adapts to that.

[Nige]

'Organic' usually signifies the absence of chemicals - so no pesticides used in the area where the pig was raised, nothing in any foodstuffs it was given, no hormones, stuff like that. I suppose.

[Mr. Bumble]

There are no standards.

[Paladin_44]

Try this: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-I/subchapter-M/part-205?toc=1

[Nige]

You went from not knowing what organic is to demanding standards. Progress.

[Mr. Bumble]

No, I asked what C_XY thought organic meant.

[Nige]

To denying you even asked the question! You're in some sort of sad decline.

[mulched]

Who goes full asshole in a food thread? Well, now we know.

[Commenter_XY]

Fair question: organic bacon (USDA certfied) is bacon from swine who have been fed organic feed. Is it better? Marginally.

Mostly, it makes my conscience feel better. Oooh, it's organic!

Kidding aside, I strongly recommend going organic if you can.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Organic%20Livestock%20Requirements.pdf

I think the big one is the antibiotics which, honestly, I think we are using too much of anyway.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't have to worry about the cost of greens going up, I grow my own. Swiss chard, now collards, and marungay. (My wife is still in denial about not having thrown enough mulch over that last winter; It comes back from the roots every year, but no sign of it so far this spring. I think we're going to have to reestablish our patch.)

[hobie]

Except for the sugar, this is my recipe exactly. A lot of people don't know about the vinegar part and the zing it gives. Also, I use either smoked turkey necks or pork necks instead of bacon

[Brett Bellmore]

I use my own homemade bacon, that's cured with Schezwan peppercorns. It's a great use for the chunks that won't slice right.

[ducksalad]

Wait, you go to the trouble of making your own gourmet bacon, which must be a serious effort, and then you use it just to flavor greens?

I know it’ll upset the purists but we just throw in a packet of Goya “Jamon” powder when a stew or soup recipe calls for some exotic smoked meat.

[Commenter_XY]

Commenter_XY has been known to use smoked ham butt with collard greens on special occasions.

[Moderation4ever]

What does the Rabbi think of that?

[Commenter_XY]

I do not know, I have never asked him.

[Martinned2]

In the US, meanwhile, the Democratic Secretary of State has shamed his office by signaling potential support for Republican attempts to impose sanctions on ICC officials.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/21/blinken-icc-court-prosecutor-warrant-netanyahu

As an example of the correct approach for a country that wants to support Israel, see the German government's response to the Prosecutor's decision:

The International Criminal Court is a fundamental achievement of the international community that Germany has always supported. Germany respects its independence and the conduct of proceedings just as it does for all other international courts.

In this case, the Pre-Trial Chamber now has to decide on the applications of the Prosecutor for the issuance of arrest warrants as a first step.

The Court will have a host of difficult questions to answer here, including in particular the question as to its jurisdiction and the complementarity of investigations carried out by affected states governed by the rule of law, which include Israel.

The simultaneous applications for arrest warrants for the Hamas leadership on the one hand and the two Israeli officials on the other have resulted in an incorrect implication of equivalence. Nevertheless, the Court will now have two very different situations to assess, as presented in detail by the Prosecutor in his applications.

The Hamas leaders are responsible for a barbaric massacre in which men, women and children were deliberately murdered, raped and kidnapped in the most brutal fashion in Israel on 7 October. Hamas continues to hold Israeli hostages captive in unspeakable conditions, to fire missiles at Israel and use the civilian population in Gaza as human shields.

Protecting and defending its citizens from this is the right and duty of the Israeli Government. It is clear that humanitarian international law applies here with all the obligations contained therein.

[Don Nico]

I applaud the statement by Germany.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

So . . . no change in your position since the 1930s?

[Bored Lawyer]

No, the shame is the ICC farce. The Hamas leaders will never be arrested and will continue to live a life of luxury in Qatar or Turkey or some other terrorist supporting country.
To borrow from Dickens, International Law is an ass. Credit to Blinken, although actions are what's important, not words.

[Martinned2]

The only reason why the Hamas defendants won't be arrested is because they may not live long enough. Netanyahu, on the other hand, will die peacefully in his bed.

None of which changes the fact that no one should be above the law.

[Bob from Ohio]

Part of the law is jurisdiction, Israel is not an ICC party.

[Martinned2]

No, but Palestine is, so crimes committed in Palestine are fair game. That's how criminal jurisdiction works the world over.

[Commenter_XY]

There is no palestine, therefore no jurisdiction.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bacon cheeseburger
shrimp cocktail
crabmeat Hoelzel
candied bacon

[Bored Lawyer]

Don't you have a swastika to carve somewhere?

[Commenter_XY]

He is just pissed b/c I tweak him occasionally for amusement.

[Bored Lawyer]

He forgets that his blasphemy here is a matter of record. And that the Muslims are far less forgiving of that than others.

[Commenter_XY]

I keep telling Arthur, when they're done with me (and you) because we are Jews, apostates like him are next. They'll happily toss his ass off a rooftop to meet his betters.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I'm thinking Lindeman Framboise, too.

Always great to toast accountability and justice for right-wing belligerents, especially the war-crimey, superstition-driven, bigoted right-wing write-offs.

If you know any decent people in Israel, encourage them to get out while they still can. America would be an ideal destination for the decent Israelis.

[Frank Drackman]

More like a youth to corrupt

[Bob from Ohio]

"Palestine is"

a terrorist quasi-state. It can't make anything "fair game". certainly not subject its mortal enemy to "jurisdiction" against its will.

[Martinned2]

Israel is not subject to the laws of Palestine. Only individual Israelis. And if they don't like that, they shouldn't commit crimes in Palestine.

[Bob from Ohio]

Blinken is just going to try to dilute and delay a sanction bill that will pass by large majorities otherwise.

[Martinned2]

Why would any Democrat vote for such a monstrosity? And why wouldn't Biden veto it if it did pass?

[Bob from Ohio]

1. Most Dems support Israel, Dem Hamas caucus is only about 60-80 people. 2. It will pass with veto proof majorities.

Plus, if the ICC gets away with arresting non-parties, US officials are on the menu. Best to strangle this Baby Hitler in the crib.

[Martinned2]

What do you mean "gets away with arresting non-parties"? That was the whole point of the thing from the start.

None of this is about supporting Israel or not. As the German statement shows, you can support Israel but still defend the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.

As for those poor US war criminals, you do realise that the OTP dropped its investigation of US torture in Afghanistan?

https://ccrjustice.org/home/press-center/press-releases/international-criminal-court-shutters-investigation-us-torture

And, at the end of the day, there's always the US Invade The Hague Act, in case poor American war criminals need to be sprung from jail.

[ducksalad]

The ICC only has two practical effects:

1. Bad guys who are still in power are punished by not being allowed to vacation in Western Europe.

2. Bad guys who are no longer in power have the option of going to a civilized Dutch detention center instead of being lynched back in their home country.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Possibly a third -- bad guys hanging on to power in a civil war can be given an incentive to leave -- like the US did to Marcos in the Philippines. That can end wars, which is a good thing.

[Bob from Ohio]

So much BS from you.

"gets away with arresting non-parties”

Citizens from non-parties obviously.

"None of this is about supporting Israel or not. "

Americans, by and large, think otherwise.

"As the German statement shows, you can support Israel but still defend the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary."

Germans can think what they want, I don't look to Germans for guidance. Maybe in 925 years.

Its lawless to try Israeli citizens against the will of Israel.

Its a faux "judiciary" as well.

"OTP dropped its investigation of US"

Khan needs a reminder that immunity from the ICC benefits our friends too. Hence sanctions.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It also is lawless to provide military assistance to Israel's war criminals.

How long you guys figure Israel's right-wing assholes will be able to hang on when America withdraws the various skirts those superstitious bigots have been hiding behind for decades?

Hell, it might be that all America would need to do is signal that it no longer will intercept projectiles for Israel's conservative low-lifes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Wouldn't invading the Hague violate Article V of the NATO Charter?

[Martinned2]

No, it would violate Article I of the NATO Charter.

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/stock_publications/20120822_nato_treaty_en_light_2009.pdf

Article V of the NATO Charter would require all other NATO members to help the Netherlands fight off the Americans.

[John F. Carr]

Depends on who the other NATO members considered the aggressor. A declaration of war is typically a statement "we are at war now and it's the other guy's fault."

We're not invading the Hague.

The only intra-NATO fight we need to worry about is Turkey vs. Greece. Who gets treated as the victim? In the short term Erdogan is no good. In the long term Turkey is more valuable as an ally.

[Martinned2]

Ed asked about a scenario where the US would, literally, be invading The Hague. In that case, the question of who is the aggressor seems pretty obvious.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"And, at the end of the day, there’s always the US Invade The Hague Act, in case poor American war criminals need to be sprung from jail."

The Invade the Hague Act covers Israel too. And if Europeans start a war by kidnapping Israeli citizens for some show trial, they would be the aggressor.

[OtisAH]

Actually scratch all that. Let’s make it simpler:

Blinken does not declare or establish US foreign policy. He carries out US foreign policy, which is what he does here. He’s not an elected official and he doesn’t operate independently of the Biden admin.

[Martinned2]

President Biden made a brief statement that completely missed the point, but doesn't seem to have said anything yet about this ICC sanctions idea.

The ICC prosecutor’s application for arrest warrants against Israeli leaders is outrageous. And let me be clear: whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no equivalence — none — between Israel and Hamas. We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security.

The national security advisor was in the White House press briefing yesterday and just gave a holding response when he was asked about this:

we’re in consultations on a bipartisan, bicameral basis with the Hill on all of the options for how to respond to what the ICC has just done. We haven’t made any determinations. When we do, we’ll be sure to let you know.

[Bob from Ohio]

"completely missed the point"

On the contrary, whoever wrote that statement hit the point entirely.

[ducksalad]

"he doesn’t operate independently of the Biden admin"

Many us suspect that the Biden administration, in reality, consists of the chief of staff and several key cabinet members, who make all important decisions and gently inform the nominal POTUS of the results. If so, Blinken is probably part of that inner circle.

[Nige]

Look, we all remember the way everything had to be dumbed down and simplified for Trump and how diffcult it was to attract and then hold his attention, but at least that’s based on actual reports from staffers and such, this is just made up.

[OtisAH]

Yeah, well, you’re neither the first nor the 101st dumbass on here who believes stupid shit. So chin up, you’ve plenty of company.

[Mr. Bumble]

...of course including yourself; just different stupid shit.

[OtisAH]

Oh look, the fool is here. What a treat.

[Don Nico]

How's this for discipline?
"Harvard Braces for Graduation Protests... Disruptions were made more likely after the Harvard Corporation, the governing board, barred for now the graduation of 13 students because of their role in pro-Palestinian protests on campus. "

[Moderation4ever]

Thirteen out of the hundreds that will graduate. Tells you that while protesters are loud, they are also few.

[ThePublius]

That's nonsense, they are thirteen of hundreds who protested. Do you really think there were only 13 protesters? Ha, ha.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes. Graduating seniors tend to be focused on things off campus, like jobs or graduate school, and are the least likely cadre to be involved in anything on campus. They're already one foot out the door -- I've seen a lot of student organizations make the mistake of believing they can depend on a spring-semester senior for anything.

And I suspect the 13 will behave themselves because Harvard's ultimate sanction is excommunication -- something along the lines of removing any record of the expelled student ever having been associated with Harvard. Think 17th Century...

[Don Nico]

Two of those 13 are not as woke as they would like you to believe. They applied for and received Cecil (blood diamonds) Rhodes scholarships.
Shame, shame!

[Nige]

I'd say it's literally the ones they thought most likely to stand up and yell something or wave a placard or wear something on their hat or gown, only now they've risked making others angry enough to try things.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Paging Cambridge DPW, Paging Cambridge DPW -- you need to remount your snow plows and clear Mass Ave...

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2024/05/23/harvard-commencement-graduates-walk-out-photos-videos/?p1=recirc_mostpopular

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.thefire.org/news/majority-college-students-support-israelgaza-campus-protests-1-10-actually-participate-them

[Moderation4ever]

I read in my local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal, that daily marijuana use is now outpacing daily alcohol use. Not really sure how to view this new information. First it confirms that marijuana use is so common that laws against the sale, growing and use, are foolish. It also suggests problems for some users. Millions end the workday with a beer or cocktail, but some have problems with alcohol. The same is likely true for the daily marijuana user. Best I can say is that if marijuana is legal, we can better address problems people have with the drug.

https://madison.com/eedition/page-a1/page_02cf21cf-cd01-5d02-a302-1c9ce5bc17bb.html

[Dr. Ed 2]

One problem is that while alcohol is water based, THC is fat-based and hence remains in the body longer. Hence while you are not going to be drinking tonight on top of last night's alcohol (unless you had a few for breakfast), you very well may be with marijuana.

[Moderation4ever]

If a person is having problems with alcohol that person likely is having a few through the days to keep levels up.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It isn't as easy to do as it used to be.

When I was an undergrad, I thought nothing of having a beer with lunch -- in the employee breakroom, with my beer stored in the shared refrigerators. That wouldn't be acceptable now.

I've seen it ignored, and I've seen some innovative tricks, such as replacing the washer fluid in "your" state vehicle with vodka and then going out with a straw to "check the oil", but daytime drinking by employees is much more frowned upon than it was decades back.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm pretty sure they're still serving beer with lunch at our plant in Germany. They were the last time I was there, and it didn't cause any problems.

[Estragon]

“replacing the washer fluid in “your” state vehicle with vodka and then going out with a straw to “check the oil””

This is a completely believable anecdote, and I am willing to accept it at face value. Thanks for your fascinating contribution!

[David Nieporent]

He doesn't make things up!

[Dr. Ed 2]

It was a UMass Physical Plant employee, and Vodka actually works better than regular windshield washer juice because it has a higher alcohol content and hence melts frozen rain off the windshield quicker.

Memory is that he took early retirement in one of the "deals" in the '90s -- and maybe he wouldn't get away with it now. The more I think about it, the supervisors had to know and just didn't want to deal with it. They had another guy who would drink his lunch at the VFW club -- he a backhoe operator who no one wanted to work with after lunch.

Union goes to management when the contract comes up and says "wouldn't you like to give us a paid lunch -- you can tell us we can't leave campus (i.e. go to the VFW) because we are on the clock." Management said YES and that's why the plant guys work a 37.5 hour week when everyone else works 40.

[Stephen Lathrop]

First it confirms that marijuana use is so common that laws against the sale, growing and use, are foolish. It also suggests problems for some users.

Even half-century-old news needs confirmation, I guess.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm reminded of the 18-year-old drinking age -- which lasted less than a decade in most states. I predict that legal marijuana will suffer a similar fate -- we are already seeing the motor vehicle accidents from it.

[Commenter_XY]

It is a problem, managerially, for hybrid or remote workers.

[hobie]

[This is why I should write for The Onion]

Samuel Alito and his wife were in the news again when photographs surfaced of a Conferderate battle flag flying over a negro-only cemetery the couple own in South Carolina. Asked about the meaning of the flag, Alito told The Gateway Pundit that his wife is a diehard fan of the Dukes of Hazzard

[Mr. Bumble]

Kind of funny. Was it being flown upside down?

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha. Schrödinger's flag.

[not guilty]

With the Confederate battle flag, how can one tell?

[Mr. Bumble]

Duh!

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm sure Justice Jackson is as pure as the driven snow...

[Moderation4ever]

I am not sure, but she hasn't done anything this dumb.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes a woman who can't say what is a woman never did anything this dumb.

[hobie]

She didn't play the little game and you still have the red ass over it

[Stella Link the dog]

It's easy to say in retrospect:

What Jackson should have said in response to the idiot's question is that the answer is one which is currently controversial and which may come before the court. So, no matter what might be her inchoate opinion on the matter, addressing it at the hearing would not be apporopriate.

[Mr. Bumble]

But she didn’t and claimed she couldn’t answer because she wasn’t a biologist.

[Stella Link the dog]

Duh!

[Mr. Bumble]

How does it feel to be able to lick your own ass?

[Stella Link the dog]

"How does it feel to be able to lick your own ass?"

I don't know. You could tell me.

How does it feel to be the most ignorant douche on the planet?

[Mr. Bumble]

I don't identify as a dog.

"How does it feel to be the most ignorant douche on the planet?"

...and yet you feel the need to respond.

[Dr. Ed 2]

WHY do the couple own a Negro-only cemetery and why haven't they found some governmental or charity group to take over ownership responsibilities on it?

Or is it that no one else did/was and being good Christians, they decided to assume the responsibility. And this includes either doing or paying for no small amount of landscaping work, not just mowing but weeding, tree care, and uprighting the stones which fall over. (In the 19th Century, they used two iron rods to hold the stone on it's base (we use adhesives today) and 150 years later, those rods rust out and have to be replaced.)

Alito is Catholic -- most 19th Century Blacks were Protestants, usually either AME or Baptists. And if the cemetery were neglected, we'd hear about it, so it clearly isn't -- and that's either time or money,

[Stella Link the dog]

That would be a stunning response if offered by anyone else.

[hobie]

Oh my god....please tell me you're serious

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Did y'all see the news about the CIA blocking investigations into one of Hunter's crime buddies?

I was like WOAH, that's super serious. If the CIA is blocking an investigation into a politically connected sensitive subject that can only mean that person is a SPY! Wow! Hunter Biden was working with undercover CIA spies!

He was saving the World guys! The CIA said so and that institution would never do anything untowards like meddle in our democracy! They are it's PROTECTORS!!! Not MEDDLERS!!!

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think it's definitely interesting.

Does the CIA have an Inspector General?

[Magister]

Yes.
https://www.cia.gov/about/organization/inspector-general/

And they're recruiting investigators.
https://www.cia.gov/careers/jobs/inspector-general-criminal-investigator/

[ThePublius]

Wow, slow comment day on VC Thursday Open Thread. Where are all the regulars?

[Mr. Bumble]

Count your blessing, the douche twins (Nige and GaslightO) are sure to appear soon enough.

[Nige]

Rent free, apparently.

[John F. Carr]

Judge Charles R. Breyer has reportedly ruled that Uber can not contract its way out of multidistrict litigation. Silicon Valley tech companies have generally declared themselves immune from lawsuits or at least from class action and similar lawsuits. The judge ruled that Uber can not control judicial case management practices. MDL is not a class action. All the cases will initially proceed before Judge Breyer for consolidated discovery and pretrial motions.

I did not find a copy of the order, which was reported by Bloomberg Law. The case page is here: In re: Uber Technologies, Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation (MDL No. 3084).

The order consolidating the cases has been appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

[Bored Lawyer]

Like to see the order. There is a difference between "did not" and "can not." The former is just a matter of contract interpretation -- what did Uber's contract mean? Can not is making a legal decision that certain contract clauses will not be enforced.

I would like to see the opinion, but I would say it is more likely that the ruling is in the "did not" category.

[Bored Lawyer]

THe order is here:

Finally, Uber’s argument that its Terms of Use preclude the motion for centralization is not persuasive. The Panel is not bound by Uber’s Terms of Use, and Section 1407(c) grants the Panel the authority to centralize civil cases upon its own initiative. Moreover, plaintiffs suggest they will challenge the enforceability of Uber’s Terms of Use. Centralization thus will allow for streamlined briefing on this common issue.

They seem to be saying that Terms of Use only bind the litigants. The courts are free to do whatever they want that is authorized by statute or the federal rules.

[ThePublius]

Terrorism pays.

"Hamas’ grisly terror raid on Oct. 7 has proved to be the single most stunningly successful act in gaining support for the Palestinian cause—not among Israeli or American voters, of course, but among top Democratic policymakers, and their counterparts across the Western world. One might think that a campaign of unrepentant killing, torture, rape, and hostage-taking would be disqualifying for a national independence movement. But in Washington, Hamas’ ongoing crimes have resulted in much of the weight of the U.S. government being brought to bear on advancing the cause of Palestinian statehood, and its correlate, the punishment and demonization of the Jewish state."

The Ugly Lessons of October 7

[John F. Carr]

Palestine might end up better off in the long run. That is still not clear. Both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are suffering in the short term. As for the planners of the attacks, I do not expect the West to allow them to remain in power. Whether they win or lose depends on their personal goals.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Whether they win or lose depends on their personal goals."
...or whether the IDF finds them first.

[John F. Carr]

If Hamas leadership is willing to die for a cause being taken out by the IDF on the way to Palestinian independence could be a win. If they want to rule over an independent Palestine, the West won't let that happen. They may be allowed to live in exile in Qatar with a price on their heads in the rest of the world. Whether that is a win depends on their personal goals.

[Dr. Ed 2]

John, the model to look at here is the Tet Offensive in Vietnam, and while that was a major military DEFEAT for the NVA/VC. They wanted to surrender and give up, but were told that if they could just manage to hold out for a while longer, the war would be won on American college campi -- and it was.

Team Hamas started out on third base -- with faculty/admin support, funding, and no organized opposition -- the exact opposite of the anti-Vietnam folks, whose initial rallies were often broken up by construction workers with hard hats and baseball bats.

The US role in Vietnam became increasingly unpopular because bad things started to come out -- whereas here it is the bad things about Hamas which are starting to come out. Most recently -- NONE of the aid sent ashore over the Biden Wharf has made it to the actual Gazans as the trucks have been hijacked and looted by Hamas.

I can't see the US Hamas Fan Club movement growing -- but I can see the opposition to it growing. And if that happens, then the Hamas leaders in Gaza are not long for this world.

[ThePublius]

"A senior Hamas official thanked student protesters at American universities for their efforts following the creation of anti-Israel encampments at many college campuses. The official used language that likened the wave of student occupations to Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel, referred to by Hamas as operation “Al Aqsa Flood.”"

https://www.campusreform.org/article/hamas-thanks-student-protesters-dubs-part-oct-7-flood-annihilate-jews/25512

[Dr. Ed 2]

Exactly.
See above...

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Obviously, if Israel had not reacted the way it did, Hamas' terrorism would not have been pushed off the front pages. But, that wasn't an option for Israel, for a number of reasons, including that showing weakness simply encourages more of the same.

So yes, terrorism pays (especially if innocent people can be made to pay the cost). Like a lot of other things which should not, but do.

[ducksalad]

Well, yes, it does.

The converse is that cooperation doesn’t pay. The Palestinian Authority running the West Bank have sort of tried to keep the peace and the “reward” is ever dwindling land area, since the relatively safe conditions make it an attractive place for Israelis to move. There has been no progress toward increased autonomy since there is no consequence to pissing off the Palestinian Authority.

Hezbollah and Hamas have the (unfortunate) prestige they do because they actually succeeded in recovering control of territory, by force. The Palestinian Authority hasn’t recovered squat through negotiations and security cooperation.

Also note that being friends with Europe and the US, like the PA, doesn’t get you squat. Hamas and Hezbollah picked Iran and they get support that’s at least somewhat effective.

I know you’re more of an all-stick-no-carrot man, but if there was any upside for groups that behave how we want, maybe more would choose that option.

[Moderation4ever]

I think there are a lot of things in play in Gaza. First Israel had every right to go into Gaza after Hamas. Where I think Israel went wrong, and other countries have also done this, is not finishing up quickly enough. After knocking back Hamas, Israel should have turned to a more targeted solution. Track down and kill Hamas with hit teams. Make anyone associated with the October 7th live in fear every time they turn their car ignition on. I think the move to keep an active war is political to keep people from investigating what happened on October 7th. The old "we will do an investigation, but now is not the right time" canard. It is not the war that is helping Hamas as much as the length of the war.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Biden doesn’t want Israel to repeat the same mistakes we made after 9/11. Israel has been safer than before 10/7 for months. So just like Afghanistan Israel as 3 objectives on 10/8:

1. Degrade Hamas (that objective has been accomplished)
2. Bring evildoers to justice (we didn’t kill OBL until almost a decade later but we were still safe)
3. Prevent future terrorists from organizing and orchestrating from Gaza (this is where mission creep happens and where we went very wrong up until February 2020 when Trump cut a deal with the Taliban)

[Dr. Ed 2]

QED, they should have simply nuked Gaza.....

[John F. Carr]

Nuking Gaza isn't a great military move because Hamas fighters hide in tunnels.

[Martinned2]

And because it would make most of Israel glow in the dark. Israel/Palestine isn't exactly Texas-sized.

[Nige]

Going out on a limb here, but it's the brutality of the Israeli response that's probably driving that.

[Moderation4ever]

The Russian brutality in Ukraine far surpasses that in Gaza, so why are the Russians getting away with their brutality? If you go on the brutality scale then Israel is far from the top of the list. Hamas is well up there on the scale. So why does Hamas get a pass and Israel is held to account? I think it is time for Israel to change tactics, but I am not going to hold them accountable for going against an enemy that hides behind woman and children.

[Nige]

Israel's getting away with the brutality, too, most of the push-back has been symbolic. By all accounts Hamas are being slaughtered, not sure how that is getting away with anything, pity about the tens of thousands of innocents. Similarly, Russia's military superiority and bottomless warm bodies to throw at the front is allowing them to get away with it, and an absolute aversion to escalation by the west.

[loki13]

Maybe we should just rename the Open Thread to …

So, what do YOU think about Trump (and/or the very occasional other topic).

On a legal topic, I recommend checking out this opinion by Judge Reeves (S.D. Miss.)-

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24674613/green-v-thomas.pdf

He’s slinging fire. First, I think a lot of people here might like it at first because it’s both denying qualified immunity and going after qualified immunity doctrine HARDCORE. It digs into the history and really calls it out both as applied and as a legal doctrine.

But it does more. It also really calls out the Supreme Court in general, comparing qualified immunity to the decision in Dobbs, and noting that while SCOTUS was comfortable in Dobbs overturning that similarly old precedent despite reliance interests and leaving it to the will of the people, it does not so examine qualified immunity. Moreover, it notes that the courts should provide primacy to the democratic process- something I touched on when I was discussing pre-sour Scalia jurisprudence.

Honestly, I have mixed opinions about this. It is obviously an opinion born of frustration from dealing with qualified immunity cases, and seeing what the Supreme Court has been doing. I think it makes some excellent points. But I am always put off by judges using a particular case as a soapbox to opine in general.

The opinion is thorough, harsh, and a good read, but just because I think that he might be making excellent points doesn’t mean that I think he should be using the litigants' case to make those points. Just because we have Judge Ho (for instance) constantly bloviating about whatever culture war topic is on his mind, doesn’t mean that all judges should engage in this- it means that we should ask all judges to stop engaging in this.

Anyway, throwing it out for general conversation.

[Mr. Bumble]

What part of "Open Thread" don't you understand?

[Moderation4ever]

Yes. I would note that collards got more responses today than Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

I think it makes some excellent points. But I am always put off by judges using a particular case as a soapbox to opine in general.

Well put; cringe had put me off reading but I'll take a look when I get home this evening.

[loki13]

Now, I should note one thing. The plaintiff in the action did argue that qualified immunity was unconstitutional, so the ... really interesting part of the the opinion (pp. 41-61) is arguably not just pontificating, although it does hit a lot of issues that aren't necessary.

As stated in n.31, the district court (which had already ruled in plaintiff's favor on the issue) was addressing the argument to "preserve (Plaintiff's) objection for appellate review," even though the court also stated that the argument was foreclosed by existing law.

[David Nieporent]

Right; it wasn't gratuitous. But it was essentially an amicus brief.

[loki13]

Well, I think there might have been some gratuitous bits....

Honestly, though, I do have to wonder how effective of an amicus it will be given the audience ... the appeal is going to the 5th, so while it makes some excellent and appealing points, some of it might not be well-taken by that particular circuit.

Of course, this also brings into focus the collateral issue about changes in the law. What is the best way for a judge to signal that precedent is wrong or needs to change, while still following binding precedent? How much is too much in terms of opining and advocacy? I don't think that there is an obvious or clear answer, unless you use the Potter standard ("I know it when I see it.").

[David Nieporent]

Honestly, though, I do have to wonder how effective of an amicus it will be given the audience … the appeal is going to the 5th, so while it makes some excellent and appealing points, some of it might not be well-taken by that particular circuit.

There are actually some on the bench in the 5th who are pretty skeptical of QI. But it doesn't really matter, because ultimately the ball is in SCOTUS's court (ugh) to deal with QI.

[Magister]

the ball is in SCOTUS’s court (ugh)

So "en banc" is French for "full court press"?

[not guilty]

The doctrine of qualified immunity as an affirmative defense was birthed in statutory construction in 1967. Congress has so far acquiesced, but Congress can abolish qualified immunity by statute. As it should.

[loki13]

Saying that it was birthed in statutory construction is a … generous reading.

While I agree that it is tied to the statute, and Congress could change it, in order to change it they would say, “Oh, and the fact that we didn’t say that there is qualified immunity or any other additional defenses in the text of the statute means that there aren’t any. Really. We literally wrote an exception in there about judicial capacity, and if we wanted more, we would have written it. Good?”

(By the way, I actually understand and appreciate the policy arguments in favor of qualified immunity. But I wouldn't say that it was a statutory construction of the text. And even to the extent that you do think it has a valid application, the insane way that it is being applied now is far beyond any kind of possible reading, other than realizing that this is a judicially-created doctrine to kick out lawsuits against government employees, primarily law enforcement officers and corrections officers, but others as well.)

[David Nieporent]

And even to the extent that you do think it has a valid application, the insane way that it is being applied now is far beyond any kind of possible reading,

This. There may be a place — policywise — for QI; there's certainly the appearance of unfairness when the government actor is faced with liability for a truly novel situation. (Though why that needs to be an immunity rather than a defense is unclear.) But the whole "clearly established" thing is atextual; the notion that general principles are insufficient is ridiculous, and the fact that the legal inquiry turns on the close analysis of dozens of cases that the officers never read in the first place is insane.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I was actually thinking about posting on this. While I'm broadly sympathetic to his overall position, I don't think that stunts like this are either productive or appropriate. Here's a disorganized list of thoughts:

1. The order is formatted to look like a circuit court opinion. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it before, and it doesn't bode well.

2. The introduction appears to say that he would disobey the Supreme Court by denying the motion even if he found that it hadn't alleged violation of a clearly established law, which seems pretty incredible. (He does, to my reading, walk it back later, but still.)

3. The appeal to democracy is pretty unconvincing to me. After all, no one seriously questions that Congress could abolish qualified immunity at any time if it wanted to. And of course it's considered proposals to do just that recently, and opted not to. So to the extent we can draw any conclusions about the will of the people on the issue, I'd say that's very weak evidence in favor of the status quo.

4. Likewise, the attempted "gotcha" with Dobbs is Blackman-level unpersuasive.

5. Also, is this case actually a good vehicle for this stunt? After all, Judge Reeves found that qualified immunity doesn't apply here: assuming he's right, doesn't that mean that the doctrine isn't actually creating an unjust result in this case?

[not guilty]

"After all, Judge Reeves found that qualified immunity doesn’t apply here: assuming he’s right, doesn’t that mean that the doctrine isn’t actually creating an unjust result in this case?"

In all likelihood, Judge Reeves will not be the only judge to consider this case. The defendant police officer can appeal as of right to the Fifth Circuit pursuant to the "collateral order" doctrine, and en banc consideration is possible thereafter. No inferior federal court can abolish qualified immunity generally as an affirmative defense, so Judge Reeves is writing for the benefit of SCOTUS should it elect to hear this case. Only two members of that court have served as trial judges, (and only one recently), so the perspective of a sitting trial judge could possibly be helpful in that regard.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Also, here’s Prof. Kerr on the issue (not about this specific case, obviously, but he brought up the piece over on Twitter. Or X.)

https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/criticizing-the-court-how-opinionated-should-opinions-be/

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Did you hear how Germany just decriminalized child p*rn?

They went from “right wing Nazis” to “gay Jews” in one generation lol

That's the power of the Kalurgi Plan

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bernstein, Blackman, and Volokh will give a pass to this guy for that antisemitic comment, because that commenter is every bit the disaffected right-wing write-off that they are.

Carry on, paltry, partisan, pretextual hypocrites.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.amherstindy.org/2024/05/22/umass-student-protestors-honored-in-alternate-graduation-ceremony/

This garbage is not going to end until we start FIRING TENURED PROFESSORS.... Firing them early and often....

One proposal I've seen involves being required to abolish tenure as a condition of receiving Federal Funds, which I don't much care about because tenure doesn't seem to protect conservative White male professors...

[David Nieporent]

Firing them for what?

[loki13]

Dr. Ed doesn't know for sure, but he does know that whenever he reads something that angers his blood, someone has to be punished!!!!!

[Voize]

You just know when Ed writes "firing" he is thinking "... squad!"

[Dr. Ed 2]

Moral Turpitude.

Look it up....

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you applaud UCLA's recent campus and law faculty improvement project?

[Mr. Bumble]

If you're referring to EV's move you seem to have missed this:
"is the Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford, and the Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law (Emeritus starting July 2024)."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It appears Volokh intends to continue to misappropriate UCLA's franchise in an effort to put mainstream lipstick on a bigoted, disaffected, white, male, faux libertarian blog.

One more reason no legitimate, mainstream law school should hire movement conservatives for faculty positions.

[Estragon]

Imagine being in such a precarious mental and emotional state that you actually have a staffer following you around with a portable printer, printing out favorable articles for you to read to boost your mood.

I suppose this will be an official position in the “unified reich”

[OtisAH]

In Trump’s Unified Reich, the media will provide that service for free. Or more of it than they do now.

And in anticipation of the Unified Reich, folks like Alito and Thomas understand their legacies will be secure, which is likely one reason they’re so fucking shameless. And also why pleas to Roberts over his court’s legacy fall on mostly deaf ears and only occasionally elicit a defensive “Well I never” response from him.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Blackman, Bernstein, and Volokh will issue a pass to Trump for that antisemitic message, because he's every bit the disingenuous, partisan, right-wing hack that they are.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Court Fluffer

[Moderation4ever]

What I find hard to believe about this is that Trump reads. I could see someone printing the article reading and highlighting them for him and he reads the highlights, but read a whole article?

[David Nieporent]

[Wrong place]

[Mr. Bumble]

I'm sure your wife will forgive you.

[Estragon]

Do you experience any cognitive dissonance making douchey retorts like this while also calling OTHER PEOPLE douches?

[Mr. Bumble]

Do you?

[Estragon]

I’ll take that as “no”

[Bwaaah]

I'll take that as "no"

[Estragon]

Congrats you are now an official bumble dittohead. You will go far in the unified reich.

[Mr. Bumble]

OK. Feel better?

[Bwaaah]

Do you?

[loki13]

[Wrong time]

[apedad]

Soaring Salaries Force Tough Decisions by Big Law Leaders

Big Law leaders face one of their toughest tests in making a case for changing compensation policies in response to a flurry of high-profile partner moves and rivals’ pay packages that can soar as high as $20 million.

The changes represent a drastic departure for most elite New York firms, which within a generation have gone from an egalitarian compensation approach to one that acknowledges some partners are more valuable than others.

The pay gulf between these firms’ highest- and lowest-paid partners has been widening, a phenomenon likely to accelerate because of the recently announced changes.

Wells Fargo tracks pay for the highest 10% of partners and the lowest 10%, and the spread increased at the end of last year to the highest paid partners earning 5.9 times the lowest-paid group, up from 5.6 times the previous year.

Citi has also observed the pay spread expanding, with some firms reporting the top 10% earning seven or eight times the bottom 10%, McKenney said.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/soaring-salaries-force-tough-decisions-from-big-law-leaders

I kind of liken this to professional sports.

In football, the stars make millions and the non-stars make hundreds of thousands - but the non-stars are still making WAY WAY above the US average worker.

(In the NFL) the minimum for a rookie is $795,000, which increases to $9150,000 for players with one year of experience and $985,000 for players with two years of experience.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm just waiting for folk to cash out and change the rules to anyone can own a law firm.

[not guilty]

Don't hold your breath, Dr. Ed 2.

Who do you surmise would change such rules?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm curious: Assuming Biden loses this fall, is there any legal route to undo all his illegal student loan giveaways?

[Martinned2]

That would be a taking, obviously.

[ThePublius]

What? How's that?

[Brett Bellmore]

I can't see how; If some government employee illegally handed you a check for the same amount, it wouldn't be a taking to retrieve the money. At least I don't think it would be.

There might be reliance interests, but it could be argued that anybody getting student loan "forgiveness" at this point is adequately on notice that they shouldn't rely on it being legal.

[Martinned2]

No, but "illegally" kinda assumes the conclusion there.

[Brett Bellmore]

Biden's already on notice directly that his student loan forgiveness is illegal. Went all the way to the Supreme court.

At this point he's just piecemeal defying the Court. Thus my argument that there can't be any reliance interests in a program the Court has already publicly declared illegal.

[Sarcastr0]

The court said statute A didn't provide the authority, This is statute B.

There is no precedent on point.

But no, there is no precedent to revivify debt once discharged against people who did nothing wrong.

Because that's monstrous.
Your utter lack of ability to consider the people who would be effected is...expected.

[ducksalad]

A new income tax deduction, available to anyone who has never benefited from loan forgiveness. That is literally the only condition.

How big a deduction? Big enough that on average it's larger than one year's payments on a student loan.

Would this dramatically reduce net federal revenues? Yes, and that's why it's an especially good idea.

[M L]

I'm not sure they are illegal, other than the one that was already shot down. The SAVE plan referenced for example, seems to be just a difference in degree from numerous prior iterations of payment plans.

The underlying 20/25 year forgiveness provisions were an act of Congress dating back to the 90s I think, and were written into the loan contracts years ago.

[not guilty]

A flurry of motions and motion responses has been unsealed this week in the Mar-a-Lago documents case. Perhaps the most peculiar issue is that Donald Trump is moving to suppress the fruits of the search warrant executed at Mar-a-Lago based on what Trump characterizes as misrepresentations in the affidavit supporting issuance of the warrant. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.566.0_1.pdf

There is a presumption of validity with respect to the affidavit supporting the search warrant. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171 (1978). However, where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant's request. In the event that at that hearing the allegation of perjury or reckless disregard is established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, and, with the affidavit's false material set to one side, the affidavit's remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause, the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded to the same extent as if probable cause was lacking on the face of the affidavit. Id., at 155-156.

To mandate an evidentiary hearing under Franks, the challenger's attack must be more than conclusory and must be supported by more than a mere desire to cross-examine. There must be allegations of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for the truth, and those allegations must be accompanied by an offer of proof. They should point out specifically the portion of the warrant affidavit that is claimed to be false; and they should be accompanied by a statement of supporting reasons. Affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses should be furnished, or their absence satisfactorily explained. Allegations of negligence or innocent mistake are insufficient. The deliberate falsity or reckless disregard whose impeachment is permitted today is only that of the affiant, not of any nongovernmental informant. Finally, if these requirements are met, and if, when material that is the subject of the alleged falsity or reckless disregard is set to one side, there remains sufficient content in the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause, no hearing is required. On the other hand, if the remaining content is insufficient, the defendant is entitled, under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, to his hearing. Id., at 171-172.

At pages 6-7 of the motion to suppress, Team Trump does not complain of any affirmative misstatements by the affiant -- deliberate, reckless or otherwise. The motion instead kvetches about four omissions which Trump claims that the affiant should have included in the affidavit. There are no allegations of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for the truth by the affiant regarding the alleged omissions. That kind of caterwauling is insufficient to call for a Franks hearing.

Trump's motion nowhere engages with the materiality requirement of Franks. As the Eleventh Circuit has opined:

The Supreme Court made it clear in Franks that in order to be entitled to relief a defendant must show not only that misrepresentations or omissions were intentionally or recklessly made, but also that, absent those misrepresentations or omissions, probable cause would have been lacking. That is the test of materiality, and materiality is essential no matter how deliberate or reckless the misrepresentations were.

United States v. Novaton, 271 F.3d 968, 987 (11th Cir. 2001).

The affidavit in support of the search warrant, summarized at pages 2-4 of the Government's response, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.567.0_1.pdf , furnishes ample facts to conclude that there was a fair probability that evidence of a crime would be found" at Mar-a-Lago. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). Trump's motion abjectly fails to explain how the omissions he complains of would have made one whit of difference.

[SRG2]

This motion simply provides Cannon with another excuse to hold a hearing to slow down the trial.

[Mr. Bumble]

Should the motion have been dismissed out of hand?

[not guilty]

The motion should not be dismissed out of hand, in that it raises other issues as well. But the motion is insufficient on its face to call for a Franks hearing.

[Mr. Bumble]

So what should have been done?

[not guilty]

The District Court should hear argument on the other issues raised in the defense motion, including applicability vel non of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule recognized in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), and the Court should make appropriate factual findings and conclusions of law on the record.

In the event that the District Court orders suppression of evidence, it should do so in advance of trial so that the prosecution can appeal the order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731. Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(d) requires:

The court must decide every pretrial motion before trial unless it finds good cause to defer a ruling. The court must not defer ruling on a pretrial motion if the deferral will adversely affect a party's right to appeal. When factual issues are involved in deciding a motion, the court must state its essential findings on the record.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Insufficient is a matter of your opinion. Not matter of fact .

Everyone knows what your opnions are on any pf these legal matters.

Does it help Trump? If yes the
its Insufficient, immoral, unethical or illegal, otherwise if it hurts him, we'll that's the soundest, greatest, most obvious thing in the history of Law.

[not guilty]

What particulars of the Franks v. Delaware issue do you claim that I have gotten wrong? Please be specific.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Can you please explain, with evidence, why your statement is a matter of fact and not one of opinion?

Please be thorough and address the question being asked.

[not guilty]

"Can you please explain, with evidence, why your statement is a matter of fact and not one of opinion?"

I have cited ample legal authorities supporting my contentions, as I routinely do on these comment threads.

I practiced law for 28 years before retiring, mostly criminal defense work. I have litigated scores of jury trials, suppression motions in more cases than that, and hundreds of appeals, primarily in state courts but with a healthy number of federal cases as well. That qualifies me to analyze the applicable legal authorities and predict how courts are likely to address motions in criminal cases.

Now it is your turn to answer, JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes. What particulars of the Franks v. Delaware issue do you claim that I have gotten wrong? Please be specific.

And FWIW, have you ever litigated a legal matter in your life, JHBHBE?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You're a 28 year litigator and don't know the difference between an "opinion" and a "fact"?

lol wow that's embarrassing... Were you an affirmative action litigator?

[not guilty]

Uh, you were inquiring about sufficiency of the averments in a motion to suppress to call for a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware. That is a threshold question of law, not of fact.

Only where the movant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, does the Fourth Amendment require that a hearing be held. Franks, 438 U.S. 154, 155-156 (1978). As Justice Blackmun wrote for the Court:

There is, of course, a presumption of validity with respect to the affidavit supporting the search warrant. To mandate an evidentiary hearing, the challenger's attack must be more than conclusory and must be supported by more than a mere desire to cross-examine. There must be allegations of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for the truth, and those allegations must be accompanied by an offer of proof. They should point out specifically the portion of the warrant affidavit that is claimed to be false; and they should be accompanied by a statement of supporting reasons. Affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses should be furnished, or their absence satisfactorily explained. Allegations of negligence or innocent mistake are insufficient. The deliberate falsity or reckless disregard whose impeachment is permitted today is only that of the affiant, not of any nongovernmental informant. Finally, if these requirements are met, and if, when material that is the subject of the alleged falsity or reckless disregard is set to one side, there remains sufficient content in the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause, no hearing is required. On the other hand, if the remaining content is insufficient, the defendant is entitled, under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, to his hearing. Whether he will prevail at that hearing is, of course, another issue.

Id., at 171-172 (footnote omitted).

The basis of the reversal in Franks was that the Delaware courts had wrongly denied the movant a hearing based on that state's law, contrary to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. SCOTUS never addressed the factual merits of the motion to suppress.

Now quit dancing around the maypole and tell us what particulars of the Franks issue you claim that I have gotten wrong. Likewise, please tell us whether you have ever litigated a legal matter in your life. As the first President Roosevelt observed:

It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I was inquiring about how you presented your opinion as if your interpretation was a fact and not just your opinion.

How embarrassing for you

[not guilty]

No, the insufficiency of the instant factual proffer to require a Franks hearing is a matter of federal Fourth Amendment law, not a matter of opinion. I linked to the motion to dismiss and pointed out the legal deficiencies thereof, citing applicable legal authorities.

I am curious, JHBHBE. Have you even read the opinion of the Court in Franks v. Delaware (other than the portions that I quoted)? Yes or no? And once again, have you ever litigated a legal matter in your life?

Even your nom de guerre indicates that you care little for truth or falsity. Yeshua (as he would have been known) was a Middle Eastern Jew. The likelihood that he had blonde hair and blue eyes is fanciful.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That's your interpretation of the law.

How on Earth do you not understand this? Do you think you can just magically assert a fact and make objective something that is obviously your opinion and subjective.

Do you go into court and argue cases as if your legal interpretations were statements of fact?

[not guilty]

No, that is not my interpretation of the law. The language of Franks v. Delaware that I cite is that of Justice Blackmun on behalf of the Supreme Court, over the dissent of Justice Rehnquist joined by Chief Justice Burger. The citation to Illinois v. Gates is the language of Justice Rehnquist, joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justices Blackmun, Powell and O'Connor. (Justice White separately concurred in the judgment.) The citation to United States v. Novaton was the language of Eleventh Circuit Judge Edward Earl Carnes. Also on the panel were Judges Robert Lanier Anderson III and James L. Oakes, U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.

When I cited existing law to a court I had legal authority to back up what I was saying. When I advocated for an extension or modification of existing law I acknowledged that I was doing so.

I did not offer my opinions to the courts that I argued before. Opinions are like assholes. Nearly everyone has one, and neither one's opinion nor one's asshole should be offered casually.

Once again, JHBHBE, have you ever litigated a legal matter in your life?

[David Nieporent]

Trump’s motion abjectly fails to explain how the omissions he complains of would have made one whit of difference.

Yes, but it pounds the table by saying, "The good-faith exception is unavailable because of the egregious manner in which the search was executed." But the "egregious manner" is that (a) they looked in all the rooms controlled by Trump, including his wife's¹ and son's; and (b) the FBI agents carried their FBI-issued weapons. Neither of those has anything to do with the GFE, and of course neither is a valid complaint. (Accused drug dealer: "You can't search that room for cocaine; it's my son's room.") The case they cite is not about the GFE, and is about looking somewhere where the intended evidence cannot be found.​ But obviously Trump could hide boxes of classified documents in his wife's bedroom just as easily as in his own.
​
​
¹You'd think it'd be bigger news that Trump and his wife don't even share a bedroom.

[David Nieporent]

But you're right that the brief fails to explain how the supposed omissions are material.

1) It "failed to disclose that the FBI had taken the position—in writing,
apparently—that it was not necessary to execute a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago." That refers to the fact that — based on the Washington Post's reporting — some in the FBI thought that they could still get the documents back by negotiating with Trump. But what does that have to do with probable cause? Nothing at all. And the constitution does not require that law enforcement try lesser methods before getting a warrant.

2) It "failed to disclose that presidents are not required to obtain clearances and that sensitive briefings including classified information had been provided to President Trump at Mar-a-Lago and other residences before and during his presidency." But what does that have to do with probable cause? Again: nothing at all.

3) It supposedly misrepresented the date on which the FBI began investigating this issue. But what does that have to do with PC? Again: nothing at all.

4) And finally, it failed to include the definition of personal records contained in the PRA. But (a) the PRA has nothing whatsoever to do with this case; and (b) there's not even a colorable argument that classified documents are personal records anyway. So, again: nothing to do with PC.

[loki13]

The goal is not to make a colorable legal argument.

The goal is to throw as much bait in the water as possible hoping the Judge Cannon will seize on it to further delay.

[Commenter_XY]

loki13 (or any other lawyer), when lawyers say 'colorable' as in colorable argument, what exactly is meant by this term? I see it a lot, but getting a good working definition is not so easy.

Define: colorable

[loki13]

Plausible. Whenever you see us use it, substitute the word "plausible."

[Commenter_XY]

Thanks for that.

[David Nieporent]

Yes; as SRG2 said, she'll probably schedule a hearing on this, just to drag it out. As others have noted, she's been doing that for every single routine thing, that could've been decided on papers.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>A Fulton County Board of Elections member had to sue her own Board because they will not give the Board members, the people in charge of certifying their elections, any documentation for what they are actually certifying!

https://twitter.com/realLizUSA/status/1793660622393250075

Don't worry guys, We Trust The Science(tm) and The Science says 2020 was the Safest, Securest, Most Purest election in the history of mankind!

Not a single shred of even a hint of a shadow of a smoke signal of LITERALLY ANYTHING untoward ever happened, it's entirely unreasonable (and conspiracy-kookish) to even have the echo of skepticism!

OUR INSTITUTIONS ARE PURE AND SHOULD BE TRUSTED UNCRITICALLY AND UNQUESTIONINGLY!

SCIENCE!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Apparently the Democrats had made rules whereas the election board's audit and certification was to rely solely upon the word of the Democrat Elections Director and were forbidden from seeing any voting artifacts.

Totally SCIENTIFIC AND SCIENCY AND TRUSTWORTHY!

An elections director would never lie! They are civil servants, after all, and civil servants are infallible! Just ask the great Scarpacci0.

[ThePublius]

American Airlines:
"American Airlines' lawyers said in a court filing, "Any injuries or illnesses alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff, Mary Doe, were proximately caused by plaintiff’s own fault and negligence, were proximately caused by Plaintiff’s use of the compromised lavatory, which she knew or should have known contained a visible and illuminated recording device.""

So, it's the 9 year old girl's own fault that an AA employee filmed her privates in an airplane lav, because she should have known this would happen?

AA should fire this lawyer and settle with the family. Holy cow.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/american-airlines-blames-girl-9-should-have-known-flight-attendant-planted-hidden-cameras-court-docs

I chose American for my last flight because I didn't want to get on a Boeing aircraft. Now what?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm flying with them tomorrow, purely on account of them having the cheapest flight to where I'm going. And despite their policy of deliberately splitting families up unless you pay extra to sit next to each other. I can live with a few hours of being next to some stranger just to stick it to them, I'll just read a book.

For the 14 1/2 hours from LAX to Manila, though I definitely shelled out for the adjoining seats.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You could try to stay up-to-date on the news, for one.

https://thehill.com/homenews/4678026-american-airlines-says-filing-blaming-9-year-old-in-bathroom-recording-case-was-an-error/

“Our outside legal counsel retained with our insurance company made an error in this filing. The included defense is not representative of our airline and we have directed it be amended this morning. We do not believe this child is at fault and we take the allegations involving a former team member very seriously. Our core mission is to care for people — and the foundation of that is the safety and security of our customers and team.”

– American Airlines

[ThePublius]

You buy that? It's after the fact spin. They hire the lawyer, and he represented them, so there. What action have they taken? Have they fired him? The firm he works for?

It's like a big "sorry, not sorry."

[David Nieporent]

Of course it's after-the-fact spin. How could they have said this before the fact? Precognition?

What's there not to buy? As I said below, we've seen this happen before. Outside counsel — probably insurance defense — submits an answer that includes absolutely tone-deaf boilerplate defenses. It looks terrible, but it's not (or shouldn't be) a firing offense.

[David Nieporent]

AA should fire this lawyer

This happens from time to time: a lawyer uses routine, boilerplate lawyer language without even bothering to think about the optics of what he's saying. It's utterly SOP when sued to cite contributory negligence by the plaintiff as an affirmative defense. But sometimes you have to step back from your lawsuit template, read the document before filing, and say, "Do we really want to raise that argument here?"

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd buy that actually happening here, just because the optics were so bad even AA, which is pretty customer hostile, would have known better.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Good news on the Climate Change front.

After 3 years and only $12B our National Energy Grid has expanded its support for EVs by adding an amazing 7 new chargers.

That's pretty good government for you. $1.5B per charging station is less than an FBI conference table and it's a whole station!

[Mr. Bumble]

Now if they can figure out how to stop thieves for stealing the copper in the you might find one that works.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Unified Reich --

better name for

a skinhead band

or

Blackman, Bernstein, and Volokh?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I won't try to influence judgments by indicating which way I lean.

[Frank Drackman]

Like your victims? forward grabbing the ankles.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Of course a super spreader like you is out here pimping the latest hoax.

[Frank Drackman]

Don't look up how they say "Austria" in Austria

[Frank Drackman]

When I saw the Southern Cross for the first time….
Wasn’t that impressed, Northern Cross much larger more stars (the brightest, Deneb will take over from Polaris as the North Star some 7,800 years from now (don’t tell Polaris)

Frank

[Stephen Lathrop]

Two-month progress report on my new more-aggressive muting policy. Thumbs up! Looks and feels notably more like the old VC. No notable downside, except that I wonder more about why good commenters struggle so hard to cut the cord, and thus find themselves thrashing endlessly in the mud with the pigs. Thinking of you, Sarcastr0.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suspect there will be a massive change around here when Reason pulls the trigger on their announced plan to close comments to non-subscribers. (Long time commenters have been given a grace period to subscribe.) The last time a host did that, though, the VC moved. I wonder if they'd move again?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Can the right-wing hayseeds who frequent this blog afford a subscription? How would they buy the handful of street pills they need to get through another deplorable, desolate day in West Virginia, west Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Idaho, Alabama, Tennesee, Kentucky, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, or the Hoover Institution?

[Frank Drackman]

same way you get them at
https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Guys like you talked Volokh right off the UCLA campus. Thanks for your service, clingers. Countless UCLA law students (the ones who don't enjoy racial slurs in class, at least) will benefit from your work.

[David Nieporent]

Repeating your trolling won't make it any truer than your claim you were censored and you could totally prove it but you won't, like your girlfriend in Canada that we wouldn't know.

[Kazinski]

They've exempted Volokh, because EV makes his own rules:

"Commenting privileges on all reason.com posts that have comments enabled. That's right, to comment on reason.com posts (except for Volokh Conspiracy blog posts) you'll need to be a Reason Plus subscriber. Recent commenters have been grandfathered in with commenting privileges (but no other Reason Plus benefits) for the time being."

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, I missed that. So it's the rest of the site that will shortly change.

That might alter the spill over effects here, though.

[Frank Drackman]

Muted

[Brett Bellmore]

Rasmussen Poll: 52% For Deporting Migrants Over Amnesty

“Given a choice between granting amnesty to illegal immigrants and deporting all of them, 52% would vote for the candidate who favored deportation, 36% would vote for the candidate who favored amnesty, and 12% are undecided.

The latest Rasmussen Reports survey also revealed that 75% of Republican voters would choose the candidate who favored deporting all illegal immigrants, as would 34% of Democrats, and 50% of unaffiliated voters.”

Also,

"In the Rasmussen poll, 37% say "illegal alien" is the best way to describe foreigners who cross the U.S. border in violation of our immigration laws, while 26% say "illegal immigrant" is the best term. Twenty-two percent consider "undocumented migrant" the best description, while 10% prefer "asylum seeker.""

Ilya Somin hardest hit…

[Stephen Lathrop]

In a poll which deliberately conflates asylum seekers with illegal immigrants. Not surprised that delights you Bellmore.

[Brett Bellmore]

Pfft. No, actually the question was,

"1* Which is the best way to describe foreigners who cross the U.S. border in violation of our immigration laws: Illegal alien, illegal immigrant, asylum seeker, or undocumented migrant?"

[Stephen Lathrop]

The category is, "foreigners who cross the U.S, border." The conflation is built into a list of choices which require one answer to apply alike to a category that is obviously not homogenous. Pick any answer from the list, and you have endorsed a conflation.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, the category is "foreigners who illegally cross the US border. You can't make the "illegal" part of it go away by just not mentioning it, it was central to the question.

So the category IS uniform in that one central regard.

[DewbieDewbieDoo]

Damn, it's THURSDAY?

Tempus Fugit.

[Brett Bellmore]

Anyway, don't read too much into my dearth of comments over the next few weeks: I'm off on an international scuba trip, and expect limited internet access. Ta!

[Nige]

If you find any wrecks haunted by a grouchy old janitor disguised as a ghost be sure to say scuba-duba-doooo

[Brett Bellmore]

Will do!

[Mr. Bumble]

Cue "Octopus's Garden".

[David Nieporent]

Donald Trump filed a motion in which he claimed that Biden authorized deadly force to be used against him; propagandist Julie Kelly noted it and publicized it on Twitter, and it has spread like wildfire since. Now, Julie Kelly didn't understand what she was reading or know the facts (big shock there), but I have since realized that part of the problem is that Donald Trump's lawyers misquoted the utterly standard use of force policy communicated to the FBI agents conducting the search.The actual document says:

Law enforcement officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person.

The purpose of this document is to remind the agents of the limitations on their use of force (and it even goes on to clarify those limitations with a bunch of bullet points).

But when Donald Trump's lawyers quoted from this document in his motion, here's what they wrote:

The Order contained a “Policy Statement” regarding “Use Of Deadly Force,” which stated, for example, “Law enforcement officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force when necessary…"

In addition to truncating the explanation for when the FBI can use deadly force — when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person — see what they did? See the word missing between "deadly force" and "when necessary"? They turned it from a restrictive statement into an affirmative one.

[DewbieDewbieDoo]

He ain't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. Nor his lawyers, possibly.

Unless one views it as just a spaghetti/wall tactic, I guess.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Much like Volokh's ceaseless stream of clinger-lathering bigotry and red meat, it will excite the right-wing base of half-educated rubes.

[DaveM]

Take the (political) loss on this one. Well deserved. There is nothing “standard” about raiding your political opponent’s home with guns at the ready, rifling through the ex-First Lady’s underwear drawer, shuffling papers and adding Top Secret cover pages for a photo op, then failing to maintain control of the evidence. Garland is either a political fool or he intentionally took one for the team. A Keystone Kops moment.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I assume Melania doesn't wear underwear unless Trump is nearby.

[David Nieporent]

The identity of the owner of the person whose home was searched was unique. The search itself was entirely standard.

[Magister]

identity of the owner of the person whose home was searched

The person whose home was searched was Trump.

The owner of Trump? Who would that be?

Church Lady: Hmm. Could it be ... Putin?

[David Nieporent]

Heh.

[DaveM]

I have no response to this. "Unique", indeed.

[David Nieporent]

Yes. Presidents stealing classified documents and refusing to return them, going so far as to submit a perjured affidavit claiming you already did, is also unique.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Can you point to your comment where you tell the truthful version of events, or is this paragraph of lies the only contribution you've decided to make?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Aren't there different rules when the USSS is involved -- if for no other reason than the fact they have Uzis....

[Mr. Bumble]

You mean like Randy Weaver's wife?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Played stupid games, won a stupid prize.

[Mr. Bumble]

You are such a dick.

[Sarcastr0]

Dish it out but can’t take it, eh?

[Mr. Bumble]

No douche. Calling the Rev. out for a comment about the murder of an unarmed woman by the FBI.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Murder? You’re playing stupid games, too. Misfit solidarity!

[Nige]

Seems like only the other day you taunted somone by asking them if they'd been abused as a child.

[DewbieDewbieDoo]

I don't come around here often enough to matter. But I wonder if policies like the one quoted below reduce page views?

Or is it the case that those accustomed to free use of the comments section represent a small fraction of readers?

"Heads up: Commenting privileges now require a subscription to Reason Plus. As a past commenter you have been granted commenting privileges on a temporary basis. To ensure your continued ability to comment and enjoy numerous additional benefits, subscribe to Reason Plus now."

[Kazinski]

That's not the policy here. And I doubt it would ever apply to Volokh's blog, since he's a free agent. Don't forget he left the WaPo because of their paywall, if Reason started erecting barriers he wouldn't stay long.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That's what he claimed. Maybe gullible clingers believe it.

[DewbieDewbieDoo]

Kazinski - Thank you, and my mistake.

I clicked the link to the California telemedicine lawsuit (Reason, not Reason/Volokh) without realizing it was not a Volokh article.

Unfortunately my edit time has expired on the prior post.

[Kazinski]

It looks like the Democrats anti-Semitic problem is getting worse.

Portland threw out it's Soro's backed DA in the Democratic primary.

https://apnews.com/article/portland-oregon-progressive-district-attorney-election-756eff76ca7391a18fd703417b788f94

Its been well established that opposition to candidates backed by George Soros is anti-Semitic. And I really can't think of any other reason the people of Portland would be dissatisfied. Not that I would know, I used to visit Portland regularly, but I avoid it now.

[Nige]

I got to say, the way you take anti-semitism seriously only when you're supporting the killing of tens of thousands of men women and children is an inspiration to us all.

[ThePublius]

Nige, I assume you're talking about the deaths among Palestinians in Gaza? Well, rather than just parroting the anti-semitic talking points you should honestly look into it. There are military experts from all quarters who say that Israel, the IDF, have done more to minimize innocent civilian casualties than any army in history. The statistics that many people quote as gospel come from the Palestinian Ministry of Health, who have a reputation for exaggerating and falsifying such statistics. The UN last week took down their casualty numbers by 50% - 50%! And, many of the so-called innocents there are actually Hamas fighters or supporters.

It's tough to fight an enemy who uses civilians as shields and bases rocket launchers and other weapons in schools, hospitals, and homes.

[DewbieDewbieDoo]

“the Palestinian Ministry of Health, who have a reputation for exaggerating and falsifying such statistics”

The same Palestinian, err… Hamas “Ministry of Health” that blamed Israel when their own midwits prematurely exploded a rocket in the hospital parking lot?

[Nige]

Those are the IDF stories, anyway.

Out of twenty-two hospitals in Gaza, how many are still functioning?

[Nige]

I'm sorry, who else are they going to come from? They're only the people on the ground actually counting the dead and injured as best they could, until the infrastructure for doing that was completely destroyed, and they stopped. That 'reduced by 50%' doesn't seem to have stuck.

'It’s tough to fight an enemy who uses civilians as shields and bases rocket launchers and other weapons in schools, hospitals, and homes.'

No, it's really, really easy, you just don't care about civilian casualties and claim everyone you kill is either Hamas or a shield.

[Davedave]

Yup, Nige takes the moral high-ground here, because he’s only interested in the kind of antisemitism that results in killing every single Jew in the world.

You Nazi scum fighting among yourselves as to who is the true upholder of Adolf’s legacy is endlessly amusing, and long may it continue.

[Nige]

Yadda yadda yadda, you're having a conversation with a very evil person who is entirely in your head, and is therefore you.

[DewbieDewbieDoo]

Confucius says, "Man who types with tongue in cheek runs risk of biting it off".

[Mr. Bumble]

So will FJB be on the ballot in Ohio?

[Kazinski]

I'm not sure it really matters, he isn't going to win Ohio, although it could certainly affect the popular vote.

The deadline is August 7th which certainly seems reasonable, perhaps the Democratic party of Ohio can have its own nominating procedure and select Biden to fulfill the legal niceties if the legislature doesn't budge.

[David Nieporent]

The deadline is August 7th which certainly seems reasonable, perhaps the Democratic party of Ohio can have its own nominating procedure and select Biden to fulfill the legal niceties if the legislature doesn’t budge.

No; state law requires that the party certify that the presidential candidate has been nominated at a national convention. They'd have to have some sort of virtual convention by 8/6, nominate Biden, and then hold their more standard convention later.

Kind of like when people elope to the courthouse to get married and then have a more traditional wedding ceremony later for family, I guess.

[not guilty]

The governor has reportedly called a special session of the General Assembly to resolve the issue. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/23/us/politics/biden-ohio-ballot-special-session.html

[Mr. Bumble]

...as always, to be continued.

[Kazinski]

Sure, but the legislature has already passed twice on coming up with a solution.

They don't seem to think it's their problem.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY
RACIAL SLUR SCOREBOARD

This white, male, conservative blog
with a misappropriated academic veneer
— dedicated to creating and preserving
safe spaces for America’s vestigial bigots
as modern America passes them by —
has operated for no more than

SIX (6)

days without publishing at least
one racial slur; it has published
vile racial slurs on at least

TWENTY-EIGHT (28)

occasions (so far) during the
first three months of 2024
(that’s at least 28 exchanges
that have included racial slurs,
not just 28 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,
more transphobic (it's a VC fetish)
and other bigoted content published
at this faux libertarian blog, which
is presented from the disaffected,
receding right-wing fringe of
American legal thought (formerly
legal academia) by members of
the Federalist Society for Law
and Public Policy Studies.

Amid this blog's stale and ugly content, here is something better.

Another fine performance from Dave (and Nick), pulled from the rockpile.

[DewbieDewbieDoo]

Yaknow, I’ve thought of you as the Right Reverend Artie Cork4Brains for many years now...

Just thought you should know.

All the best,

DewbieDD

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bigots no longer like it when they are called bigots. That's one of the great achievements of the liberal-libertarian mainstream.

Clingers hardest hit.

Until replacement.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones moments:

First, a new tune, one of the songs proposed for the fan vote for tonight's show at MetLife.

Next, a reach back for a glimpse of Keith being taken to school by the professor.

(I'll try to find the clip in which Keith asks whether he should play rhythm or lead and Chuck asks 'what do you mean?' 'Well, I'll play whichever you like, the rhythm or the fills, and you take the other . . . I mean, you can't play both.' After a beat, Chuck responded: 'Well, I did.'

[Armchair]

Many of you may have missed it, but Judge Merchan said something very interesting in the Trump trial, after kicking out the press. But Alan Dershowitz was there to hear it.

Apparently the judge threatened the witness Costello, saying something along the lines of “If you raise your eyebrows one more time, I’m striking your entire testimony.”

That struck me as rather extreme, and unjust to be honest. What it does is it punishes the defendant (who needs the testimony) for the witness’s actions. And, at least in Armchair world, it would be grounds for appeal.

But lets throw it out to the lawyers out there with an example case. Say you’re defending an individual for murder. And you’ve got a witness on the stand who says your client was across town with him the entire time the murder was supposed to have happened, the defendant couldn’t possibly have done it. But then the judge says “I don’t like the facial expression you just made…your entire testimony will be struck from the record.” And your client’s alibi disappears, and now he is found guilty.

As the defendant’s lawyer, do you appeal in such a situation? Why or why not?

https://nypost.com/2024/05/21/opinion/i-was-inside-the-court-when-the-judge-closed-the-trump-trial-and-what-i-saw-shocked-me/

[David Nieporent]

The judge was really pissed at Costello — who first mouthed off, and then when the judge reprimanded him for unprofessional conduct, apparently was glaring at the judge. And the judge wanted to be sure he knew it.

But yes, I agree with you that striking his testimony would be extreme, and probably not justifiable, given the hypothetical effect it would have on the defendant. (Not that I think Costello's testimony was really beneficial to Trump, but that's not the point.) I don't think he'd have actually done it, though. It was just to scare him. He'd be more likely to hold Costello in contempt.

[Armchair]

But here's the thing. Sure, the judge could have threatened Costello with contempt. But...as far as I can tell...he didn't. Instead he, in essence, threatened Trump.

There have been many concerns over Merchan's potential bias in this trial. This is yet another example. I think we need to take Merchan's threat seriously here, that he would've done what he said.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Many concerns?

Only among disaffected assholes.

[Frank Drackman]

Well besides yourself.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Instead he, in essence, threatened Trump."

No, he disciplined a child who should have known better.

"I think we need to take Merchan’s threat seriously here, that he would’ve done what he said."

Of course you do.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Like a true Trump worshipper, Armchair is less concerned about the petulance of a witness trying to disrupt a trial than he is about a judge who effectively corrected the witnesses' misbehavior outside the presence of the jury.

There have been many concerns over Merchan’s potential bias in this trial.

Not really.

This is yet another example.

Only if everything that is bad for Trump is evidence of bias against Trump. Which, actually, is pretty much exactly Trump's and his most loyal asslickers' take on any given event.

[not guilty]

Actually striking the testimony of a defense witness because of his demeanor would not be appropriate. Holding the witness in contempt after his having been cautioned would be a more fitting remedy. Even that should not be done with the jury present in the courtroom.

If the trial judge struck the testimony of a defense witness under those circumstances, defense counsel would no doubt raise that as error in an appeal. Harmless error analysis, however, would be difficult to overcome. In the hypothetical about the sole alibi witness, the error is far more likely to be prejudicial than the Costello situation.

Based on what I have read, I don't see that the defense elicited any substantive evidence from Costello at all. Costello's testimony about Michael Cohen's prior inconsistent statement was not admissible as substantive evidence, but only as bearing on Cohen's credibility. As the Court of Appeals of New York has opined:

The right of a cross-examiner to use a witness’ own prior statement in which he has given a contrary version of the purpose of testimonial impeachment and the corollary rule that such prior statements have no substantial or independent testimonial value are so firmly imbedded in our law of evidence that the citation of authority is scarcely required. (3 Wigmore on Evidence [3d ed.], § 1018; Matter of Roge v. Valentine, 280 N. Y. 268, 277; People v. Ferraro, 293 N. Y. 51, 56; 30 Corn. L. Q., 511.)

People v. Freeman, 9 N.Y.2d 600, 605 (NY 1961) (italics in original).

The jury here had ample opportunity to evaluate Michael Cohen's credibility or lack thereof, independent of Costello's testimony. Any error from striking Costello's testimony, had that occurred, would almost certainly have been harmless.

[Armchair]

"Actually striking the testimony of a defense witness because of his demeanor would not be appropriate."

And yet, that is exactly what Judge Merchan threatened to do.

[not guilty]

He reportedly threatened to do that, but he did not act on the threat. No harm, no foul.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a harm if the judge threatens to do something indefensible.

[NOVA Lawyer]

No, it's not. You actually have to identify a specific harm. A judge saying he will make a ruling he cannot, but then not making that ruling is not an "error', absent extraordinary circumstances not present here, on which an appeals court is going reverse a verdict. See Harmless Error (and this assumes merely saying what he said without actually doing anything is error).

[Armchair]

Is it ethical for a judge to merely "threaten" to do an inappropriate action?

Can a judge ethically merely "threaten" to remove all the black jurors from the jury, if he doesn't "actually" do it?

Can a judge ethically "threaten" a witness with contempt and a jail sentence if the witness gives accurate testimony that the judge doesn't like?

You of course know the answer here.

[not guilty]

Uh, my comment was in the context of whether Judge Merchan's conduct is grounds for appeal. It plainly is not.

[Armchair]

So, you're of the opinion that it completely ethical for a judge to seriously "threaten" to do something, that if he actually did it, would be unethical?

Is that your stance? Really?

[not guilty]

I haven't expressed any view on the ethics of the situation. I have said, with a high degree of confidence, that it would not be grounds for appeal.

Since you asked about ethics requirements, I would observe that New York's Code of Judicial Conduct at § 100.3(B) states in relevant part:

(2) A judge shall require order and decorum in proceedings before the judge.

(3) A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and shall require similar conduct of lawyers, and of staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and control.

Judge Merchan's warning to Mr. Costello about what consequences could flow from the latter's obstreperous behavior on the witness stand appears to have been intended to maintain order and decorum. If the judge got impatient or frustrated, think of the maxim, de minimis non curat lex, which translates the law does not concern itself with trifles.

[Armchair]

"I haven’t expressed any view on the ethics of the situation."

Well, we know you can't say ANYTHING that might be interpreted as in Trump's favor. So, by not "expressing any views", it's clear what your views are. You just can't say them.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Armchair,

Your "unethical" bit is, at the absolute best for you, a wildly speculative take. Assuming it's definitely correct that the Judge threatened to do something he couldn't do, it's possible for a judge to make a mistake. In fact, being human, they make mistakes all the time.

No, not guilty declining to say whether Judge Merchan's actions were unethical is not an admission of what his views are. He could, in fact, recognize that there are multiple facts which he doesn't know which could make it unethical, though there is nothing we see that makes it seem at all like ethics has anything to do with this. So, he wouldn't feel comfortable saying absolutely one way or the other whether there was any ethical violation.

You, on the other hand, having a vicarious persecution complex due to an overdeveloped sense of identification with Trump, jump to the most extreme conclusion possible with absolute certainty.

[Nige]

Trump supporters mad about empty threats.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Seriously, you can't make this up. Trump supporters are some of the least self-aware people on the planet. Or they're just that debauched. Hard to say.

[tylertusta]

Pot, meet Kettle.

[Armchair]

I notice you didn't respond to the OP. I wonder why? Perhaps you're NOVA paralegal, and don't feel qualified to respond.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Setting aside that I notice you've asked a dumb question:

But lets throw it out to the lawyers out there with an example case.

An example which bears absolutely no relation to what happened in the NY Trump trial whatsoever.

As the defendant’s lawyer, do you appeal in such a situation? Why or why not?

Of course.

This has been obvious answers to stupid questions.

To reiterate, your hypo bears no relationship to what actually happened. Most obviously, no testimony was stricken and the witness continued on the stand.

[Sarcastr0]

No actions were taken.
Brett and Armchair very concerned about threatening words. Which 2 practitioners have said is not outside the norm.

Trump threatens stuff all the time, but they don't care about that. Though Armchair goes with the laughable "he, in essence, threatened Trump." LOL.

Ignorant hypocrites very concerned.

[Armchair]

"Which 2 practitioners have said is not outside the norm."

No, they did not say that. Perhaps you should ask them if it's normal for a judge to threaten to strike a witness's entire testimony due to his or her facial expressions.

"Trump threatens stuff all the time,"
You clearly don't understand why threatening inappropriate, unethical actions, in a courtroom, by a judge, is very problematic.

[tylertusta]

…after kicking out the press…

Depending on the circumstances, closing a trial to the public is grounds for a mistrial. If denied by Merchan it would be grounds a reversal of of any conviction.

That would be the case even if Trump’s team didn’t object to the closure of the trial.

We can add this to the pile of reversible errors that Merchan has already made.

[NOVA Lawyer]

We can add this to the pile of reversible errors that Merchan has already made.

lol. Nope. Clearing the courtroom of some, but not all, members of the public (to include members of the press) for a brief period is not going to get you wherever you think you're trying to go.

What case or principle do you think applies in this situation such that Merchan committed reversible error even in the absence of an objection?

[tylertusta]

As I said, it depends on the circumstances.

The principle is the right to a public trial as protected by the 6th Amendment.

The right to a public trial is enjoyed by both the defendant and the public. Merchan can only kick out some (or all) of the public if he makes findings ahead of time, but he did not do so here.

This is a structural error and grounds for reversal all by itself.

[not guilty]

Structural error doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

[tylertusta]

Care to explain to the class what a structural error is?

Can you also explain why a judge kicking the public out may constitute a structural error?

[David Nieporent]

This is a structural error and grounds for reversal all by itself.

No. You understand that this was during a recess, right? No court proceedings were going on. Well, I suppose technically a judge berating a witness for his behavior is a court proceeding of a sort. But the jury was out, and no testimony was being taken.

[tylertusta]

You understand that this was during a recess, right?

No, it wasn't.

No court proceedings were going on.

Court was in session.

But the jury was out, and no testimony was being taken.

Whether a court is in session is not contingent on whether the jury is present. Testimony is not taken, but the trial is still going on.

In this case, the judge excused the jury but berated a witness. It was on the record- it's part of the transcript, in fact.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This is a structural error and grounds for reversal all by itself.

lol.

And you used to be so humble. It didn't take long for you to think you're an expert.

Despite popular (and your) misconception, just chanting magic words (structural error, Sixth Amendment) isn't going to get you anywhere.

But please do clarify your absolutely wrong take:

As I said, it depends on the circumstances.

versus this, after characterizing what Merchan did and didn't do here:

This is a structural error and grounds for reversal all by itself.

Are you saying it depends on the circumstances and Merchan's actions may or may not have reached the threshold you think needs to be reached?

Or, as your last two sentences imply, you think he definitely committed reversible error when he sent the jury and some members of the public out to talk to Costello?

I mean, you are wrong in either case, but I'm just curious as to how wrong you are. And the extent to which you are suffering the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[tylertusta]

And the extent to which you are suffering the Dunning-Kruger effect ...
...

And you used to be so humble.

I used to be respectful to you, until I realized:

1) You often don't know what you're talking about even within your own profession
2) You're probably here to troll
3) You are an arrogant ass

I'm not a lawyer, and I never pretended to be. But when I'm dunking on you, a self-styled attorney, then that just gives me all of the warm and fuzzies.

Remember all the times where you were were adamant that I was wrong, but I later turned out to be right? And you were a jerk, too?

Yeah. Those.

Good times.

It didn’t take long for you to think you’re an expert.

I don't pretend to be. I'm a layman. See above Re: "dunking".

...just chanting magic words...

Yawn.

Are you saying it depends on the circumstances and Merchan’s actions may or may not have reached the threshold you think needs to be reached?

A successful reversal on appeal may hinge on whether Trump's attorneys ask for a mistrial on these grounds, but it's not required: Trump may argue for IAC on appeal.

I'm sure that a lawyer like you can find the Supreme Court case that talks about this.

Or, as your last two sentences imply, you think he definitely committed reversible error when he sent the jury and some members of the public out to talk to Costello?

I know you lawyers like weasel words, so I'll say "probably." If Trump raises this, Merchan will deny it (naturally), but Trump may well be vindicated on appeal.

If I end up being wrong here, then I'll be wrong. I'm humble enough (heh) to admit when I'm wrong.

Contrast that with you:

In the past six months, I've gotten half of one concession that I was right out of you. And even then, I have yet to get an apology out of you.

[NOVA Lawyer]

In the past six months, I’ve gotten half of one concession that I was right out of you.

And that was being generous. It's cute you think you were entitled to more.

And even then, I have yet to get an apology out of you.

lol. Poor snowflake. You don't deserve any apology.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Trump may well be vindicated on appeal

Not on this issue.

If there's a conviction, I'd put the odds at at least 60 percent that any conviction gets reversed on appeal, most likely due to error in jury instructions.

There is no chance any reversal will be due to Merchan controlling a belligerent witness. There is no chance it will be due to Merchan clearing the courtroom of most, but not all, of the public before scolding Merchan.

You'll never know how wrong you were because even Trump's attorneys aren't deluded enough to raise this particular "issue", such as it is.

[Armchair]

null

[ThePublius]

BIden:

"I say to every young man thinking of getting married, marry into a family with five or more daughters ... One of them will always love you"

The video is even more cringe worthy. Is this how a rational, non-senile, non -demented person talks?

https://x.com/TPostMillennial/status/1792976075049300095?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1792976075049300095%7Ctwgr%5Ecd65eb4c8ecabe95c70ac254bf44e54141b8f973%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Farchives%2F2024%2F05%2Fthe-apple-didnt-fall-from-the-tree.php

[DewbieDewbieDoo]

WTF can’t you post a link without all the tracking garbage included?

E.G., your link is

https://x.com/TPostMillennial/status/1792976075049300095

not

https://x.com/TPostMillennial/status/1792976075049300095?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1792976075049300095%7Ctwgr%5Ecd65eb4c8ecabe95c70ac254bf44e54141b8f973%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Farchives%2F2024%2F05%2Fthe-apple-didnt-fall-from-the-tree.php

[Brett Bellmore]

Some people never read their copy of HTML for Dummies.

[ThePublius]

I usually do, but I am lazy at times.

[Martinned2]

At least it allows us to see where you got these garbage talking points from.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"One of them will always be on your side."

How creepy! /sarc

You really have to stretch to see anything cringe worthy in this. And, no, the video is not more cringe worthy, it is much less cringe worthy than The Publius's quote because it makes it clear it's about having an ally in the family, not whatever creepy thing The Publius intended to imply.

[Estragon]

“You remind me of my daughter”

[Mr. Bumble]

Some people are just special:

Former Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby was sentenced to time served, three years of supervised release, and one year of home confinement for perjury and mortgage fraud.

[David Nieporent]

You think losing one’s law license, time served, home confinement, supervised release, forfeiture of assets, is “special”? Do you have some basis for that assessment? If Trump gets less than that from Merchan, will you be whining that he got off too lightly?

Note that like Trump, she tried to raise a bullshit vindictive prosecution defense, and it failed as it always does.

[Mr. Bumble]

I’m confident that this administration will see past the political attacks,” Mosby told MSNBC’s Joy Reid. “I know that I’ve done nothing wrong, nothing criminal.”

Prosecutors are using her steadfastness as evidence she deserves a harsher sentence, as she hasn’t shown remorse.

“These lies demonstrate that Marilyn Mosby is unremorseful, that she has no regard for the truth,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean Delaney said.

Prosecutors pushed for a 20-month sentence.

[Frank Drackman]

Forget it Jake, it's Baltimore.

[hobie]

From the NY Time this afternoon:

"In House Hearing, Republicans Demand Discipline for Student Protesters"

Elise Stefanik, shrieking in every way imaginable to gain notoriety apart thru passing legislation, failed to mention the hecklers and protesters in her own caucus. In Florida it has been shown you can crush curriculum with legislation, but can Congress legally force administrative action in colleges?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

EXPLOSIVE LITIGATION DOCS: We sued DOD and uncovered a secret Obama memo on presidential records which shows that Jack Smith is the one subverting the law.

The directive, which legally binds DOJ, vests POTUS with sole authority to determine which records are his.

https://x.com/America1stLegal/status/1793720339299754120

What an f'ing surprise a legally binding MOU that covered Obama and now Biden somehow magically gerrymanders itself around Trump.

Trust the Institutions Guys!!!! They are totally unbiased!!!

[David Nieporent]

What the hell are you talking about? First of all, nothing "legally binds DOJ" here, and POTUS cannot write a memo that changes federal law. No, it does not vest POTUS with any authority to do anything.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Why didn't you read the source document before your reactionary bootlicking?

[David Nieporent]

1) You didn't link to a source document; you linked to a tweet, that had one page of a document.
2) I don't need to read the document to know that as a matter of law, it cannot mean what you bizarrely claim it means. Obama issuing an executive order about the handling of information in the EOP has nothing whatsoever to do with the PRA or the Espionage Act, and could not override those laws.
3) I don't need to read beyond the first page of the document to see that it doesn't do what you bizarrely claim it does.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Why do you think that memorandum where POTUS creates the new position, there was no deference made to the PRA or to the Espionage Act?

Those were blanket, all encompassing claims.

[David Nieporent]

For the same reason there was none made to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Posse Comitatus Act, or the Social Security Act: they have nothing whatsoever to do with this document.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The Director of White House Information Technology, on behalf of the President, shall have the primary authority to establish and coordinate the necessary policies and procedures for operating and maintaining the information resources and information systems provided to the President, Vice President, and EOP. Nothing in this memorandum may be construed to delegate the ownership, or any rights associated with ownership, of any information resources or information systems, nor of any record, to any entity outside of the EOP.

...

The President or his designee shall retain the authority to specify the application of operating policies and procedures, including security measures, which are used in the construction, operation, and maintenance of any information resources or information system provided to the President, Vice President, and EOP.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/19/presidential-memorandum-establishing-director-white-house-information-te

[not guilty]

Do you surmise that you have something resembling a point, JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Yes, Jack Smith, and by proxy you, are circumventing the law like some typically corrupt Leftist. Your bigotry and hatred is causing you to intentionally hurt an innocent man.

How many innocent blacks are in jail because of your bigotry?

You spent 28 years as a first class member in a racist bigoted institution, you did nothing but corruptly benefit then just like now.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, Jack Smith, and by proxy you, are circumventing the law

1) Nothing in that is "the law."

2) Jack Smith is not "circumventing" that.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Can you explain how there were no legal challenges made by any department like the NRA?

[David Nieporent]

I assume that's a reference to the NARA — the National Archies — rather than the National Rifle Association? Because the latter would make even less sense. But even assuming so, I cannot explain that, no, because I don't even understand what you're talking about. Challenges about what, by what, for what reason?

[not guilty]

"Yes, Jack Smith, and by proxy you, are circumventing the law like some typically corrupt Leftist. Your bigotry and hatred is causing you to intentionally hurt an innocent man."

I am not in any manner a proxy for Jack Smith. Are you drunk?

"You spent 28 years as a first class member in a racist bigoted institution, you did nothing but corruptly benefit then just like now."

You are so full of shit that if you were given an enema, the remains could be buried in a cigar box.

[Commenter_XY]

When does Dr. David Morens (NIH) go to prison?

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/i-did-delete-all-peters-emails-relating-origin-covid-cabal-conspired-destroy-evidence

https://nypost.com/2024/05/22/us-news/explosive-emails-show-top-nih-adviser-deleted-records-used-secret-back-channels-to-help-fauci-ecohealth-evade-covid-transparency/

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Of course not. He's in the class of people who have special legal privileges.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He is a bigoted religious kook?

[Nige]

Is it the legal privelege of his only crime being getting in the crosshairs of covid-truthers?

[Commenter_XY]

Oh, BTW. China is conducting military exercises around the country of Taiwan (looks like they are practicing a blockade to me), in a rehearsal for war (conducting drills) as I write.

https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1793525216091803882

Do you seriously think they aren't coming, and soon?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Maybe we should redirect assets currently being abused by Israel and send them toward Taiwan.

[Martinned2]

And help the Ukrainians show the Chinese what happens when you invade a neighbouring country.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe we should do like they should have done with your "assets" and simply cut them off.

[ThePublius]

I have been thinking that China would make a move on Taiwan while Biden is in office.

[Frank Drackman]

Biden's in office? since when?

[Martinned2]

Because whoever will come after Biden will be a much more reliable ally for Taiwan?

[ThePublius]

Well, yes, specifically, Trump. Everyone knows Biden is in China's pocket, on top of being feckless.

[Sarcastr0]

Everyone knows!

[Martinned2]

Sure, because Donald Trump is well known for his loyalty when it comes to allies. (And particularly allies who can't offer him a quid pro quo because they're busy being attacked by a much stronger enemy.)

[ThePublius]

Oh, you mean like Biden and Israel? Ha, ha.

[Martinned2]

You mean the country that continues to get US weapons even though there is US law that requires that no export licences be given for arms that might be used to commit war crimes? The Israel that was definitely attacked, but definitely not by "a much stronger enemy"? That Israel?

[Mr. Bumble]

So responding to an attack is a "war crime"?

[Nige]

Is pretending to be stupid just easier for you?

[David Nieporent]

Do you seriously think they aren’t coming, and soon?

I think that if China intended to attack Taiwan in the near future, it would not in fact conduct an exercise allowing us to see their plans and capabilities right before doing so.

[Don Nico]

David,
I would not draw that inference.
The exercise is a bit of psychological warfare. China does not deny that. In fact, least anyone be confused they have publicly labelled it a "punishment exercise."

[Stephen Lathrop]

Alexander v. SC NAACP — I take it as a dire promise of a Court bent on supremacy. It shows a Court willing to go far beyond anything done previously by the judicial system to fasten tyranny on the American people. Kagan's dissent—as thorough as it is—seems far too measured, and too narrowly legalistic, to portray what the decision means for American governance.

The Court attacked directly the notion of republican constitutionalism, questioned whether one-man-one-vote is an operative principle, and denied that it would henceforward be constrained by evidence proved by trials in lower courts. It added to its own recently formulated major questions doctrine, a newly minted charter for tyranny—that the Court decides on the basis of a presumption of superior government authority—meaning its own authority—any question previously tried as a matter of fact from the courts below. With that, the jury system is out the window.

At this point in America's judicial revolution, almost no field mark of arbitrary process has been omitted. Every principle to avoid Court constraint is in place. Defiance of every notion of propriety has been accomplished, apparently successfully. Bystanders, including those in the highest positions of power outside the judicial system, are mumbling that nothing can be done.

The Court is led by demonstrably corrupt members, who successfully command assent from a cohesive majority willing to go where corruption leads. And where that corruption is presently leading is toward empowerment of an actively treasonous defendant, bent on contesting for sovereignty against the American People themselves—to whom the justices of the Court owe their now-dishonored oaths.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The dissent makes it clear that the majority is effectively overruling Cooper v. Harris, which was decided in 2017. This isn’t like Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned Plessy v Ferguson in response to changing views on race. The only thing that has changed in the past seven years is the composition of the Court.

[Martinned2]

Helpfully the academic I trust the most when it comes to international criminal law, Kevin John Heller, has written a blog post summarising the law of complementarity. As in: Why doesn't Israel get to decide for itself who should be on trial for what?

https://opiniojuris.org/2024/05/24/an-overview-of-the-principle-of-complementarity/

[John F. Carr]

In American law the requirement that one exhaust other remedies before proceeding to court may sometimes be excused when seeking alternative remedies would clearly be futile. Waiting for Israel to investigate its leadership or for Palestine to investigate Hamas leadership would be futile.

I would welcome a complementarity principle in American law, limiting federal prosecutions for conduct that ought to be prosecuted at the state level while allowing prosecutions when states make a policy choice not to enforce a law.

[Martinned2]

Just apply double jeopardy to state/federal prosecutions, instead of applying this dual sovereigns nonsense.

In this case, it doesn't matter whether waiting would be futile. The OTP can simply progress its case until Israel starts its own investigation. If and when that happens, the ICC case can be suspended/ended.

[Voize]

Just apply double jeopardy to state/federal prosecutions

In keeping with the general tenor of mistrust and cynicism that idea has been criticized in that it would let one sovereign use a sham prosecution to protect a malefactor from valid prosecution by the other.

[Martinned2]

It should not be beyond the wit of the Supreme Court to explain why jeopardy would not attach to a sham prosecution.

[David Nieporent]

"We don't think the prosecution tried hard enough" does not seem like a workable standard.

[Martinned2]

The UK Parliament is currently finishing up its session, rushing through some final bills before it is prorogued. Once business is done, the Royal Commissioners will come to give the Royal Assent to all remaining bills that already passed, and to formally prorogue parliament. Much of that is in Law French, so watch out for extra entertainment value:

https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/42f1645d-630b-4e1d-bd61-075b1ef9b522

[Martinned2]

The Assent has now been given, and Parliament prorogued. The Royal Commission started its work at 20.25. (See link above.)

[Martinned2]

Meanwhile, one of the other courts in The Hague, the ICJ, has issued a further provisional measure with respect to the alleged genocide in Gaza: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-ord-01-00-en.pdf

I didn't see that coming. I'd assumed that the ICJ would choose the path of least resistance and continue to impose interim orders that basically said nothing more than "Israel has to obey the law". But some of these provisional measures are quite specific.

For those who are wondering, the vote as 13-2 on each measure, with Vice-President Sebutinde and Judge ad hoc Barak against. (Even on the first provisional measure, which simply reaffirmed the previous provisional measures.) Joan Donoghue is, of course, no longer on the court. She has been replaced as presiding judge by judge Nawaf Salam from Lebanon, and as US judge by Judge Sarah Cleveland, previously of Columbia University Law School and the US State Department. (And clerked for Harry Blackmun in OT 1993-94.)

https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/20240206_cleveland_en.pdf

[Martinned2]

Specifically, the provisional measures imposed today are:

1. You really have to do what we told you to do before.
2. Halt the Rafah offensive
3. Keep the Rafah border crossing open
4. Make sure the relevant UN officials have free access to the Gaza Strip so that they can investigate allegations of genocide
5. Tell us how you did these things within one month.

[Frank Drackman]

I'll give you Israel's response and it rhymes with Go Fuck Yourself.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The ICJ statute says:

"Article 41

"1. The Court shall have the power to indicate, if it considers that circumstances so require, any provisional measures which ought to be taken to preserve the respective rights of either party.

"2. Pending the final decision, notice of the measures suggested shall forthwith be given to the parties and to the Security Council."

https://www.icj-cij.org/statute

So, what does "indicate" mean? How do the measures which are "indicated" preserve the rights of the plaintiff state (South Africa)?

What is the meaning of telling the Security Council about the indicated measures? Does it suggest that the Security Council gets to decide if the indicated measures should be made mandatory?

[Martinned2]

You are right that this concept of "rights of either party" sits awkwardly with what is effectively an actio popularis to protect the rights of a state/group of people who are not themselves a party before the court.

But the logic is simple enough. Since the claim is under the Genocide Convention, the provisional measures have to prevent the alleged act of genocide from occurring.

The purpose of notifying the Security Council is straightforward enough. In the US system, the Security Council is the enforcement power. Art. 94(2) of the UN Charter:

If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Poll question: The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a case concerning whether former presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution for official actions while in office. Which comes closer to your view?

The results (format: yes/no/don't know) were:
All respondents: 16/71/13
Republicans only: 29/48/22

So presidential immunity isn’t particularly popular, even among Republicans. But replace “former presidents” with “former President Donald Trump” and the response among Republicans changes dramatically:

All respondents: 30/60/10
Republicans only: 61/29/10

This suggest there are a significant chuck of Republicans who think Trump should be immune from prosecution for things that they are fine with anybody else, even former presidents, being prosecuting for.

Source: https://law.marquette.edu/poll/category/poll-release/

[TwelveInchPianist]

Ted Cruz grills a Biden judicial nominee who sent a male serial child rapist to a women's prison.