Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[John F. Carr]

The American Journal of Men's Health informs us that men do not use guns to compensate for inadequate penis size. More the reverse. Men who are satisfied with their penises have more guns. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15579883241255830

Thanks to Forbes for reporting on the paper.

[Dan Schiavetta]

This reminds me of a cartoon I saw some years ago. Two guys in lab coats are reading a spreadsheet. One says to the other: “This is amazing! According to this self-report survey, the average penis size of American men is over nine inches!”

[Frank Drackman]

Well yeah, but what is it if you don't include Afro-Amuricans?
And while we're reminiscing about humor, I remember an Andrew Dice Clay bit,
"She said she wanted 9 inches and wanted it to hurt......"
You know the punch line (literally)

Frank

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Hickory dickory dock

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

This reminds me of a cartoon I saw some years ago.

Which, based on your posting history, is where you get the majority of your views.

[Martinned2]

Men who *say* they are satisfied with their penises have more guns.

But yes, this is definitely a more awesome thing for someone to actually study than the enforcement of environmental legislation in swing states.

[Armchair]

But what about women who buy guns? Are they also compensating? Or do they already have....

[Martinned2]

I don't think the American Journal of Men's Health would accept that paper.

[Armchair]

That's just gender bias.

[Mr. Bumble]

What is a woman...?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Always a great question at a white, male, disaffected, incel-heavy blog.

[Frank Drackman]

Says the guy who's mouth locked on Mick Jagger's Cock 24-7

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Another message sponsored by the Society for Destruction of Standard English.

[Frank Drackman]

Language Evolves, Revolting, it's why nobody says "Forsooth" anymore (except for me, I love archaic words) or the "N-word" (unless you're an N-word, then you say it almost as often as "Nome Sane?")

Frank "Nome Sane?"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Random capitalization (with general disdain for standard English) has become the mark of an illiterate conservative misfit.

[Nige]

A quintessence of dust?

[grb]

To take the opposite view :

Noble in reason, infinite in faculties – in form and moving,
Express and admirable in action, like an angel in apprehension,
Like a goddess!

(I confess; Woman delights me)

[Dr. Ed 2]

" Men who are satisfied with their penises have more guns."

It takes something like this to demonstrate the difference between coincidence and causation.

[myself]

Guessing the actual causal factor is testosterone levels, higher testosterone leads to higher aggression and confidence, leading to more 'satisfaction' and guns.

[John F. Carr]

One sentence from a recent AP article on Biden's border crackdown got my attention: "instead of being summarily deported, he was dropped off by agents the next day at a San Diego bus stop, where he caught a train to the airport for a flight to Newark, New Jersey." The government is afraid to let Americans on a plane without a "REAL ID" but it lets deportable aliens fly.

https://apnews.com/article/asylum-deportation-flights-border-biden-immigration-7ac8e8279109e0fa483b6f3f26957702

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

They hate us. That's why.

[David Nieporent]

The government is afraid to let Americans on a plane without a “REAL ID”

Nobody is required to have REAL ID to fly on a plane.

[TwelveInchPianist]

That can't be right. I was assured that the DHS would begin requiring the READ ID on May 3rd, 2023.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Well, in his defense, DHS is filled with government workers which means they are incompetent, immoral, midwits who fail more than they succeed so it may not be implemented yet.

[David Nieporent]

Who assured you of that?

[Michael P]

The New York Times, among others. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/02/travel/domestic-flights-real-id-passport.html

Originally it was supposed to be 2008 with the option for states to request extensions. Then it was 2013, then 2020, then 2021, then 2023, and now 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_ID_Act

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Only in America would a blog started by an immigrant government worker have a target audience of xenophobic, anti-government cranks.

[David Nieporent]

Well, I was asking 12", not you, since he's the one who said it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The TSA, of course. Now, before that I was assured that the REAL ID act of 2005 would require real id's as of October 1st, 2021, and October 1st, 2020 before that.

[David Nieporent]

Yes. Every time the regulatory deadline has approached, they've pushed it back. So why would you characterize one of the latest in a series of such deadlines as an assurance? Indeed, what was the point of your comment at all?

[David Nieporent]

To be clear, I have no problem criticizing the whole REAL ID silliness. It's been 20 years since 9/11. I think we can reasonably conclude that REAL ID is not in fact necessary for public safety.

But if that was 12"'s point, he did not make it very clearly.

[OtisAH]

It’s coming anyway. But your comment does touch on something incredible I discovered a couple months ago:

I didn’t have to disrobe to get through airport security, didn’t get exrayed, didn’t get groped. It was almost like flying on 9/10/2001!

So while it seems the Real ID thing will press on regardless, the what I previously considered the highly unlikely idea that our overbearing post-9/11 airport security regime would loosen or repeal has, in fact, slightly loosened.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Check your sarcasm detector, dude. Other folks seem to have gotten it.

[Frank Drackman]

They keep delaying it, like with the EV mandate, it's currently been delayed to May 2025, 2025? 2525 is more likely, will man still be alive?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

In the year 2525 . . .

That one topped the charts when America reached the moon and experienced Woodstock.

[Frank Drackman]

and when Ted Kennedy showed that Oldsmobiles don't float.

[not guilty]

Showing my age here, but I loved the National Lampoon's parody ad declaring "If Ted Kennedy drove a Volkswagen, he'd be President today."
https://www.volksfolks.org/forums/general-discussion/ted-kennedy-vw-ad/

The text read:

It floats.

The way our body is built, we'd be surprised if it didn't.

The sheet of flat steel that goes underneath every Volkswagen keeps out water, as well as dirt and salt and other nasty things that eat away at the underside of a car. So it's watertight at the bottom.

And everybody knows it's easier to shut the door on a Volkswagen after you've rolled down the window a little. That proves it's practically airtight on top.

If it was a boat, we could call it the Water Bug. But it's not a boat, it's a car.

And, like Mary Jo Kopechne, it's only 99 and 44/100 percent pure.

So it won't stay afloat forever. Just long enough.

Poor Teddy.

If he'd been smart enough to buy a Volkswagen, he'd never would have gotten into hot water.

[Mr. Bumble]

Given that you're old enough to remember this and to see the humor in it I'm surprised at some of the positions you take here.

[not guilty]

I have been a liberal Democrat all my adult life, but I am not blind to Ted Kennedy's conduct at Chappaquiddick being reprehensible. Outside of representing a client against the government, I don't defend the indefensible.

Not that I would expect the MAGA cultists to understand that. Like Lewis Carroll's White Queen, they are quite capable of believing six impossible things before breakfast.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and Nixon was elected president.

[Dr. Ed 2]

May 7, 2025. https://www.dhs.gov/real-id

A lot of people are saying "fuck it" and just getting a passport, which (at least for now) they will have to accept.

[Joe_dallas]

https://www.dhs.gov/real-id

[jimc5499]

Next May it will be required.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

So, no, the government will not "allow deportable aliens to fly domestically without a “REAL ID”."

The REAL ID requirement only applies (from May 7, 2025) to domestic flyers who do not have a passport; anyone with a passport can fly using that document.

[myself]

So you seem to have two complaints:

1) He wasn't summarily deported.

2) He could fly despite not having a "REAL ID".

Regarding #1, where do you want to deport him to? He's from Columbia, you can't just dump him in Mexico or Canada, you need to actually bring him back to Columbia and there's a limited number of flights to Columbia.

For #2, did you consider that he might have a passport?

[Harvey Mosley]

"Regarding #1, where do you want to deport him to? He’s from Columbia, you can’t just dump him in Mexico or Canada, you need to actually bring him back to Columbia and there’s a limited number of flights to Columbia."

I'm not talking about what the laws and policies are, but shouldn't we be able to send him back to the country he entered from?

[darkknight9]

Anybody else get a lil bit of nostalgia when they found out that russkie ships sailed into cuba today?

https://clip.cafe/the-hunt-red-october-1990/we-will-pass-through-the-american-patrols/

[darkknight9]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg66g0neweko
"Russian warships arrive in Cuba in show of force"
"...including a nuclear-powered submarine..."
"They earlier conducted missile drills in the Atlantic."

Its got some of the right ingredients! 🙂

[Krayt]

I noticed that, too. Nuclear powered. [Huge font]NUCLEAR[/Huge font][Tiny font]powered[/Tiny font].

Maybe people not paying attention will think a nuclear missile sub is there as a workaround, set for Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0.

[Don Nico]

I guess turn about is fair play. What did we expect?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, the Russians know the Ukrainians are unlikely to sink their navy vessels in Cuba. Might be the safest place for them to hide!

[Bob from Ohio]

"turn about is fair play"

Who cares?

Surface ships without air cover are just targets. Nice vacation for the crews, hopefully no social diseases.

[Commenter_XY]

They (Russia, China, NK, Iran) are rehearsing, Don Nico, across littoral space: Pacific, Atlantic, Indian oceans; Red Sea, Mediterranean seas. War is coming.

[Don Nico]

"War is coming."
That possibility is what Bob is missing.
There is too much dangerous game-playing going on.

[Bob from Ohio]

"possibility is what Bob is missing."

"Russia, China, NK, Iran"

You are both hyper paranoid. Testing of a weak president does not mean those countries are suicidal.

[Don Nico]

Keep your head deep in that sand, Bob. You probably thought that Hamas would next attack across the border either

[shawn_dude]

"weak presidents"

LOL.

And strong presidents go to war?
And stronger presidents instead make deals with despicable dictators in an attempt to seize power and join their ranks!

[Commenter_XY]

Bob from Ohio, may it be as you say; merely testing a weak POTUS (which POTUS Biden is, he is weaker than Jimmy Carter).

I would very much like to be wrong, and be guilty of hyper-paranoia. I'd wager money Don Nico would like to be wrong about this and cop to a paranoia plea, but he can speak for himself. Everything I see from the combined navies, interoperability of arms, and coordinated diplomatic action aligned in a diametrically opposite way to the US tells me something very different; the pieces are being rehearsed, drilled and set into place. It is very nearly time to execute (i.e. Taiwan has been blockaded twice in 18 months, RUS currently honing warfighting skill in UKR).

PS: Very unhappy ending here if they move together: the US loses.

[bernard11]

How is Biden "weak?" He's willing to stand up to Putin, which a fair number of GOPer's are not.

Trump is the guy who kisses Putin's ass, and Kim Jong il's as well?

What has Trump ever done to suggest he is "tough?" you are really guzzling the Kool-Aid here, XY.

[Chumby]

Biden was assistant manager during the Maidan color revolution then has been backing Zely ever since the banderas in Kiev broke the Minsk agreement including arming nazis. Biden is the bad guy in this situation. The casualties are immense including hundreds of thousands dead Ukrainian men, loss of confidence in the US (see end of petrodollar, nations warming towards multipolar and BRICS, and recent EU elections), billions of US debt to fund the corruption. The guy can’t complete a coherent sentence, maneuver a flight of stairs, remember the name of someone he just met, or hold his bowels for a minute. His only strength is scoring own goals.

[Nige]

'RUS currently honing warfighting skill in UKR'

Hahaha

[grb]

Don Nico : “War is coming.”

Three Points :

1. There are crackheads, alcoholics, and people addicted to Kremlin talking points. Don Nico has the last kind of dependency problem. I assume there’s some kind of Twelve-Step Program that can assist him if he seeks help.

2. If the nuclear sub wasn’t docked in Havana (90 miles) from Florida, it would be at sea (89 miles from Florida). Presumably that would make our snowflake rightwingers feel reassured as they hyperventilate prostrate on the fainting couch.

3. Besides, Havana’s a interesting city to visit (I spent a day there last year). You should see them line up the daiquiris at Bar El Floridita.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These right-wing dumbasses don't like the condition or trajectory of modern America, and are disconnected from the reality-based world, so they gravitate toward Revelation/end times/doomsday/Judgment Day bullshit.

[Don Nico]

grb,
What the hell is the problem with you?
Dependency problem? That is you in spades.
You refuse to listen to any view of the world out side of your own bubble.
What is your crap about Kremlin talking points?
Wake up asshole and read what political scientists think both in the US and Europe.
If you don't like my comments put me on mute. I am doing the same to you.
Bye.

[grb]

1. The number of “political scientists” in the “US and Europe” who think a U.S.-Russia war is inevitable unless we give Russia free reign in Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, etc. is a tiny little number. Most people don’t smile & say “yum” when spoonfed Putin’s bullshit.

2. It’s not my “view of the world”, it’s plain common sense. The last thing Russia wants or needs is war with NATO and the United States. The fact a few tinhorn smarthy threats from the Kremlin gangster has you convinced otherwise is 100% on your head. Personally, I have zero idea why you relentlessly preddle this nonsense, but peddle it you do. Relentlessly.

3. The Soviet 64th Fighter Aviation Corps fought for the North in the Korean War. Do you think that brought us to the edge of nuclear holocaust? If not, why not?

4. Unless Putin is suicidal and loony-tunes crazy, there is zero chance support for Ukraine results in total war. Yet I’m betting you see him as a grandmaster stategist. There’s a contradiction there you haven’t bothered to resolve. You should try.

5. Even though Russia is a broken state run by a gangster thug, it is still capable of petty mischief. But everyone already knows that, Ukrainian supporters and otherwise. It’s factored into the equation. Besides, Putin was full-in on petty mischief long before the invasion. And there’s every chance it would just be worse if he’s rewarded for his Big European Adventure.

6. And this Cuban business is next to meaningless. The Cubans and Russians aren’t even that close anymore. Lord knows the Cuban government has been quite empatic that no Russia ship in their waters has nuclear weapons on board. As an excuse for more breathless predictions of WWIII, it’s not even fourth-rate.

[Don Nico]

"war of coming" was a quote. Not my comment. You are dishonest to boot. But you think the world is in a good shape. A fool's point of view

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe your prediction will be right, maybe it won't be. But anyone as certain about the future as you are is a willing fool. That you call those with doubts fools speaks only to your own unearned confidence.

grb's point about RT poisoning seems right. I don't know if you get your takes directly from RT or not, but you are in lockstep with the Russian narrative.
-Ukraine is a NATO plot and proxy war of the left
-Russia is a big nuclear threat and Biden had better tread carefully
-WW3 is coming and the US is unprepared.
-Trump's foreign policy will put Russia and China in their place

Anyone who is passingly aware of current Russian propaganda sees what book you sing from.

[Don Nico]

" anyone as certain about the future as you "
More of your distortions.
I am not certain about the future. I am apprehensive about the growing threat of nuclear weapons. The planned tenfold increase in Chinese nukes, the threat by the DPRK to use weapons preemptively, the growing capability in Iran, new generations of nuclear arms in Russia with unprecedented characteristics. I guess that you don't follow the weekly threats of the Chinese Navy in the first island chain. Wake up and listen to the news from the far East regularly.
Consider the weak set of heads of government in the EU. And the cat 7 mouse game the US is playing with Ukraine. If you are confident about the future, you are the fool.
None of the political scientists that I work with around the world are as complacent as you and grb.
There is little more iritating that your claim promulgating the Russian narrative. That is the bullshit claim of an administration that has been a foreign policy disaster. It is amazing that you doubt Biden is in a proxy war. That is your blindness. You seem to prefer tempting the use of a small nuclear device to wake Mister Biden up.
I never said WWIII is coming. That is a bold faced lie. The kind that your gaslighting is famous for. Try to be truthful for a change. I never said that the US is unprepared. That is your claim. I did say that we have an increasing level of security threats on every side. Do you think that cyber threat to national infrastuctures are a fantasy? Your wrong.
And finally your biggest LIE.Trump will put matter in their place. You are shamefully dishonest. Gaslighting and distorting whenever you can.
"Singing from the Russian book of propaganda"is just what I expect from an apparatchik led by a senile president.
Give up your gaslighting. Everyone knows your dishonest game

[Sarcastr0]

How you can manage to be this condescending while claiming not to be certain is beyond me.

"I guess that you don’t follow the weekly threats of the Chinese Navy in the first island chain. Wake up and listen to the news from the far East regularly."

"None of the political scientists that I work with around the world are as complacent as you and grb."

"It is amazing that you doubt Biden is in a proxy war. That is your blindness."

"You seem to prefer tempting the use of a small nuclear device to wake Mister Biden up."

"Do you think that cyber threat to national infrastuctures are a fantasy? Your wrong."

"an apparatchik led by a senile president."

"Give up your gaslighting. Everyone knows your dishonest game."

OK, I'll back down on your claim that WW3 is assured; that's more Commenter.

But listen to yourself; if you're not certain about the future, why are you such an asshole about it?

[Bwaaah]

You so consistently, so obviously misstate the other person’s viewpoint. You are unable to tolerate any moderation, any reasonableness, in an opposing viewpoint. You dance right past it like it’s not there, superimposing fanciful projections onto the other person’s argument. The idiot to whom you want to speak isn’t in the room, and so instead, you speak to the mangled MAGA Moron in your head.

Your perspective is so rank with a type of ideological bigotry, such disregard and disrespectfulness of the individuality of a person, that you could never see as it as such without hating yourself. You dismiss the essential individual perspectives of those whom you address here (whom you judge to be “right-wingers”).

You’re like Elmer Fudd pretending Bugs Bunny doesn’t see him because he’s wearing fake rabbit ears over his hat.

And you double down on the other guy being the MAGA Moron. Like nobody sees your distortions. Nobody sees your rhetorical gymnastics. No. You’re the genuine one, and the other guy is a disingenuous MAGA Moron, even though he really didn’t say, and clearly didn’t mean, what you pretend he said.

I believe you really believe yourself, Sarc. And if so, then you’re really, really thick in the head. Seemingly impenetrably thick.

You lack empathy.

[Sarcastr0]

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

You lack empathy.
You are complaining about my rhetoric and then jump to my empathy.

What do you want? Sympathy when I think your opinions are bad?

You and I argue on the Internet. We don't know one another.

[Bwaaah]

I want you to genuinely engage the arguer, as represented by his/her argument, and not just engaging the mangled MAGA Moron as if you weren't talking to an actual person who isn't that.

[bernard11]

Havana is in fact a fabulous place to visit.

It also is a tragedy created by human stupidity. In an alternate timeline it would be one of the finest cities in the Western Hemisphere.

[Don Nico]

"Havana is in fact a fabulous place to visit."
That is what I gather from my photo-colleagues. Certainly the records of his visit look very attractive, not-fancy but in a highly human dimension

[bernard11]

I myself went several times on photo trips. Out of curiosity, what group did he go with, or is one of the intrepid few who managed the bureaucracy involved himself?

As I'm sure his photos showed, the main part of the city has a lot of (what should be) lovely Spanish colonial architecture, now close to being ruins. The people are quite friendly, though there is, perhaps understandably, a good bit of panhandling.

But if you loosen up you can have a good time. As a photographer I found I could go into a club, throw the equivalent of $10 in the hat for the band, and buy a CD, and have the run of the place for photographing the musicians, etc.

[grb]

I went with a “Hemingway Group”, which was fine. It got us out to see the writer’s house, Finca Vigía, where we also saw his boat. But if I’m being totally honest, my day in Havana was mainly a bar crawl, each one followed by the next.

This worked because Hemingway was quite the drinker, so we never lacked for a historical context. But I suspect the real reason was our very affable guide was getting a cut off each successive stop (and more power to him).

But we saw Old Havana, the Malecón, the delightfully quirky Baroque cathedral, and many an ancient set of Detroit wheels – some gleaming like they were just off the factory line. The only warning I’d give is don’t expect toilet paper in the public restrooms.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you get that doomsday/end times shit from a book of fairy tales?

[Frank Drackman]

AlGore's "Earth in the Balance"? Yes!

[Dr. Ed 2]

We didn't know about all the capabilities of the USN forty years ago, and I like to think that we don't know about all the capabilities of the USN today.

[Frank Drackman]

Strange that the Navy has it's own Army and the Army has it's own Navy

[jimc5499]

Brings back the 80's to me. Sailing around in the Med, dodging the Soviet AGI's. Taking pictures of Soviet Cruisers and Destroyers from a helicopter. Watching a Tomcat blow their laundry overboard during a low pass on afterburner.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

News came out that the federal government will pay for your tranny surgery if you're an illegal.

They'll give you cash cards, free flights, exemptions from ID requirements, register you to vote, free healthcare, free phones and all sorts of free gibs if you're an illegal invader.

But fuck you, if you're a citizen. You get spied upon, oppressed, censored, and swatted. DC is the enemy of the people.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, no such "news" "came out," because none of that is true.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

lol you're so ignorant while being such a reactionary bootlicker it's crazy.

Someone said something bad about my gods, the bureaucrats of the State, I better rush to defend them!!!

[ThePublius]

David,

Much of this is true, perhaps not completely, but to a certain degree which lends credence to the statements.

California is paying for transition surgery for illegal immigrants, as of January.

In Massachusetts, with which I am familiar, migrants are housed for free, given three meals a day, delivered, including tip; receive cash cards to supplement the provided meals; receive health care, and even laundry services.

A federal program flies migrants directly from their home countries to locations in the U.S., or from border crossing areas, for free, without requiring identification.

ICE provides free, "limited" phones.

Many states now allow undocumented immigrants to get drivers licenses, and many have been "accidentally" registered to vote.

So, much of it is true.

[Malika the Maiz]

"Much of this is true, perhaps not completely, but to a certain degree"

The internet folks!

[ThePublius]

What does that mean? Are you just throwing stones at something you don't like?

[Sarcastr0]

Pointing at the sliding scale of truthiness on display seems pretty clear to me.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Would that include the Boston Herald taking pictures of the laundry bags, the tarped-over motel signs, and the rest?

[David Nieporent]

California is paying for transition surgery for illegal immigrants, as of January.

I am aware that California is doing so — and I think that's ridiculous, crazy, absurd — but he expressly said the federal government, making his claim… entirely false.

In Massachusetts, with which I am familiar, migrants are housed for free, given three meals a day, delivered, including tip; receive cash cards to supplement the provided meals; receive health care, and even laundry services.

A federal program flies migrants directly from their home countries to locations in the U.S., or from border crossing areas, for free, without requiring identification.

Repeat after me: asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. I understand that the left hates the term "illegal" and therefore tries to use vague umbrella terms like "migrant" to conflate very different classes of people. But that is not correct legally, and we should not encourage neo-nazis like JHBHBE by letting him conflate them for the very different reason that he hates all immigrants. (Or at least ones not from northern Europe.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Repeat after me, all defendants are actually innocent....

[Sarcastr0]

What defendant is there in DMN's post?

[not guilty]

"Repeat after me, all defendants are actually innocent…."

Dr. Ed 2's comment is off topic, but it reminded me of something a criminal defense colleague from Knoxville said:

"I have never gone to court with a guilty client. I have, however, left some there."

[jimc5499]

When they come across the Border without going through Customs and Immigration they are illegals.
When your so called "asylum seekers" do not show up at their hearings to determine their status, they become illegals.
When they overstay their visas, they become illegals.

[jb]

AIUI, California is providing health care coverage to immigrants regardless of whether they're here legally or not (although they have to have been in the country for 10 years). That coverage theoretically includes gender transition. But I've seen no reporting that any of these immigrants have actually used the health care coverage this way. Have you? If not, it's probably not correct to say that California is paying for transition surgery.

In any case, it seems like it would be a trivial part of the overall cost of providing health care to these folks, but I guess it combines "transgender" and "immigration" which makes it perfect right wing rage bait. Imagine going through your day constantly looking for information to make you and other people mad. Must be exhausting.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The much higher mortality rate of trannies probably makes it worthwhile.

[Nige]

But if I call you pieces of shit transphobic I'm the fascist.

[Riva]

David still believes the fraudulent 2016 Russian collusion story manufactured by the Hillary campaign. And that Hunter’s laptop is Russian disinformation. And that there was no effort to discredit and censor any reference to it. The garbage intel letter was honest and exemplary in Dave’s confused little mind.

[Sarcastr0]

Riva can only remember a few things - all right-wing outrages, natch. So he goes back to them a lot no matter what is under discussion.

[Riva]

Is that so much as to say that you are also still committed to Hillary's 2016 Russian collusion lie and that you are still convinced the laptop (the one introduced into evidence in the crackhead bagman's trial) is Russian disinformation?

[Krychek_2]

I'll defer to Sarcast0, but I don't recall him ever taking any of those positions.

[Sarcastr0]

Problem is I don't know what Riva is talking about. Hillary colluded with the Russians in 2016?

The laptop is all-or-nothing fake?

[Krychek_2]

That's OK; I doubt Riva knows what Riva is talking about.

[darkknight9]

Ba dum tish! 😀

[Riva]

Always a mistake to defer to Sarcastr0. So no idea? I’m talking abut the massive lie of Russian collision by President Trump that Hillary and the democrats created to smear the Trump campaign and later presidency. But you knew exactly what I meant and are just being an a-hole, like always.

Uh, what exactly do you mean? Do you think the Russians made the laptop? Maybe the Big Guy can get the disgraced intel pukes to write another letter?

[jb]

Guys, it wasn't "collusion" it was only coordination! What a huge media conspiracy to use those words interchangeably!

[Krychek_2]

But did Sarcastr0 take those positions? I'm not saying *no one else* did, but you specifically called out Sarcastr0 for holding those views. I've been reading his comments here for a long time and I don't remember *him* ever having made those claims.

[Riva]

Hard to believe you honestly want to engage in discussion given your a-Holic responses above. But, yeah, Sarcastr0 is all in on spreading the Russian collusion BS. Just like he’s committed to spreading the lie that the laptop was part of a Russian disinformation campaign. Apparently, campaign wise, lies and lawfare is all you guys have to work with.

[Sarcastr0]

All of that seems well before you darkened the Conspiracy's doors. What was your previous screenname?

Anyhow, because you won't really nail down what your specifics are re: Russia, I'll just say that I concur with David Nieporent below. And I believe the Mueller Report's factual findings about Trump and his campaign are politically damming, if not legally actionable.

[Riva]

Uh huh. And here you are, trying to spread BS Russian collusion conspiracies while accusing anyone who exposes the BS as engaging in a conspiracy theory. That may work on some of the truly committed retarded woke but not the majority of voters. Nope, you need some new lies.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But did Sarcastr0 take those positions?"

Sarcastro took the position that the laptop was a Russian op based on "empirical evidence" consisting of a letter that said there was no evidence that it was a Russian op.

[Nige]

You're all so salty about your failed ratfuck.

[Sarcastr0]

here you are, trying to spread BS Russian collusion conspiracies

Where am I doing that here?

[Riva]

You concurred with your little buddy Dave, who's all in on the Russian collusion garbage. Try to keep track of your own bullshit. I’m not going to help you again.

[Sarcastr0]

Is the Mueller Report a Hillary Clinton plot?

Though also you talked a lot about what I posted about in 2017.
What's going on with that, Riva? Were you posting here under another name? You do not seem the type to lurk without commenting.

[Riva]

He said the russian collusion bullshit was neither manufactured by Hillary or fraudulent. You really are a pathetic deceitful little shit aren't you?

[Sarcastr0]

I can't even tell if He is Mueller or DMN or God at this point, Riva.

Not sure who you think I'm deceiving either; but I guess your vocab of accusations is a bit limited.

[Riva]

You’re really outdoing yourself with the obnoxious bullshit today. I can see you’re frustrated being unable to defend your own comments. In your defense, I doubt anyone could.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You're a bigoted misfit who believes fairy tales are true and modern America -- with all of its science, modernity, inclusiveness, reason, progress, and education -- is a flaming hellscape, Riva.

You're a natural at the Volokh Conspiracy, among these right-wing malcontents, but disgusting roadkill in the reality-based world.

[Riva]

I'd accuse you of being Sarcastr0 acting through an alias but I actually wouldn't insult you that way. Don't get me wrong, you're deranged, but between the two of you, your incoherence and openly honest insanity is somehow less offensive.

[David Nieporent]

Riva is incapable of doing anything other than repeating the same talking points over and over — I'm not 100% convinced he's not just a bot — but the most charitable way to interpret his ranting and raving is if he thinks that the Steele dossier and Russian collusion are the same thing.

It would explain why he keeps talking about Hillary even though the investigation of Trump started before there even was a dossier, and most of the investigation/findings by Mueller and SSCI had nothing to do with the dossier.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Great comment, Sarcarpaccio. Always contributing and moving the ball forward!!!

Keep up the good work!

[Z Crazy]

Hunter's real crime was forgetting to renew his white privilege card, it seems.

[David Nieporent]

That's nothing! There's a lunatic here — believe it or not! — who still believes in corruption by Joe Biden, and when pointed out that there isn't any evidence of any such corruption just refers to some imaginary documents that he's never seen.

I, on the other hand, know that the Russian collusion story was (a) not manufactured by the Hillary campaign; or (b) fraudulent, because it was largely confirmed by two independent investigations: the nonpartisan Mueller investigation and the bipartisan SSCI investigation led by Sen. Rubio. They could not prove that Trump had an actual quid pro quo agreement with the Russians, but they did establish that the Russians wanted Trump to win, worked to help him win, and that Trump was aware of, and welcomed, these efforts. (When I say "Trump" I mean his inner circle; I'm not sure he personally realizes that he's not still a game show host.)

I also do not think that Hunter's laptop — that is, the thing in the FBI's possession — was Russian disinformation, as I have said several times but Riva isn't smart enough to read and digest information. Although the repair shop story is not credible, the laptop itself seems genuine, because there's nothing incriminating wrt Joe Biden on it. If it were Russian disinformation, they'd have planted documents showing Joe Biden receiving money from illicit sources and perhaps various promises he made in exchange for that money. But since none of that's there, we can conclude that it's not their handiwork.

[Riva]

Uh huh. Tell that to the Steele Dossier and the non-existant pee tape. Now Dave, you may have seen pee tape videos but I think you’re mistaking those for the made up story.

And a whole lot incriminating on the laptop, corroborated too by witnesses too. And I doubt we’ve seen all that’s there yet. A lot for the next Trump administration to look into. And nothing suspicious about the repair shop but nice touch throwing that irrelevant BS into the mix of lies.

[Nige]

Whether this is actually the way you think, or just a dumbly disingenuous way of arguing is irrelevant -they’re functionally the same.

[Riva]

So you think there's a pee tape? That there's nothing incriminating on the laptop that implicates the Big Guy? An awful lot of effort to censor and discredit the laptop for nothing, huh?

[Sarcastr0]

Sweaty, Riva.

Are you moving away from failing to read and ipse dixit into telling people what they believe?

[Riva]

Rather seems that's what you guys do. All the time. Sad.

[Sarcastr0]

What a weak I know you are but what am I.

You getting tired from all that empty angryposting?

[Riva]

And I thought your comments were pathetic before. You really should stop.

[Nige]

Mostly I think you're a hamster on a wheel.

[Sarcastr0]

As they say, the wheel is spinning but the hamster's dead.

[not guilty]

JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes conspicuously omits any source for his fantastic claims. Why am I unsurprised?

[Michael P]

Probably because you're the same kind of reflexively dishonest denier as David Nieporent who jumps on misidentification of which far-left government provides one particular benefit to illegal invaders to claim "none of that is true".

[Sarcastr0]

Saying it’s being a ‘reflexive dishonest denier’ to distrust unsourced claims by the unhinged antisemite is pretty dumb.

[Riva]

The only unhinged antisemites I see in the news are democrats in Congress and budding young democrats at universities.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes we all know you don’t read a lot or very well, you just post.

It’s pretty funny when you go in hot at someone agreeing with you because you skimmed and missed a ‘not’ or something,

[Riva]

I think the words and actions of the squad and the Hamas supporting little shits at our institutions of higher learning speak for themselves. But feel free to defend them. Maybe you could all get together and have some sort of insane anti-Semite, Hamas terrorist supporting rally? Oh wait, already done at the WH last weekend.

[Sarcastr0]

Haha do you realize how much you're telling on yourself here?

'I hate these people so I don't need sources to believe whatever bad stories I hear about them.'

Full on I reject your reality and replace it with my own.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Who needs stories when you got their own words?

[Riva]

WTF are you ranting about? You want a link to news story about the rants of the “Squad” members? The Hamas supporters rioting in DC? Some college Hamas supporting camp? Could you be more of a clown?

[Sarcastr0]

You are so angry you are posting that it's justified to no longer require that the things you believe are established as true.

Makes sense - you don't like reading and this saves on that kind of work.

[Riva]

Could you rephrase that? I really don’t speak woke retard or whatever language you’re using. What, exactly, are you trying to say? Write clearly, in English, once you sober up of course.

[Sarcastr0]

1. JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes posted a sourceless (and later established to be wrong) thing.

2. I say he's an antisemite and not to be believed.

3. You say the real antisemites are the Dems.

4. I point out you must not have read JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes's posts.

5. You rant about the Dems. And call me an antisemite as well.

6. I post that you seem to be fueled by hate, not anything from JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes or my posts.

Then you get confused.

[Riva]

Sarcastr0, I did advise that you sober up first. Still no clue what you’re ranting about. When the drugs finally wear off, explain to me clearly what your confusion was as to my comments? You’ve never heard of the “Squad” or the deranged comments of its members? I would think as a fellow deranged lunatic you would follow them. Never heard of the shit head Hamas supporting punks on university campuses? I would expect you to be camping out there with them. And the WH riots last weekend escaped you? Well that I understand. You probably passed out from whatever you take before you could catch the bus to DC.

[David Nieporent]

‘I hate these people so I don’t need sources to believe whatever bad stories I hear about them.’

Full on I reject your reality and replace it with my own.

It’s part of the post-truth era of which Trump is both a symptom and a cause. It used to be that the right thought (correctly, IMO) the media was liberally biased, and so things they read there had to be taken with a grain of salt. Then the rise of Fox News and the rest of the right wing media ecosystem meant that right wingers would always accept the Fox take on a story over a mainstream media version. But in the MAGA era, even that’s no longer good enough. Now they only want right wing outlets to tell them what they already believe to be true. When that doesn’t happen, they simply reject reality entirely in favor of their beliefs. When Fox reports something negative about Trump or positive about a Democrat, you will routinely see MAGA on social media muttering darkly about how “they” must have gotten to Fox or how Rupert Murdoch is really a RINO or Deep State Derp or whatever.

It goes beyond the media, of course. The courts are treated similarly. It used to be that more extreme members on the right would only accept the legitimacy of court proceedings if a Republican-appointed judge were involved. But now that’s not enough. If a ruling comes out unfavorably towards Trump or one of his people in any way, it is inherently illegitimate regardless of who appointed the judges.

[Sarcastr0]

I wonder if it's just how it is when the populism pendulum swings up.

Like, were the supporters of William Jennings Bryan the same?

The Know Nothings sure have echoes in both substance and attitude.
---------
Historically, it does seem that populist movements are enhanced by having a person around which to rally. I'm optimistic that if Trump isn't elected in 2024 we'll be past the worst of it.
It'll never be gone, and the tide will again rise, but hopefully the high water mark for the next 20-40 years will have been met.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are these yahoos any different from the believers at a faith-healing exhibition or a revival meeting, speaking in tongues, believing nonsense to be true, and forking over cash that should have been used to provide necessities for their children?

Fortunately, these dumbasses have lost the culture war and their preferences will be increasingly irrelevant in modern America.

[Riva]

Post-truth? Well you’ve got your Newspeak down.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That is the Bernstein-Blackman-Volokh position. Good luck with that, clingers.

[Ed Grinberg]

.

Saying it’s being a ‘reflexive dishonest denier’ to distrust unsourced claims by the unhinged antisemite is pretty dumb.

Hmmm... Look, if JHBHBE starts talking about Jews kidnapping Christian children to use their blood to make matzos, or how Israel is committing "genocide" against Palestinians -- sure, I'd discount that. But even an unhinged antisemite might give me the right time of day, or (truthfully) tell me that it's raining outside. Just because he lies about Jews, that doesn't necessarily mean he lies about everything.

[Sarcastr0]

OK Mr. VDARE I trust you as the antisemitism arbiter.

Just because he lies about Jews, that doesn’t necessarily mean he lies about everything.
There it is.

[loki13]

Wait, wut?

Someone actually typed that? Looks ... oh wow.

(I assume he is defending one of the anti-semites I have blocked.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Henry Ford was a vile antisemite -- so I assume you walk...

[Sarcastr0]

Unsourced Internet comments are not the same as cars.

[loki13]

Seriously, this is getting bizarre.

This thread-
How dare you not listen to and appreciate anti-Semites!

Other threads-
Leftists and college students and antifa are all anti-Semites!

Seriously, how can they possibly hold this level of cognitive dissonance without their brains exploding?

[bernard11]

"The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet."

[Commenter_XY]

That is pretty funny. 🙂

[bernard11]

Often attributed to Damon Runyon, but there are other claims.

[Nige]

'Just because he lies about Jews, that doesn’t necessarily mean he lies about everything.'

Good lord.

[bernard11]

A quote comes to mind in reference to some English king or other:

"He was such a good liar that you could not even count on the opposite of what he said being true."

[Malika the Maiz]

How dare he deny things that aren't true!

[M L]

The NGOs that grow rich off importing illegals (with your tax dollars) put a special emphasis on recruiting LGBTQWTFBBQ immigrants to bring here illegally.

[Nige]

'But fuck you, if you’re a citizen.'

Have you considered renouncing your citizenship and becoming an illegal? Clearly it'd be a cushy number.

[Martinned2]

From Joshua Rozenberg's blog:

Two judges given formal warnings
(...)
On 14 February, The Times reported that Judge Ikram had “liked” a post by a barrister on the social media site LinkedIn, which read:

Free Free Palestine. To the Israeli terrorist both in the United Kingdom, the United States and of course Israel, you can run, you can bomb but you cannot hide — justice will be coming for you.

Ikram had “liked” this post some three weeks before he issued conditional discharges to three women he had convicted of offences under the Terrorism Act 2000.
(...)
After careful consideration, the lady chief justice and the lord chancellor, Alex Chalk, were not satisfied that a sanction of formal advice was sufficient in this case. They therefore agreed to issue Ikram with a formal warning.

In reaching their decision, they took into consideration that, in addition to having breached the guidance on social media use, the judge’s actions caused significant reputational damage to the judiciary, as shown by what they described as the extraordinary number of complaints made to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.

They also considered it important for their decision to underline their shared view on the seriousness of misuse of social media by judges.
(...)
Sir Simon Picken was appointed a High Court judge in June 2015, becoming one of the judges of the Commercial Court the following year.
(...)
Early this year, Picken applied for promotion to the Court of Appeal. As required, he nominated two independent assessors. Their role was to provide evidence-based assessments of his suitability for the role.
(...)
One of Picken’s nominees accidentally sent the appointments commission a partially completed draft of the assessment form. This included extensive comments and suggestions by Picken, indicating that it had been disclosed to him.
(...)
The lord chancellor and the lady chief justice agreed with the nominated judge’s recommendation that Picken should receive a formal warning. By reading and then commenting on the draft assessment, they said, his actions compromised his integrity and could have seriously undermined confidence in the judicial appointments process.

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/two-judges-given-formal-warnings

[Ed Grinberg]

I must say, I'm pleasantly surprised. Maybe Mark Steyn was overly pessimistic. Or maybe, in a few more years, it'll be the likes of Judge Ikram holding the positions of Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor. We'll see...

[Bob from Ohio]

Strongly worded letters!

[Martinned2]

They are judges. What else do you think should be done here?

[Bob from Ohio]

One of them is a terrorist supporter. IDK, immediate removal from office.

[Nelson]

You believe that political beliefs should be grounds for removal of judges? That's an awfully arbitrary standard with unending potential for abuse.

Just because most people think a political position is wrong, despicable, and anti-liberty, it doesn't mean it's a justifiable reason for removal from the bench.

If it were, there wouldn't be any anti-abortion judges and Biden would be appointing two new SCOTUS justices.

[Armchair]

Read a new poll that looks at how Democrat support has cratered among working class Hispanics.

https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/the-new-hispanic-diploma-divide

Used to be that Democrats would win this group easily, by more than 40 points. Now, it's near even with Republicans.

It shows up in the party's policies as well. Democrats are pushing to forgive student loans, a policy that disproportionately helps those with higher incomes. Meanwhile Trump's new tax policy is to not tax tip income, a series of professions that tend to be lower income.

[hobie]

If Hispanic rapists from shithole countries want to vote for the team that calls them these things, more power to them. Maybe it is a cultural thing. For Exhibit A I offer Ted Cruz

[Ed Grinberg]

Could it be that these new Republican voters have realized that it's Democratic policies that are likely to turn the U.S. into another "shithole country"? Or don't you think they're smart enough for that?

[Martinned2]

Could it be that these new Republican voters have realized that it’s Democratic policies that are likely to turn the U.S. into another “shithole country”?

Yes, that's what we're worried about. Post-constitutional politics, etc.

[hobie]

Exhibit B: Marco Rubio

[VinniUSMC (Banana Republic Day 5/30/24)]

"If you don't vote for me, you aren't black"
-hobie's racist idol

[Frank Drackman]

I’m sure the Hispanics are are Tenderfoots waiting for your approval.
For an exhibit of Stolen Valor I offer you. In the Good Old Days (1990’s) even real Servicemen who got caught fudging their awards or medals would take the honorable way out (See “Boorda, Jeremy”) I’m not a big Rafael (his name’s “Rafael” how come he has to go with “Ted”) fan, but he probably makes more in one 20 minute meeting with a Donor than you’ve earned in your whole Pathetic Life, doing whatever it is you do (I’m thinking “earning 100% disability for Congenital Syphilis)

Frank

[Armchair]

Multiple choice:
So, when does Hunter get his pardon from daddy?

1. It's already written, signed and in a sealed envelop in the oval office...just in case.
2. November 6th, 2024
3. Just before he actually would go to jail
4. None of the above, Joe will let his druggy tax evading son rot in jail.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

He's not going to serve a single day in jail.

[TwelveInchPianist]

5. Note of the above, Joe won't pardon Hunter but will commute any jail time.

[Armchair]

Why leave his son with a felony conviction though, if he doesn't have to?

[Martinned2]

Because it would be the right thing to do?

[Armchair]

In some ways, it (commuting the sentence) is the worst possible option.

Joe's not going to immediately publicaly pardon Hunter because of the political fallout. But for 95% of people, there's almost no difference between pardoning a family member and commuting the sentence...you're still using the power of the government for the benefit of your family member.

Where is does matter is afterwards. A full pardon releases the person from all disabilities and punishments that result from the conviction. A commutation leaves the felony on the record.

Now, if you're a particularly vengeful prosecutor, angry that the president has used the power of the government to benefit his son, and decide to go after the son for other crimes after the president leaves power, the felony on the record (commutation) means sentencing rate enhancements for any new crime. While a pardon eliminates those rate enhancements. On the other hand, if Hunter is serving a jail sentence, that prosecutor may not feel the need to go after the son.

[Sarcastr0]

This Hunter Biden fan fiction shit is creepy.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Good call, everyone better stop talking about Hunter Biden!

The State has declared it "creepy" and therefore off-limits!

It's important to the security of National Cognitive Infrastructure and our Sacred Democracy to not talk about Hunter Biden and his troubles!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

A jail sentence is by no means a certainty in this case.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It would be interesting if a request for commutation came from the USSS.

What I could see happening is Trump 47 commuting his sentence 'for the public good" although if he loses in November, Brandon still has two months to do an outright pardon.

Either Trump or Hunter in prison has to be a USSS nightmare...

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t think you will harvest a lot out outrage on this one, no matter how classless you get.

[ThePublius]

I think he will ultimately both be pardoned, and also have any jail sentence commuted. Even though I despise Biden and family, I confess I would probably do the same for one of my children.

But I have a question. Does a pardon mean that Hunter will no longer be a convicted felon? I mean, does it reverse the conviction? Because that would matter, in terms of a whole bunch of other things, like future firearms ownership, voting, foreign travel, and so on.

[Krychek_2]

A pardon excuses him from the consequences of conviction but not the fact of conviction. He can vote and own a firearm. Foreign travel would be up to whichever country he wants to visit.

[Martinned2]

I think he will ultimately both be pardoned, and also have any jail sentence commuted. Even though I despise Biden and family, I confess I would probably do the same for one of my children.

I wouldn't. I would go out of my way not to give my relatives any kind of special treatment if I held public office. But that's just me. I guess that might explain some of the differences in our voting choices.

[Bob from Ohio]

You have the power to save your child from prison and won't?

1. I don't believe you.
2. Its a terrible person who thinks this.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Maybe if the kid was a serial killer or something. But this? Yeah, I'd take one for the team.

[Martinned2]

Yes. Not everybody is as corrupt as you.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its not corruption, its family.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Subverting the law for the personal benefit of your family is kind of the definition of corruption.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Subverting the law"

Pardons are part of the law. He would not be subverting anything.

President's pardon power is plenary and un-reviewable.

[Noscitur a sociis]

All the more reason why it should be exercised responsibly.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So you've backpedaled from corrupt to irresponsible?

[Noscitur a sociis]

No, I think it's irresponsible for a public official to act corruptly.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob, for those with principles legal is not the same as moral.

For you, I'd guess they're the same.

Thus, in your book, court packing is a good play if Dems can get away with it.
This is what happens when you hand over the moral high ground.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its immoral to have the power to protect your child and not use it.

[Sarcastr0]

Blind loyalty and protection from personal accountability is no way to raise a child.

[Bob from Ohio]

"no way to raise a child"

I think Hunter has already been "raised". Badly, but that milk has already been spilled.

"Blind loyalty""

Its just loyalty. Parents should be loyal to their children, even adult wastrels like Hunter deserve that.

Joe can yell at Hunter some if that makes you feel better. Then Hunter will know he screwed up!

[David Nieporent]

I would go out of my way not to give my relatives any kind of special treatment if I held public office.

I don't think either extreme position is the right one. If I thought my relative had been treated unfairly and I had the power to legally rectify it, I would. If I thought he was guilty and had received a fair process and sentence, I would not.

[Armchair]

"Does a pardon mean that Hunter will no longer be a convicted felon? I mean, does it reverse the conviction?"

A pardon eliminates the consequences of the felony conviction. It does not eliminate the fact that it's on the record. However, a pardon is requisite for an expungement which would completely eliminate the fact that the felony even occurred. A commutation would leave the consequences of the felony (that aren't commuted) and would also mean the felony couldn't be expunged.

[ThePublius]

Thank you.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Thank whichever unnamed source he Googled that from.

[apedad]

5. Trump pardons him.

Ex-Trump campaign adviser David Urban suggested that the former president pledge to pardon Hunter Biden, who was convicted Tuesday on federal gun charges.

“Listen, what I’d like to see happen is I’d like to see President Trump come out with a statement saying, ‘Look, if Hunter Biden commits to a program of sobriety, inpatient or maybe outpatient, shows up, keeps his sobriety, I’ll pardon him,’” Urban said on CNN’s “Out Front with Erin Burnett.”

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Urban has become expert at acknowledging that Trump and Trump’s actions are bad while continuing to endorse Trump. It seems to be a profitable course for a lobbyist.

[Krychek_2]

It would be nice if you could at least acknowledge that Biden has publicly accepted the verdict, unlike a certain other recently convicted felon. The difference between the two speaks volumes. Biden is not undermining institutions or claiming it was rigged or that the judge was corrupt. Nope; he respects the system and urges respect for the system. And by the way, so much for Trump's persecution complex.

I doubt Hunter will get any jail time, though, and not because he's a Biden. He's a first offender with plenty of mitigating factors. So while jail isn't off the table, my bet is that he gets probation and community service.

[Armchair]

The cases are very, very different.

One was open and shut, with such an abundance of evidence that there was no real defense.

The other required "Novel" theories, twisting of laws, a biased judge who were donating to a "stop Trump" organization, and more. There are many, many potential avenues for appeal.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4697118-braggs-thrill-kill-in-manhattan-could-prove-short-lived-on-appeal/

One should not treat such different cases the same.

[Krychek_2]

I get that the case against Trump was open and shut with such an abundance of evidence that there was no real defense. But what makes you think Biden's trial required novel theories, twisting of laws and a biased judge?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Off the top of your heard:

How many cases have been tried that were similar to Trump's?

How many cases have been tried that were similar to Hunter's?

[Krychek_2]

That would depend on which specific similarities you are looking at. So, which specific similarities are you looking at?

[not guilty]

A false statement charge for a gun purchase is almost never brought as a stand alone charge in federal courts. Neither is a charge of possession of a firearm while addicted to drugs. OTOH, such charges are often added to other charges where the offender has used the gun to commit a crime. Felon in possession charges are often brought standing alone.

[Krychek_2]

Yesterday I had this very conversation with a leftist on another blog who thinks Hunter Biden's prosecutors should be disbarred for selectively prosecuting Hunter Biden just for being Joe Biden's son.

I am not convinced that "is almost never brought" is relevant here. The law has (or should have) objective meaning; he either committed a crime or he did not. And even if a law is rarely enforced, one still assumes the risk that it might be enforced if one chooses to violate it. Speeding laws are almost never enforced in the sense that 99% of speeders aren't ticketed, but that's not a defense if you're part of the unlucky 1% that is.

And that's true of Trump's recent convictions as well. It's probably true that this is the first time the law has been used in that fashion, but Trump's conduct fit within the statutory definition. So again, he chose to take the risk that it would continue to not be enforced, and lost. Who said life is fair?

So put me in the column of believing that both sets of convictions were proper.

And I also have a dim view of the selective prosecution argument in general, though I would allow it if there's a pattern, say, of enforcement only against specific disfavored groups. Virtually any minority defendant could then turn his trial into a test of the prosecutor's motives rather than the defendant's guilt. And a lot of the time when the defendant said "the police don't like me" he'd be telling the truth.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"A false statement charge for a gun purchase is almost never brought as a stand alone charge in federal courts. Neither is a charge of possession of a firearm while addicted to drugs."

I certainly hope Biden didn't allow his son to be selectively prosecuted, in violation of his duty to take care that the law be faithfully executed, just because it would be politically problematic to intervene.

[Armchair]

Charging someone for a false statement in a firearms case is actually rather common, as seen below.

In this particular case, it likely also arose out of the investigation into Hunter's tax evasion and tax fraud. So, it's not entirely accurate to say it was a "stand alone charge."

[Armchair]

"A false statement charge for a gun purchase is almost never brought as a stand alone charge in federal courts."

Aside from when it is. Just one bit of searching

https://www.atf.gov/news/press-releases/federal-prosecutors-aggressively-pursuing-those-who-lie-connection-firearm-transactions

MY CARWILE, 46, and KEVIN CARWILE, 48, both of Purcell, Oklahoma, were sentenced on August 3, 2022, to serve three months in federal prison. According to public record, the Carwiles were engaged in the business of selling firearms, and dating back to 2012, they made false statements.

EDDIE WAYNE MORRISON, 34 of Duncan, Oklahoma, was sentenced to time-served, or essentially 16 months in federal custody, on December 29, 2022, for making a false statement during the purchase of a firearm. According to public record, Morrison purchased a firearm from EZ Pawn in Duncan. Prior to purchasing a firearm, Morrison had been deemed incompetent by a court.

HALEY LEEANNE ADKISON, 24, of Oklahoma City, pleaded guilty on August 18, 2022, to making a false statement during a firearms transaction.

JOSHUA DAVID MOSELEY, 31, of Harrah, Oklahoma, pleaded guilty on September 6, 2022, to making a false statement during the purchase of a firearm. According to public record, Moseley attempted to purchase a firearm from Super Pawn #2 Inc., in Oklahoma City. Moseley checked “no” for having been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

BRIONJRE MARTAI ODELL HAMILTON, 22, of Oklahoma City, pleaded guilty on October 10, 2022, to making false statements during attempted purchases of firearms. According to public record, on May 25, 2022, Hamilton was convicted of carrying a firearm under the influence of drugs (marijuana) in Oklahoma County District Court case CM-2021-3533.

NEMORY ZAHID RAMOS CASTRO, 22, of Oklahoma City, pleaded guilty on January 5, 2023, for making a false statement during the purchase of a firearm.

That took all of 3 minutes.

Seems charging people for making false statements when purchasing firearms is pretty common.

[not guilty]

Without the charging instruments, how do you claim to know that the charges the above defendants pled to were stand alone charges? It is not uncommon for a defendant charged with multiple offenses to plead guilty to a § 924 charge with other charges dismissed as part of a plea agreement.

[Armchair]

Seems like you have a little bit of a research project then, and you should do your own work looking up all these cases.

While you're doing that, remember when Hunter Biden had HIS guilty plea ready, it was grouped in with several other tax evasion-type charges.

[David Nieporent]

That took all of 3 minutes.

It didn't take you any time, because a quick google shows that you just plagiarized this list from a million other MAGA accounts floating around social media. Which themselves were taken from this press release from DOJ:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdok/pr/federal-prosecutors-aggressively-pursuing-those-who-lie-connection-firearm-transactions

And completely missed the point. People may be convicted of, or plea bargain down to, a solitary lying on the form charge, but virtually nobody gets prosecuted in the first place for only that. Virtually every one of those cases, if you look, will turn out to be one where there was a more serious offense, such as straw purchases, or misuse of the gun in some way.

[Armchair]

You know, saying I "plagiarized this list" when I literally provided the link I took it from....Within the same post....

That's just the tiniest bit dishonest, don't you think?

[David Nieporent]

You're right; I inexplicably completely overlooked the link you posted.

But that still raises the question why you claim it took you three minutes when all you did was post what every other MAGA has been posting.

[Armchair]

Look at that...it was kinda an apology...Maybe.

But as for 3 minutes.

1. I'm not posting "what every other MAGA" is posting. At least not intentionally. Not sure what social media you think I'm posting.

Instead, it does actually take a short amount of time to actually search, read an article, type, copy and paste a link, then copy relevant sections. Approximately 3 minutes. I can't say I timed it exactly.

[Armchair]

" virtually nobody gets prosecuted in the first place for only that"

Let's just look at the second case.

EDDIE WAYNE MORRISON, 34 of Duncan, Oklahoma.

https://www.duncanbanner.com/community/duncan-man-sentenced-for-false-statements-during-firearm-purchase/article_16563a72-9292-11ed-a353-1f542671b6e2.html

Seems as if he was prosecuted for exactly...and only...that. Making false statements while buying a gun. No other crime is alleged.

[David Nieporent]

1) You do understand that "virtually nobody" does not mean "nobody," right? If I say "virtually nobody gets ticketed solely for doing 67 on the highway," finding someone who was ticketed solely for doing 67 on the highway doesn't refute that.

2) Nothing in that newspaper story actually refutes the point that not guilty and I have been making. That someone is convicted only of a false statements charge does not mean that there was no other conduct involved that made them want to prosecute that particular defendant.

[Armchair]

1) “Virtually nobody” means it should be relatively hard to find. Not the second example. And the 4th. And the 5th...etc.

2) a) You’re asking to disprove a negative. Which is almost impossible.

b) The REAL point you’re making is about Hunter Biden and his gun charges. But what you’re missing is that there was “other conduct” involved with Hunter as well, the more serious tax charges. Which rather undermines your entire point.

[not guilty]

As it happens, Armchair, you are correct that Mr. Morrison was charged in a one count indictment. https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-morrison-210 As the maxim goes, even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then. But that information does not appear in the newspaper article that you link to above.

[Armchair]

If you don't want to be serious, and don't understand the differences between the cases....that's your choice to turn a blind eye.

[jb]

You know that in the Hunter case, both the prosecutor and judge were appointed by Trump, right? Seems weird to toss around allegations of bias and completely ignore this fact.

[Armchair]

Wow...

That's like arguing John Paul Stevens was biased in the SCOTUS for the GOP because he was nominated by Ford.

[Mr. Bumble]

"He’s a first offender with plenty of mitigating factors."
Like failure to pay his income taxes?

[Krychek_2]

No, like having a substance abuse problem for which he has sought treatment.

Actually neither result — jail or no jail — would surprise me. But if I had to bet, my bet would be that his status as a first offender keeps him out of jail. First offenders typically have to screw up a lot worse than he did to get any real time on their first offense. Same reason Trump probably won't go to jail either. Though if both of them ended up as cellmates it would be hilarious.

[Bob from Ohio]

All the January 6 protestors got jail for mainly misdemeanors.

He is [or was] a lawyer who lied. That should count for something.

"Though if both of them ended up as cellmates it would be hilarious."

Don't steal my idea for a buddy comedy Netflix series.

The Odder Couple.

[jb]

"All the January 6 protestors got jail for mainly misdemeanors."

Well that's just wrong. A majority of those who have been sentenced have gone to jail, but about a third have not.

And while it's true that a very slight majority of people have been charged with misdemeanors vs felonies, it's not true that a majority of people sentenced to jail only committed misdemeanors.

[Frank Drackman]

You apparently don't get the Irony of Hunter Biden being addicted to the very drug his Daddy voted to increase the sentencing for in the 1990's "Crime Bill", and now he's supposed to get leniency? The leniency will be he only gets fucked up the Ass after they Secret Service does a full Cavity search. C'mon (man!) everyone thought the "Trump-Prison-Rape" jokes were funny, where's your sense of humor?

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Even more reverent,
Where are all of the Hunter Biden Rape Jokes? He's more likely to go to Federal-Pound-Me-in-the-Ass Prison than "45" is.

[OtisAH]

Sadly, “piece of shit thinks prison rape is hilarious” is the free space on my 2024 Bingo card.

[Frank Drackman]

It’s your side who’s been joking about 45 getting his Ass pounded at Rikers, I’m the one who still considers it a Capital Crime

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Did you compile your list of choices in blissful ignorance of what Biden has actually said about pardoning Hunter, or did you think it was just more clever to omit that option entirely?

[Bob from Ohio]

"did you think it was just more clever to omit that option entirely?"

Biden lied. Shocking for a politician I know.

[Nige]

Lied about what?

[Bob from Ohio]

Not pardoning Hunter.

[Nige]

When did he pardon Hunter?

[shawn_dude]

And your evidence is?

[Bob from Ohio]

Statements like this from today:

Biden: "I'm extremely proud of my son, Hunter. He has overcome an addiction. He's one of the brightest, most decent men I know."

Does that sound like someone letting Hunter go to prison? He overcame addiction!. He's so decent!

[Sarcastr0]

I’m not sure Bob understands love at any kind of human level.

[David Nieporent]

Well, he follows his Dear Leader in that. Have you ever heard Donald Trump discuss how much he loves and supports his own children?

[shawn_dude]

Even though Biden has come out publicly and stated, on more than one occasion, that he would not pardon Hunter, that he found the trial fair, and just 18 hours ago also stated he wouldn't commute his sentence?

[apedad]

6. Michelle Obama pardons him.

Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) suggested that Hunter Biden’s conviction in the federal gun charges case could create “an opening” for Michelle Obama to make a bid for the White House.

Ogles responded to the verdict on Fox Business’s “Mornings with Maria” on Wednesday and emphasized the “need to pursue justice” before suggesting President Biden may step back from the race amid his son’s guilty verdict.

“That being said, I think it also creates an opening for Democrats like Michelle Obama in here. The Biden family can say, ‘Hey, we’re going to take care of our house, we’re going to take care of our son,’ and then allow Michelle Obama to come in and run,” he said.

“Because again, Joe Biden can’t win this election, and they know that they are desperate for another candidate,” Ogles added.
~~~

I wish I was making this up.

[not guilty]

I think Michelle Obama has made it clear that she has no desire to run for or serve as president.

[apedad]

That doesn't stop Pubs from making inane claims.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I don't recall you being this fired up about pardons when Trump used them to help his fellow felonious cronies.

What a laughable little tool you are.

[bernard11]

Not to mention pardoning war criminals.

[Nige]

He's probably too busy working up pardons for all his business associates and campaign staff and administation members. Oh no, wait, that's the other guy.

[shawn_dude]

"working up?" or "selling to the highest bidder?"

With Trump, it's always about the grift.

[Nige]

Silence is the price.

[Harvey Mosley]

I think President Biden's best option politically is to pardon Trump and Hunter at the same time.

[shawn_dude]

That doesn't get Trump out of hot water in NY and GA, though. At best it gets him out of his issues with an attempted coup and stealing classified documents. The classified documents issue I can understand where a pardon (which implies guilt) would be fine but can we really afford to pardon people who try to overthrow our constitutional government?

And if letting a guilty child go to jail is the price for that, I'd like to hope our president (any president) would pay that price.

[Martinned2]

I couldn't possibly explain what's currently going on in French politics. The mess is complete across all parts of the political spectrum. Fortunately there's a thread already available on Twitter: https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1801114239572328663

[Stephen Lathrop]

The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,

Presumably, law breaking is bad behavior. See also 28 U.S. Code § 455 for applicable law on ethics violations by Supreme Court Justices.

I suggest grand jury indictments for Alito and Thomas, charging bribe taking, oath breaking, and violations of 28 U.S. Code § 455. In short, bad behavior comprehensive enough to justify removal from office.

Supreme Court justices can be impeached, but unlike the President, there is no Constitutional mandate that makes impeachment the only way to remove a justice. The Good Behavior clause stands against that notion.

Loki has objected with separation of powers concerns. Nieporent has objected that 28 U.S. Code § 455 is not criminal law. Both objections are at least in accord with more-recent legal practice. Both objections would be passionately defended, however sincerely or cynically. They would, after all, be objections calculated to further empower lawyers and courts—but also to empower ongoing attacks on American constitutionalism, actively undertaken by a corrupted Supreme Court, and by some inferior courts.

Note, however, that grand juries are the one class of Constitutionally named institution not subject to jurisdiction under any of the three branches. Thus, separation of powers does not legitimately apply to grand juries. Nor is good behavior an exclusively criminal standard.

Grand juries are instead—as both a matter of age-old custom, and of law dating back centuries—independent tribunes of the jointly sovereign People. That is not a fringe view. Still less is it a recently made-up one.

In the United States, until the early 20th century, grand jury supremacy over the courts was a cornerstone of law governing court jurisdiction. It was accepted as a matter of course, and universally followed as a constraint on the federal courts, and thus on the government generally.

During the pre-founding era, Samuel Adams used that doctrine to confound British government in Massachusetts. He thus empowered no end of civil strife to the detriment of the King's government. What Adams understood was that grand jury doctrine made British judicial tyranny over the colonies impractical. British law was bound to respect grand juries, and in the colonies those would be composed of colonists.

There has never been even a law passed by Congress which purported to alter that legal tradition—only self-aggrandizing policies created by the justices themselves. An ongoing constitutional crisis, centered on a court rebellion against American constitutionalism, presents once again a need to mobilize grand jury power to impose constraint.

Let a grand jury decide whether or not to indict Alito and Thomas. If they are indicted, the executive can arrest them, then present both their criminal cases—and the controversies over oath breaking and good behavior—to the inferior courts, confident that a grand jury indictment empowers those courts to exercise jurisdiction.

I get that many lawyers and judges would say nonsense to all that. They would expect the Supreme Court to try to block any such process, and to overturn any result not to the Court's liking. Along the way, there would be no end of authoritative-sounding ridicule.

Things could indeed go that way, but would that end the crisis? At least consider the possibility that the Supreme Court might recognize that the grand jury speaks for a power higher than that of the Court itself—a sovereign power which acts at pleasure and without constraint—it is the very agency which American constitutionalism decreed to authorize or withhold courts' jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis. A wise Court might think twice before defying that kind of power, especially in the midst of a crisis with an end which no one can foresee.

[Martinned2]

Good behaviour is whatever Congress says it is, when deciding a possible impeachment.

[ThePublius]

Stephen is all-in on the Democrat/progressive movement to put SCOTUS back to a liberal majority. Note he doesn't mention any of the overt bias or corruption on the part of liberal justices.

It's all a bunch of B.S. Look at the decisions, the writings. Can you discern any corruption in the decisions Thomas and Alito have issued?

I have friends of great wealth, and I am on social security and taking IRA distributions. They often treat me to trips, and even equipment associated with the trips, like fishing gear, etc., because they enjoy my company and want me to be able to accompany them and share in their recreational pursuits. I don't have any problem with justices experiencing this as well.

[Malika the Maiz]

Public officials taking gifts implicates problems that may not exist with private persons. At the very least these should be well disclosed so any corruption can be monitored.

[ThePublius]

Well, that's a thing. The court makes its own ethics rules, and they have changed over time, particularly with regard to disclosures of gifts.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Weird how, for example, Thomas had to amend prior disclosures. Suggests the changing of rules wasn't so much the issue. Also, he used to disclose, got bad press, then stopped disclosing. Again, indicates it wasn't so much about a change in rules.

This just isn't hard that, at minimum, Thomas should have disclosed (even if you are fine with the gifts). Even he originally thought so, then didn't, then did again.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I agree Stephen's plan has all sorts of problems. However....

It’s all a bunch of B.S. Look at the decisions, the writings. Can you discern any corruption in the decisions Thomas and Alito have issued?

This is a dumb standard. Do you really think you'll find a Supreme Court Justice's corruption by reading a Supreme Court's written decisions?

You would just look if the result (or reasoning) matched what someone paid for. A corrupt decision would, if the Justice is reasonably smart, not look any different than a non-corrupt decision.

In this case, the results are what Crowe would have paid for if he was paying for it. The defense is Thomas would have written them that way anyway. Probably, but there is no way to actually know.

The problem, as you well know, is just that, there is no way to know whether he would have evolved in his thinking or written something slightly different had he not been influenced by Crowe.

And, here, there is a further, much more likely problem: Thomas may have retired, as he said he was contemplating due to low pay, if Crowe didn't bestow such largess on him. There is a reasonable inference that Crowe intended to influence and/or Thomas was influenced to stay on the Court because of the supplement to his income provided by Crowe. This also cannot be proven.

There is, at minimum, an appearance of impropriety when a Supreme Court Justice receives millions of dollars over the course of decades from a single donor who is politically active. This is different from anything any other Justice has done, ever.

Again, you're upset that a judge's daughter worked for a political organization, but entirely unconcerned that a SC Justice actually received millions of dollars in gifts from a person just as involved in politics. The cognitive dissonance for you must be crippling. Based on your posts here, it is.

[Krayt]

Nobody can discern corruption in various congressmen and senators whose familial income goes up at multiples of their salaries, too. I guess they're just world class investment savants.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Nobody can discern corruption in various congressmen and senators whose familial income goes up at multiples of their salaries, too.

I think it's common to assume there is corruption, even if limited to trading on information to which they, but not the public, are privy.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

There have been steps taken to address this, but only Congress can write the laws to do it. If those laws are toothless, they are toothless because Congress wants them that way.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Exactly.

[bernard11]

Also, a law that covered most cases shouldn't be hard to write.

Members of Congress can only invest in index funds covering the broad US market, or government bonds. Other investments held before taking office may be sold or retained, but not added to, and sales should either be publicized well in advance, or else follow a preset schedule, similar to the way corporate execs can schedule their sales.

[Sarcastr0]

I think that if there were enough public pressure, this could be changed.

But there isn't - I think this is a place where America's high-baseline cynicism about politicians hurts us.

[Martinned2]

Exactly. Corruption has been normalised in the US. Hence the utility of a foreign perspective, at least for those who will listen.

Here is George Peretz KC, prominent public law barrister, commenting on a video of AOC talking about Justice Thomas: https://x.com/GeorgePeretzKC/status/1800828932838871232

What ever your views about AOC, the idea that judges could accept gifts on this scale at all - let alone then adjudicate without hesitation or disclosure on cases in which the gift-giver was involved - is shocking: unbelievable that Justice Thomas is brazening this out.

[Bob from Ohio]

"KC, prominent public law barrister,"

We stopped listening to Brit lawyer's views in 1776.

[David Nieporent]

There is, at minimum, an appearance of impropriety when a Supreme Court Justice receives millions of dollars over the course of decades from a single donor who is politically active.

I know this doesn't matter to most, but I would point out that this "millions of dollars" calculation from Fix The Courts is virtually all airplane flights. Now, I'm sure — though not having any firsthand experience — that I'd prefer a flight on a private plane to flying commercial. But I would not consider someone going to the same place as me and saying, "Hey, want a lift?" to be really the same thing as this person giving me a satchelful of cash.

[NOVA Lawyer]

$144,000 for tuition (cash equivalent)
$258,000 for RV (cash equivalent)

That's already $400k, double what any other Justice got, and more than four times what any Justice not named Thomas, Alito, or Scalia received in the same time period. (And it is not hard to see the political leanings of those getting most of the gifts.....)

Plus, the situation wasn't "someone going to the same place as me and saying, 'Hey, want a lift?'" Thomas wasn't going to these places, at least usually, except for the invitation for private air travel and food and lodging, etc. So, sure, it's not the same as handing cash, but it's definitely worth at least the cost of a commercial flight in first class. Further, what value do you place on the "yacht trips to Russia, the Greek Isles and Indonesia"? It's not the same as handing someone cash, but these are pretty valuable vacations.

Given easily $400,000 in actual cash benefits from the tuition and RV alone (I didn't even yet include fixing up his mother's house, etc.), it's fair to say he easily topped the million dollar mark by any reasonable valuation. I think you're quibbling.

[bernard11]

I would not consider someone going to the same place as me and saying, “Hey, want a lift?” to be really the same thing as this person giving me a satchelful of cash.

Is that what happened? Did Crow just happen to say to Thomas,

"Oh, You're going to Bali on the 14th. Me too!! Why don't you ride along in my plane?"

I don't think so. I think it was a planned trip, and was always going to be paid for by Crow, and Thomas likely wouldn't have gone to Bali, even on a less expensive trip, otherwise.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Also, bending to corruption is one way to explain the glaring hypocrisy in Thomas' reasoning on cases involving racial considerations in drawing congressional maps when those considerations are used to benefit Black voters versus when they are used to disadvantage Black voters. You would think a scrupulously logical person would, if they subscribed to the principle of colorblindness, find fault with the consideration of race, period. But not Thomas. If it's to benefit Black voters, it is invidious discrimination. If it's to disadvantage Black voters, then it's a political question and courts shouldn't get involved.

See https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2024/05/justice-thomas-supreme-judicial.html

We are assured that Thomas is very smart and non-partisan, so the simplest explanation for this glaring inconsistency is he was bought. (I actually subscribe to the theory that he actually isn't as smart as reputed and he is partisan, but his defenders say not.)

[CountmontyC]

Can you point to any decision by Thomas or Alito that was unusual considering their political and legal beliefs? Because I can not think of any vote or decision that would be different if they were supposedly being bribed by someone like Crow.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Well, Thomas certainly hasn't been consistent. We've been assured that he is not a partisan, so it can't be his own partisanship that led him to come to use dramatically different approaches to the use of race in redistricting in North Carolina (it's bad because it benefited Democrats, the Constitution demands colorblindness) versus South Carolina (it's fine when it benefited Republicans, we can't go around assuming legislatures meant anything bad when they considered race, drawing district lines is a political question that the Supreme Court can't touch).

For a much longer, but better discussion: https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2024/05/justice-thomas-supreme-judicial.html

This suggests that either Thomas is partisan (which is vehemently denied by his defenders) or, alternatively, he wrote partisan opinions to pleas his benefactor. It's impossible to know, so you decide.

But at least now you'll be able to think of a decision that he may have written differently if he really did just stick to his colorblindness "principles" without considering how it would impact his benefactors' interests (which, in the best light, he shares and he is nakedly political anyway).

[Sarcastr0]

Oh he's VERY consistent in his political beliefs - he agrees the GOP Is right and will change his opinions and even attitude as the party he seems personally loyal to.
To wit: when the GOP radicalized after Obama, so did Alito.

The opinion piece here brings receipts about Alito's inconsistency in doctrine in hyperlinks I cannot include in my lazy cut and paste - I recommend clicking through.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/18/samuel-alito-angry-man-00033207
"Alito is not just a conservative. He’s not a consistent “originalist” in the vein of Scalia or Justice Clarence Thomas, only a “practical” one. The key to understanding Alito is not judicial philosophy or ardent conservatism: it’s his anger — an anger that resonates with the sentiments of many voters, especially white and male ones, who feel displaced by recent social and cultural changes."
...
"Examining a Washington state regulation of pharmacists, Alito was quick to detect “hostility” to conservative religious beliefs. And in an opinion repudiating New Haven’s effort to promote more Black firefighters, Alito alone trawled the history of the case to complain about the role played by a Black pastor who was an ally of the city’s mayor and had “threatened a race riot.”
...
"In stark contrast, when the charge of discrimination is made on behalf of racial or religious minorities, Alito expresses no such solicitude. He does not search for evidence of bias. Instead, he takes an impossibly narrow view of job-related discrimination"
...
"When it comes to the criminal justice system, Alito is a reliable vote for the most punitive version of the state. In 2016, when the Supreme Court invalidated Florida’s death-penalty scheme on Sixth Amendment grounds, only Alito dissented. When the court, a year earlier, found a federal sentencing rule for armed offenders unconstitutionally vague, only Alito voted for the prosecution."

[not guilty]

"I suggest grand jury indictments for Alito and Thomas, charging bribe taking, oath breaking, and violations of 28 U.S. Code § 455. In short, bad behavior comprehensive enough to justify removal from office."

Far be it from me to defend Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, each of whom I regard as odious, but a jurist's failure to recuse is not criminal conduct, and 28 U.S.C. § 455 is not a criminal statute. Neither is "oath breaking" criminal. Taking a bribe is criminal conduct, but SCOTUS has construed the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201, narrowly. See United States v. McDonnell, 579 U.S. 550 (2016).

[ThePublius]

What's odious about Thomas and Alito?

[Frank Drackman]

You and your specifics, it's an obvious case of Penis Envy

[Sarcastr0]

You know; you just want to fight about it.

Or undercut someone who is rudely illustrating how Lathrop does not exactly speak for the entire left so you can't generalize like you wanna.

[ThePublius]

You seem to think you are very good at knowing what I 'wanna."

I just asked for specifics. Can you supply any?

[Sarcastr0]

Nah, it doesn't take a telepath to realize that 'What’s odious about Thomas and Alito?' is not a good faith question to ask of any of the liberals around here, unless you've never read this blog before.

I won't give specifics because you just want to pick a fight and this is well-trod ground.

Sometimes I'm in the mood to repeat/refine but not today.

If you really care (you do not) read the comments on any of Blackman's uncountable Alito and Thomas posts.
Not Calabresi; those are too much about the sadness.

[M L]

No, he cannot.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, who could have issues with Thomas or Alito?

Not only is Justice Thomas incapable of being bribed, he is actually the best justice ever to serve on the Supreme Court in 234 years of American history. No one could read Justice Thomas's opinions and fail to be impressed by them.

And of course if Justice Thomas is the intellectual leader of the Court, Justice Alito is its heart.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

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

You probably think you're clever.

[loki13]

Publius-

Take the W. Look, when someone is nice enough to support your position with actual law, it’s not really good form to do that.

A lot of people don’t like Alito and Thomas. The fact that he can both say that he doesn’t like them, but still rubbish what Lathrop was saying is a feature, not a bug.

Put it this way- he could have said nothing. Think of how many comments, posted by utter idiots that happen to be on "your side," that you've chosen not to engage with.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Think of how many comments, posted by utter idiots that happen to be on “your side,” that you’ve chosen not to engage with.

Pot...kettle...

[Nige]

...camera...man...TV...

[NOVA Lawyer]

https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2024/05/justice-thomas-supreme-judicial.html

[Riva]

Dialing lawfare up to 11. Wasn’t the rule of law collapsing fast enough for you?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I suggest grand jury indictments for Alito and Thomas, charging … violations of 28 U.S. Code § 455.

If you’re so worked up about “law breaking”, encouraging people to be charged with a non-existent crime doesn’t seem like a great solution.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noscitur — I mentioned a crime (accepting bribes), and two controversies (oath breaking, and failure to obey a non-criminal federal statute which unambiguously—using "shall"—took personal discretion off the table on certain matters of judicial ethics). Together, the latter two amount to opportunity for objective proof of bad behavior in the official conduct of these two justices, and thus for proof under explicit Constitutional text that they are unqualified to serve.

I get that expert lawyers find that interpretation peculiar. If you number yourself in that camp, please explain on what basis a court gets to constrain a grand jury, instead of the grand jury constraining the court. In American constitutionalism, which do you assert is superior, the government, as embodied in a court, or the jointly sovereign People, as embodied in a grand jury?

[not guilty]

The principal federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201, prohibits quid pro quo corruption—the exchange of a thing of value for an “official act.” The term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit. § 201(a)(3). It would be exceedingly difficult to prove a nexus between any favors bestowed upon Justices Thomas or Alito and a particular question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy pending or impending before the court.

While presentments in federal criminal practice have fallen into disuse, it is theoretically possible for a federal grand jury to find a presentment alleging misconduct. Once that charging instrument is found, however, it falls to the Department of Justice to prosecute the action. The prosecutor in a criminal case is ethically required to refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause.

Where the conduct alleged is not a federal crime, such as "oath breaking" or a judge's failure to recuse despite 28 U.S.C. § 455, the prosecution would not survive a defense motion to dismiss. Any allegation of bribe taking would be scrutinized closely, and if facts evincing the quid pro quo bargain relating to an official act do not appear on the face of the charging instrument, it would be subject to dismissal as well.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Oh, the (federal) grand jury certainly has an all but unreviewable power to decide whether people are guilty of crimes. But the things they’re accusing people of doing have to actually be crimes—which, under federal law, need to be defined in advance by statute. Indicting someone for something that isn’t a criminal offense is far more lawless than hearing a case even though you flew a revolutionary war flag at your beach house, or whatever it is you’re upset about.

Of course, Congress remains free to impeach judicial officers for non-criminal bad behavior. Perhaps that would be a more valuable focus?

[Don Nico]

Whenever you double down on a preposterous position, you speak your magic words
"jointly sovereign People"
and all becomes well.

[Drewski]

"please explain on what basis a court gets to constrain a grand jury, instead of the grand jury constraining the court"

The prosecutor presides as an officer of the court and must sign any indictment before it's valid. He or she may reject an indictment. (We're still talking about federal grand juries specifically.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Drewski — Can you say more about a prosecutor invalidating an indictment? I get that prosecutors choose which cases they will prosecute. I get that prosecutors are court officers. I take that to mean logically that prosecutors are empowered to choose among valid indictments.

Any other interpretation strikes me as insistence that grand juries are subordinate parts of the judicial branch. I am familiar with nothing in law, history, or American constitutionalism to support that notion. Do you have anything to point to that I have overlooked.

[David Nieporent]

If you number yourself in that camp, please explain on what basis a court gets to constrain a grand jury, instead of the grand jury constraining the court. In American constitutionalism, which do you assert is superior, the government, as embodied in a court, or the jointly sovereign People, as embodied in a grand jury?

At this point Lathrop is just going full SovCit.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — Like the founders? Must I rub your nose again in James Wilson's explanation of popular sovereignty as the basis of American constitutionalism?

To save that repetition, please just answer which of the 3 branches of government has power over grand juries?

[David Nieporent]

To save that repetition, please just answer which of the 3 branches of government has power over grand juries?

The judicial branch.

[Stephen Lathrop]

No answer Nieporent? If grand juries are not subordinate to any of the three branches of government, does that mean that, like me, they are, "full SovCit,” whatever that epithet is supposed to mean?

[David Nieporent]

whatever that epithet is supposed to mean

SovCit = Sovereign Citizens. So-called sovereign citizens routinely proclaim themselves above the government. One of the favorite tactics of sovereign citizens is to unilaterally, without any judicial sanction, convene "citizens' grand juries" (or sometimes they call them "common law grand juries") which go around issuing "indictments" of various public figures they want to harass.

[Armchair]

Read an interesting article about MA's new Child surrogacy law.

Apparently, it allows the surrogate to sell of their unborn children. There need be no genetic relation to the potential parents. There need be no pre-existing relationship before the woman gets pregnant. It can be the surrogate's own genetic child, and can simply be sold off to the highest bidder.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/06/11/ma-bill-would-allow-women-to-sell-their-unborn-children

Thoughts on this? I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this level of surrogacy / child - selling.

[apedad]

1. It's a bill not the law.

2. Apparently, it's big business in the US.

Surrogacy Compensation and Payments

Compensated surrogacy is the most common type of surrogacy practiced in the United States. The US is also at the forefront of regulating the practice of surrogacy with ethical safeguards for all parties which is why it is considered the most desired location for surrogacy worldwide. Many international families turn to Americans when in need of surrogacy services.

Surrogacy fees vary widely. First time surrogates in the United States generally make anywhere between $25,000-$55,000; with experienced surrogates making more, some reaching $100,000+.

https://surrogacyplace.com/blog/surrogacy-compensation/

[Armchair]

There's surrogacy, where you hire someone else to have your genetic child.

Then there's this, where you hire someone else to have a child, which has no genetic relation to you. Which is in essence "buying a child".

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

2. Apparently, it’s big business in the US.

Surrogacy Compensation and Payments

That's not what he's talking about.

[Moderation4ever]

While I am not comfortable with this, I also don't have any problem with it moving forward. I think the best argument here is that it adds transparency to the transactions. Similar to the idea of selling kidneys. These transactions likely happen behind closed doors where the one party of the other could be taken advantage. Better to do it in the light of day.

[Armchair]

"Baby selling" is illegal, and prosecuted. For good reason.

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/sandiego/press-releases/2012/prominent-surrogacy-attorney-sentenced-to-prison-for-her-role-in-baby-selling-case#:~:text=In%20her%20August%202011%20guilty,sell%20for%20over%20%24100%2C000%20each.

[Moderation4ever]

The question here is the woman selling a baby or a service? If the embryo was created by invitro fertilization the surrogate might not have any relation to the baby. In the case where the surrogate supplies the egg and the sperm is from the father, the father is related.

Also, the lawyer should not be making the profit from the sale of the service but rather the surrogate.

[Armchair]

In the examples given, and legal under the law, the embryo was created (though natural or artificial means) and then sells the related child.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm fine with it. Consenting adults, etc.

[Armchair]

Sarcastr0 is fine with selling children. Got it.

Maybe he'll set up a market.
"Wonderful blue eyed, female baby, ready in two weeks. Put in your bid now! Bids starting at $100,000"
"Male Asian baby, guaranteed Chinese ancestry, genetic parents each have above a 120 IQ. Ready in 3 weeks. Bids starting at $75,000".

Sounds good, doesn't it. Maybe you can even take a 10% commission on it.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeesh.

What’s your take on adoption generally? I know agro misreading is your favorite thing but this is a ridiculous post.

[Armchair]

Adoption where you pay the parents $50,000 to "give up" their child so you can adopt the child is wrong, and just a form of selling people.

What's your take on that? You good with it?

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t think there is anything legally sacrosanct about who you pop out being who raises you.

Follow your logic back here – if a contract is signed before fertilization, is that selling a person? If so, does that mean personhood starts when there’s a plan to have a baby?

You haven’t through this through much other than not liking something about it; just as The Federalist intended.

[Armchair]

Wait, wait, wait...let's back up here.

I asked if you were OK with someone paying another party $50,000 to adopt their child. And you said there's nothing "legally sacrosanct".... Implying, you didn't see a problem with it.

But let's ask that question again. Are you OK with someone paying someone else $50,000 to adopt their child?

[Sarcastr0]

No, Armchair. Quit reading into stuff for reasons to get outraged.

Adoption fees are pretty steep, and 50K is well within what they can include.

But of course that largely goes to the organization faciliating the adoption. As it should be; adoptions need some policing – there are plenty of examples of abuse.

So that’s not a direct payment, but it is someone paying 50K to adopt someone else’s child. Some of that may go to financial assistance to the birth mother, and I’m fine with that.

Now, to follow your logic, you seem mad about these agreements just a priori.

[Armchair]

Whoa Whoa Whoa....

You're OK with paying someone "Financial Assistance" to adopt their child? Really? Really?

[Sarcastr0]

Pregnancy and dealing with adoption is expensive, Armchair.
I'm no expert - feel free to read up on the practice so you can for once be angry about something you understand rather than the reverse.

You want to come against the modern institution of adoption because you've got a hair trigger eager plan to misread it as selling people, who am I to set your personal moral boundaries.

But realize that to everyone else you will be just ranting on the streetcorner.

[Krayt]

Selling surrogacy as a service, ahead of the fact, or selling the child after the fact to someone not yet determined (we'll skip for the highest bidder, for now)?

[M L]

Buying and selling humans. Huh.

Maybe the best that can be said for it, is that it's a step above killing them.

[apedad]

Mother of All Rate Increases Still Couldn’t Keep Up With Big Law

A Brown Rudnick partner was juicing his hourly fee from $1,000 an hour to $1,500 representing creditors in a bankruptcy case.

People might roll their eyes at nearly 10% rate increases. But 50%? The bankruptcy judge overseeing the case had to intervene.

“That’s just beyond,” said Chief Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein. “There may be a reason. But a 50% increase in somebody’s rates is not something any client I ever had would have accepted.”

But, on the other hand, here’s something the firm might try to explain to the judge: Cicero’s extraordinary rate hike still failed to bring him in line with similarly experienced lawyers at larger law firms.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/mother-of-all-rate-increases-still-couldnt-keep-up-with-big-law

Looks like inflation has finally crept into the lawyers' ranks.

[Mr. Bumble]

Wonder what Hunter's legal bills are and who is paying them?

[apedad]

Google's a thing you know.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/hunter-biden-legal-defense-fund-discussion-main-benefactor-retreats-rcna152849

[Mr. Bumble]

"No official legal defense fund has been opened, and there is no formal leadership of any such effort, though a few close friends have made small private donations toward the legal fees, in aggregate less than $300,000, according to a source familiar with the efforts."
Not very responsive to the question i posed.

[Longtobefree]

Only in Biden-land is $300,000.00 a small amount.

[apedad]

Reading are good . . . .

Hollywood lawyer Kevin Morris, who until recently funded Biden’s legal defense, said his inability to continue as the main financier comes at a precarious moment. “It is a very difficult situation,” Morris told NBC News. “The timing couldn’t be worse.”

“I’ve made it clear for many months that I’ve exhausted all of my ability to be the sole resource to fund the legal defense and anything else,” he added.

[Mr. Bumble]

Comprehension be better:
"Wonder what Hunter’s legal bills are and who is paying them?"
Morris made this claim before the recent trial and Biden is facing another trial in Sept.
Do you think Abbe Lowell is working pro bono?
Biden's ex-wife is also suing him for $2.9 million in unpaid alimony.

[not guilty]

In the Georgia prosecution of Donald Trump, the State has filed a motion asking the Court of Appeals for the appeal of the order declining to disqualify the District Attorney to be dismissed as improvidently granted due to the lack of sufficient evidence, based upon the explicit factual findings of the trial court, to support reversal of the order at issue. https://static.fox5atlanta.com/www.fox5atlanta.com/content/uploads/2024/06/6.12.24-Motion-to-Dismiss-as-Improvidently-Granted.pdf

[Mr. Bumble]

Fulton County GA is a hot mess.

[Mr. Bumble]

As an example:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/3040984/young-thug-trial-fulton-county-georgia/

[OtisAH]

Whew, that’s a tough sentence you wrote there ng.

[not guilty]

Much of it was taken verbatim from the first paragraph of the State's motion.

[loki13]

I don't know the Georgia law, but based on my experience in appellate practice ...

...motions to dismiss are generally a fool's errand with an appellate court.

At worst, they are denied.
At best, they are continued with the appeal. (In other words, the court will withhold a ruling until the case is fully briefed).

That isn't to say that no one ever succeeds, but ... not holding my breath.

[loki13]

Okay, I read the motion to dismiss.

I am even less convinced. This isn’t jurisdictional, or any issue of law, really.

It’s basically a preview of the argument. But … that’s what the appeal is for? Seems like more than a Hail Mary.

ETA- again, I am not familiar with Georgia state appellate practice, and would defer to anyone with actual knowledge.

[John F. Carr]

I think summary affirmance is the more procedurally proper request.

The Department of Justice uses motions to dismiss appeals in cases with appeal waivers. Most of these cases do not result in published opinions, and perhaps not unpublished opinions either.

[loki13]

I feel like I'm missing something (which can happen!).

I have had affirmances multiple times. Heck, before a certain state appellate court system "got with the times," we used to joke about certain cases that oral argument was a waste, because the "PCA" would be delivered to the office before you got back.

But this doesn't seem like the type of motion that an appellate court would grant? I've had really strong (as in ... dispositive) MtD before appellate courts, and those were just continued with the case.

The only ones I've ever actually one were jurisdictional on their face.

[ThePublius]

I subscribe to Robert Reich's email blasts, mostly to see what the "other side" is thinking. I don't pay to subscribe to his blog, so I can't comment there, or even read all of the blog. But the emails are enough.

This morning he blasted out one with a familiar theme, and that is that high prices are the result of corporate greed. He completely discounts, even ignores, the effects of inflation, exonerates the Biden administration, and encourages Biden to publicly blame the corporations so that people can understand it's not Biden's or the Democratic party's policies that have caused prices to rise.

He talks about greed and price gouging.

Well, my view is that it's no one else's business, and certainly not the government's business, to determine what a private enterprise may charge for their products. If you don't like the price, don't buy it, buy a lower priced competing product, or substitute something.

Reich is calling for all kinds of nonsense:

"And take those corporations on: Condemn them for price gouging. Threaten them with antitrust lawsuits, price-gouging lawsuits, even price controls. Criticize them for making huge profits and giving their top executives record pay while shafting consumers."

First, it's not price gouging. That term, in my understanding, applies to situations of emergency or consumer distress of some kind. That doesn't apply now. And even if it did, I think so-called gouging is not only fine, but it results in more necessary goods and services to be made available in locales suffering from the distress, and discourages hoarding. Second, price controls - these are never a good idea, and are fundamentally illegal, unconstitutional, in my opinion. (Same with rent control.)

Do people really think he's right on this stuff?

My question is, why did corporations suddenly become greedy when Biden came into office, when they apparently weren't when Trump was POTUS?

[Malika the Maiz]

"First, it’s not price gouging. That term, in my understanding, applies to situations of emergency or consumer distress of some kind. "

This is how it has been traditionally understood, but stretching and morphing words is so much of a thing these days. Is his contention the COVID situation was the "emergency" (like when gas goes up because of situations in the Middle East) and it's just still going on years later?

[ThePublius]

I confess I'm not following. He doesn't attribute COVID to the price increases in this email, he blames that for job losses under Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

Is it just an undirected accusation of price gouging or is there more detail about the whose and whats and whens?

Edit – seems like it is saying the crisis was the previous inflation, with some sectors upping their price beyond what the market required: “But the fact is, corporate profits have surged to record levels. Shares are trading at record levels. Corporations are buying back their stock at record levels. CEO pay is at record levels. Corporate concentration — monopoly power — is higher than ever.”

It’s a bit high on the rhetoric, but I do think there could be something to the dynamic of price points being higher when you can blame the government not the manufacturer or store.

I’d prefer a study or something rather than just populism, tho.

[ThePublius]

The former.

[ThePublius]

There's actually a pretty well developed "science" to pricing - if you can call it science. it's a specialty in the field of marketing. Sometimes, when businesses realize that there is more headroom in pricing than they had figured, by having raised prices due to some other factors, and found out it didn't affect volume, they keep the prices up, because their goal, after all, is to make money, maximize profit. It's a commercial enterprise, after all. They might even probe raising prices to the point where volumes decrease, but profit increases. And, it is totally at their discretion to do so, in a free market economy.

What Reich is calling for is socialism. He wants corporations to behave altruistically, to give consumers what he thinks they want, are prices he thinks are "fair" - all while never articulating a calculus for determining what "want" and "fair" might be. He wants corporations to behave charitably. Well, look, they are not charities! And they have an obligation to their shareholders (private or public) to maximize profit. And, he wants government to step in and enforce this, by invoking laws regarding price gouging, anti-trust, and so forth.

On top of all of that, he ignores the fact - FACT - that inflation is a monetary phenomenon, and monetary policy is driven, in large part, by the current administration, and, of course, the fed. If you don't want inflation, stop printing so much money, stop giving away so much money, stop kneecapping the energy sector, cut back on the excessive regulation, and so forth.

Reich's prescription is bad medicine.

[Sarcastr0]

What Reich is calling for is socialism. He wants corporations to behave altruistically

That is not socialism. It is nothing like socialism.

Learn your words.

[ThePublius]

What is it then, when government steps in and controls what private enterprises charge for their products? Is there a more appropriate term for that? Communism? Totalitarianism? What?

"Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.[3][4][5] It describes the economic, political, and social theories and movements associated with the implementation of such systems.[6] Social ownership can take various forms, including public, community, collective, cooperative,[7][8][9] or employee."

"diverse economic and social systems"

"It describes the economic, political, and social theories and movements associated with the implementation of such systems."

So, price controls, and govt. prosecutions for price gouging, and anti-trust prosecutions to further price control, and "socialistic." O.K.?

It boils down to government seizure of assets to further their political and social goals.

(Note, I consider govt. price controls and such a seizure of assets.)

[Sarcastr0]

Above you said corporations behaving altruistically is socialism. That has zero to do with the government, it's about corporate behavior and you're basically out to lunch on that one.

Now you've changed your thesis to: "government steps in and controls what private enterprises charge."

Yeah, Reich saying the government should browbeat corporations is bad. Dunno if it's socialist so much as it's just shitty populism (Trump did no small amount of corporate browbeating as President; see also DeSantis and Disney's speech.)

But I'm not at all sure you know what "social ownership of the means of production" means.

[ThePublius]

You know, it's possible to express your view, and disagree with people, without being insulting.

Socialism is a spectrum. It doesn't necessarily require the social ownership of the means of production, it can, somewhere on the spectrum, simply involve government control of prices, wages, rents, and so on. Perhaps socialism is the wrong term, but lacking any other it suffices.

And I didn't say "corporations behaving altruistically is socialism," I said "He wants corporations to behave altruistically, to give consumers what he thinks they want, are prices he thinks are “fair”" - meaning, he wants government to enforce this. (If I was a liberal I'd say 'you lied!')

[Sarcastr0]

This is not a matter of opinion; this is a matter of baseline facts.

And you're wrong on the baseline facts of what socialism is.

I have long ago lost the patience to nicely walk label-happy right wingers through what the actual meaning of socialism/communism/Marxism/Stalinism/fascism yada yada.

Still, I take the point. Catch more flies with honey and all that. I would urge you to make the same not re: your own comments.

"He wants"..."meaning, he wants government to enforce this."
Now you're using the word 'wants' incorrectly.

It's weird - I get what you're angry about but you keep applying your anger at other parts of the e-mail.

[bernard11]

monetary policy is driven, in large part, by the current administration, and, of course, the fed.

Monetary policy is not "driven, in large part, by the current administration." It's run by the fed.

And quoting Friedman out of context, even in capital letters, doesn't make you right about the rest.

[ThePublius]

Monetary policy includes printing of money, giving away money, forgiving student loan debt, and so on, no?

[Sarcastr0]

FFS man, look things up:

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

"Monetary policy is the policy adopted by the monetary authority of a nation to affect monetary and other financial conditions to accomplish broader objectives"

Monetary policy is *definitionally* what the Fed does and not the administration.

[bernard11]

No.

Monetary policy is, almost by definition, what the fed does.

Government budgetary actions, especially its policy wrt deficits and so on, fall under "fiscal policy."

Friedman wasn't talking about that.

Maybe you shouldn't quote things you don't understand.

[ThePublius]

Here's the whole thing:

"Friends,

I’ve analyzed every poll and survey over the last two months, and they all tell the same basic story:

Voters’ top issue is high prices and the cost of living — not jobs, not abortion, not immigration, not Biden’s or Trump’s age, not even the survival of democracy.

Voters still don’t believe Biden will get prices down, but they believe Trump will. A significant number appear willing to vote for Trump and risk the future of democracy because they believe he will do better job lowering prices.

Which is why Biden’s approval rating on the economy is deeply underwater while perceptions of Trump’s handling of the economy when he was president (marked by low inflation but huge job losses from COVID) are positive.

What should Biden do?

Put blame for high prices squarely where it belongs: on big corporations with monopoly power to keep prices high.

And take those corporations on: Condemn them for price gouging. Threaten them with antitrust lawsuits, price-gouging lawsuits, even price controls. Criticize them for making huge profits and giving their top executives record pay while shafting consumers.

And name names: PepsiCo, Tyson's, Kroger and Albertsons, Exxon-Mobil, and others.

To be sure, the Biden administration has brought down the prices of prescription drugs like insulin and inhalers, reduced bank overdraft and credit card fees, and cracked down on “junk fees” levied by airlines, concert promoters, and more.

Its Department of Justice has launched a lawsuit to combat price-fixing in the meat industry. And the FTC is suing to block the Kroger/Albertsons grocery mega-merger that would send grocery bills even higher.

“We’re taking on corporate greed to bring down the price of gas, food and rent, eliminating junk fees,” Biden told a crowd of 1,000 supporters in Philadelphia recently.

But Biden has not berated hugely profitable corporations for keeping their prices and profit margins sky high — unlike Senators Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who have made corporate price hikes central to their campaigns and are outrunning Biden in polls. Biden has not condemned specific corporations publicly, or threatened them with specific actions unless they lower their prices.

Brown, who represents a state that Trump won handily in 2020, has cut several web ads proclaiming he is “cracking down on the companies that rip off Ohio.”

Casey released a campaign ad showing corporate executives in suits sneaking into a grocery store under cover of night and switching out cereal boxes for smaller replacements. He has introduced a bill that would crack down on “shrinkflation” — a term for companies’ reducing the size of their goods but not cutting prices (Biden praised that legislation during his State of the Union address).

Senate Democrats in tight races, like Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Jacky Rosen of Nevada, are making similar pitches.

Why isn’t Biden?

Partly, I think, because he’s uncomfortable attacking corporations directly.

It’s also because some economists close to his White House (such as Larry Summers) disagree that a major driver of inflation is corporations’ raising prices to juice profits. (Three years ago, Larry and I publicly debated a wealth tax on hugely profitable corporations. I was in favor; he against.)

But the fact is, corporate profits have surged to record levels. Shares are trading at record levels. Corporations are buying back their stock at record levels. CEO pay is at record levels. Corporate concentration — monopoly power — is higher than ever.

Concentration has increased in over 75 percent of U.S. industries since the late 1990s.

Consumers are getting shafted, as corporations tell Wall Street they expect to be able to keep their prices and profits in the stratosphere.

Most voters agree that big corporations are largely responsible for inflation. Nearly 6 in 10 say corporations’ being “greedy” is a major cause of inflation, including a majority of independent voters, according to a poll by Navigator Research.

The Biden campaign’s internal polling has found similar results.

With less than five months to go — and the cost of living being the #1 issue on voters’ minds — Biden should let ‘er rip."

[Bwaaah]

And name names: PepsiCo, Tyson’s, Kroger and Albertsons, Exxon-Mobil, and others.

Each of those companies has real, ubiquitous, side-by-side competitors in every U.S. market within which they operate.

I have worked in and with numerous corporations, in different industries. I have seen an overwhelming instinctive aversion that corporate executives have to raising their prices, knowing the result with be the ire of customers and *real* declining demand for their products. They don't just track dollar volume; they track real units of production. They understand the meaning of decline without pretending that 20% of whatever revenue increases they've seen for the past four years are the result of inflation...markets just spinning their wheels in macroeconomic noise that disguises as "riches" to an ignoramus like Reich.

It is obvious to me that people like Reich live in an intellectual/social bubble that is unconnected with the real world of commerce.

[Commenter_XY]

You could have stopped here....

It is obvious to me that people like Reich live in an intellectual/social bubble that is unconnected with the real world of commerce.

[Don Nico]

He's a little short on the validity and utility of his exhortations.

[Krayt]

Money laying on the ground, people bend over to pick it up. News at 11.

They knew this would happen. Supply and demand is well understood. We even simulated predator prey, a subset of supply and demand, in animals using differential equations back in college. (Fun fact, “stability” is a lie. Sorry, lying politicians. A perfectly balanced steady state immediately destabilizes and they start chasing each other up and down. Predators multiply, eating down the prey, who then start starving and their own population drops, allowing the prey to recover and grow large. Predators then recover and start eating back down. Another fun fact, it’s almost impossible to kill off the prey population this way.)

So if you ever thought politicians were blowing hot air, when in fact they are just hoping they get the up cycle in the economy, or their opponent be in power during a down cycle, there it is, mathematical proof.

[Don Nico]

You did not catch the "he's pretty short.."

[bernard11]

JFTR, I don't think "predator-prey" is a good model of markets, which do, in fact, have equilibria.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krayt — Yup, mathematical economics proves what people would do if people were numbers. But so far, it has failed to model the future of practically anything predictably—despite the almost desperate self-interest of generations of mathematical economists. Either that, or the mathematical economists have cracked the code, and keep the solution secret from everyone else—which would probably be an indispensable part of any successful model.

Also? Nobody can model ecological problems yet, or maybe ever. You can possibly contrive mathematics to apply to ecological occurrences retrospectively, and thus invite the error to think you know something about predicting the future. If you think your math proved something about ecology, it's not because future ecological outcomes agreed with your math. It's because you paid no attention to the real world at all, and just asserted the math described it.

[bernard11]

He’s a little short

Well done, Don.

[bernard11]

I'm on the "other side" and think blaming corporate greed for inflation is nonsense.

Even if you could find a few examples they wouldn't be enough to move the needle.

I also think it's poor politics.

[Sarcastr0]

Robert Reich’s email blasts are not made to be not well sourced, they are made to be well read.

Seem to be functioning as intended, even from the hate-reading contingent.

[Joe_dallas]

Both Reich and Krugman have become quite unhinged as economists over the last 20 years.
Almost every comment Krugman makes as a NYT commentary is contrary to any economic theory he discusses in his own textbook.

[bernard11]

Reich was never a serious economist.

Krugman is one,of course, though most of what he does now is write economic and political commentary.

And his left pinkie knows more economics than you do, and he is far from "unhinged." His columns are quite intelligent, generally backed up with actual data.

Those who criticize him for errors try to point to a bad stock market projection, or other prediction that didn't come through, as if nobody ever gets that wrong.

Almost every comment Krugman makes as a NYT commentary is contrary to any economic theory he discusses in his own textbook.

This is complete fucking nonsense from Joe "I know everything" Dallas.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I've read Reich's popular-consumption columns in the Guardian before, and every time I do I'm left wondering how he could possibly have earned a reputation as a serious economist. They have always had "lowest-common-denominator" quality. Maybe that's just his shtick, but I find it wholly unconvincing.

[Joe_dallas]

Same with krugman - How could he have earned a reputation as a serious economist with his commentary. His Nobel prize was well deserved and he has very good textbook on micro economics. However his NYT commentary is quite unhinged and delusional.

[Sarcastr0]

Guys, I think Joe_dallas doesn't like Krugman.

[Joe_dallas]

As usual - sacastro is unable to address the substance of the comment.

[Sarcastr0]

What substance?

[bernard11]

There is no substance. Just assertions of your own opinion, not backed by facts, cites, or anything else.

[Mr. Bumble]

By the way there is no Nobel Prize for economics.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Easy mistake. It's actually the "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel".

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2008/krugman/facts/

[bernard11]

his NYT commentary is quite unhinged and delusional.

Maybe you have an example you'd like to offer.

I myself find his NYT commentary quite cogent.

[Joe_dallas]

Krugman consistently takes opposite positions on deficit spending based solely on which party is in the white house - pro deficit spending with democrat president, anti deficit spending with republican president.

Most all his commentary distorts the facts. One of the classic was his argument for moving to adopt the french economic policies and citing the faster growth of the european gnp compared to the US, while failing to mention the french gnp growth was slower than the US.

Before the NYT established its paywall, there was a krugman error website, that would list the errors in his weekly column. The average number of factual errors each week in krugman's commentary ranged in the 3-5 range.

[Joe_dallas]

Bernard - Krugman would seem quite cogent for those still believing in keynsian economic theory.

[bernard11]

"We are all Keynesians now."

Why are you not?

Greg Mankiw, writing in 2008.

IF you were going to turn to only one economist to understand the problems facing the economy, there is little doubt that the economist would be John Maynard Keynes. Although Keynes died more than a half-century ago, his diagnosis of recessions and depressions remains the foundation of modern macroeconomics. His insights go a long way toward explaining the challenges we now confront.

Krugman consistently takes opposite positions on deficit spending based solely on which party is in the white house – pro deficit spending with democrat president, anti deficit spending with republican president.

Cites, please, and bear in mind that taking switching positions on deficits is a perfectly sensible thing to do depending on the state of the economy, so a switch can be based on that, and not who is in the White House. Neither "deficits bad" nor "deficits good" is a universal principle.

[bernard11]

As I said above, he was never a serious economist. He has a little training, not much, and I doubt he's ever done serious research. He's mostly a commentator with some theories of his own.

[David Nieporent]

every time I do I’m left wondering how he could possibly have earned a reputation as a serious economist.

Just to be clear: Reich isn't an economist in the first place, so he can't be a "serious" one.

[Kazinski]

Yesterday’s inflation report was pretty good though, did the corporate robber barons finally get enough?

Or was it monetary and fiscal policy all along, and the interest rate increases have finally wrung enough cash out of the economy enough to moderate inflation?

Since the fed said that’s what they were going to do and that would be the eventual result I’m gonna go with giving credit to tripling interest rates, rather than the robber barons suddenly seeing the light.

[Balisane]

No, it wasn't. a lower rate of inflation is not good. What would be good is deflation, to reverse the 25% increase over the past four years, all because the Fed thought it would be good to print $5 trillion and Democrats thought it would make sense to promise stimmy check so that their constituents could buy new sail phones.

[David Nieporent]

Deflation is an insanely terrible idea.

[Balisane]

Yeah it's bad for Wall Street, the government and other profligate borrowers. Maybe that's who you side with.

[David Nieporent]

I side with the economy. Incentivizing people to hoard cash is not good for anyone.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Hoarding money" is government-speak for "accumulating savings". They're saying it's important that people live hand to mouth.

[Sarcastr0]

Saying deflation is bad is not saying people should live hand to mouth.

Obvious disingenuous excluding the middle.

You've been disingenuous before, but never quite so clumsy.

Rule of thumb - if you find yourself lying in order to agree with Balisane you're way out to lunch.

[Balisane]

Ad hominems are always refreshing.

[Balisane]

That's the way statists think. If you print trillions to crate inflation such that Granny's $100,000 is now worth $80,000, that's just fine, but deflation such that Granny's $100,000 is now worth $110,000, OMG!

[bernard11]

No Brett. I realize you love the idea of deflation, because then all prices will drop, except, of course, the price of your labor. Do I have your theory right?

Deflation is a catastrophe. *Investment falls, the economy slows, workers are laid off, profits drop, borrowers can't meet their obligations, and the cycle continues downward. Nice scenario you are rooting for.

I'll be blunt. If you claim deflation would be desirable you may as well get yourself a t-shirt that says, "I'm an economic ignoramus," and wear it around. Because that is what you are announcing.

I've said this before, Brett, but I'll repeat it. You really need to learn some basic economics before you set out to pontificate on the subject. Until you do you will continue to beclown yourself.

*By "investment" I mean real investment - expanded production capacity, etc.

[Balisane]

So what you’re saying is that inflation is a one way ratchet. Once the government steals our savings and the value of our labor by printing money, it can never be reversed.

You’re a typical selfish and entitled boomer. I bet you and all of your family were draft dodgers during Vietnam.

[Balisane]

Firstly, a little deflation does not incentivize people to hoard cash. Secondly, the main inflation has been in assets. Do you think it's good that greedy Boomers get massive house and stock appreciation while Gen Z and Millennials get fucked? Because that's what you're supporting.

[bernard11]

little deflation does not incentivize people to hoard cash.

Yes. It does. Why buy anything other than the minimum necessities if prices are going to be lower next month?

[Balisane]

Most Americans buy what they want when they want it.

[Riva]

Deleted

[Nige]

'Well, my view is that it’s no one else’s business, and certainly not the government’s business, to determine what a private enterprise may charge for their products.'

Then you probably shouldn't complain about inflation.

[Mr. Bumble]

So, Congress has voted to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress; now what?
Of a reported ten referrals to the DOJ they have only prosecuted 2 (Bannon and Navarro) declining to prosecute others based on claims of "executive privilege".
Does Congress have inherent power to bring and try such charges on their own?

[Moderation4ever]

I don't believe they do and that is likely why they were quick to vote on the contempt. They get to have their vote and nothing else happens.

[Kazinski]

Well Biden will have to pardon him too, or he could be prosecuted come January.

I hear contempt of congress is a crime, sometimes.

[Brett Bellmore]

They do, last used during the Teapot Dome scandal. It's called "inherent contempt", and the Supreme Court has upheld it.

[ThePublius]

You know, this whole thing has shades of Streisand syndrome. The more resistant to releasing the audio, the more curious people become, and more damning the situation. They should have released it when the transcript was released, and folks would have forgotten it by now.

Now, it's a bad look for Garland and Biden admin., emphasizing the two-tier system of justice we have.

Now, I really want to hear that audio! 🙂

[Mr. Bumble]

Given that the transcript has been released how can they claim executive privilege for the audio?

[Commenter_XY]

Mr. Bumble, surely you know that is (D)ifferent.

[Moderation4ever]

You are not going to hear the audio, but instead just selected clips. Just like the videos that are clipped to show President Biden in a bad light.

[Mr. Bumble]

You mean just like the Jan.6 committee did with videos?
Projection is strong in you.

[bernard11]

Now there is a foolish claim.

"Gee, they only showed the violent parts of Jan. 6. What about earlier that day, when those guys were just peacefully eating breakfast?"

This kind of stupidity is infuriating, not to mention it dodges the issue with some whataboutery.

[Frank Drackman]

Who needs Audio? Just watch the video of Sleepy Joe at the Rose Garden Juneteenth Hoot n' Nanny, Lets see, you have Common-Law with 25% of the Rhythm of an actual Black Person, the "Second Gentleman" seconds from breaking out the Air Guitar, Oh, and a huge bearded Black Dude in a Dress, all while Sleepy Joe leans creepily forwards like the Vampire in "Nosferatu", I'm already having Nightmares

Frank

[not guilty]

Yes, each house of Congress has inherent authority to try contempts for a witness's refusal to appear and testify. McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927). The Congress has not done so in modern times.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, isn't there a jail cell in the Capitol Building that can be used by the Sargent of Arms? What stops Congress from detaining AG Garland next time he is on the hill and tossing him in the Capitol Bldg jail?

I get it...not done so in modern times. Was it ever? I believe that it was.

Thought experiment: Is that actually legally possible, under the Constitution; the Congress detains an Exec branch employee (a Cabinet Officer, like Garland) in their 'jail' for contempt of Congress?

[not guilty]

"Thought experiment: Is that actually legally possible, under the Constitution; the Congress detains an Exec branch employee (a Cabinet Officer, like Garland) in their ‘jail’ for contempt of Congress?"

For civil contempt that would be possible. I surmise that it would require a hearing, at least on the issues of whether the noncompliance was willful and whether the investigative demand was issued for a lawful purpose. The subpoenaed official could be jailed until he complied with the subpoena.

As to criminal contempt, I am not so sure. I haven't researched that question.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, I do wonder if Congress can just toss people into their jail for contempt. After all, contempt of Congress is a (R)eal crime with (R)eal consequences; that is, until it is a (D)ifferent case that is an exception.

[Mr. Bumble]

"I get it…not done so in modern times. Was it ever? I believe that it was. "

Yes it was; see linked paper from CRS:
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL34097?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=ANB3u7_nLiXSjcD0HvNkpxKnyG4ExeRYCqPfvZZnSfo-1639441514-0-gaNycGzNCeU

[The Margrave of Azilia]

For those who believe that Supreme Court decisions are automatically the Law of the Land (until they specifically change their minds), then the case is airtight: Each house of Congress has the inherent privilege of imprisoning contemnors until (a) Congress adjourns or (b) the contempt is purged.

I recall historical examples going back at least to the 19th century. Including criminal punishments by Congress.

The courts should have slapped this stuff down, because first off, the list of punishment powers in the Constitution given to each house of Congress only extend to their own members (disorderly members of members worthy of expulsion). Also, there is in some of these cases a conflict with the right to trial by jury.

Those of us who don’t automatically assume the Court’s pronouncements are the law of the land should look at the question independently. Congresscritters should consult the constitutional text, not the dubious precedents, and vote against trying or punishing contemnors. What are the courts going to do, *order* Congress to imprison people? In short, Congress should simply decline to use the unconstitutional powers which the Supremes tried to award them.

Impeachment and criminal prosecution remain open as remedies, although in practice would be highly difficult to pull off in the face of partisan divisions.

[John F. Carr]

Congress sends a team to arrest Garland. Garland's security detail says no. A pathetic constitutional crisis arises.

[Malika the Maiz]

"Southern Baptists narrowly rejected a proposal Wednesday to enshrine a ban on churches with women pastors in the denomination’s constitution after opponents argued it was unnecessary because the denomination already has a way of ousting such churches.

The vote received support from 61% of the delegates but failed to get the required two-thirds supermajority. The action reversed a preliminary vote last year in favor of the official ban.

But it still leaves the Southern Baptist Convention with its official doctrinal statement saying the office of pastor is limited to men. Even the opponents of the ban said they favored that doctrinal statement but didn’t think it was necessary to reinforce it in the constitution."

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/12/us/southern-baptists-women-pastors-vote/index.html

I'm curious as to why any woman would want to be a member of this congregation.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Superstition and bigotry seem to go together like a white, male, right-wing blog and racial slurs.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Plenty of feminist religions are on your side, Rev. You should be less sweeping in your judgments against religious believers, you're insulting your allies.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

People are entitled to believe as they wish.

They should not advance or accept superstition-based positions in reasoned debate among competent adults, though, or expect others to respect supernatural nonsense.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your animus seems to be directed against "right-wing" religions, not at those religious whose members vote your way.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It's not inherently the religion that is a problem.

The problems involve the bigotry, belligerent ignorance, and backwardness associated with plenty of religion, especially fundamentalism;

the vivid historical ugliness and stupidity associated with religion;

the tendency of religion to seek special privilege as sword and shield ("we can discriminate against everyone else, but no one can discriminate against us");

the longstanding and massive appetite among religious believers to impose their supernatural (unreasonable) beliefs on others;

and the expectation that superstitious nonsense should be respected when advanced in reasoned debate among adults ("just because" is not an argument an adult accepts), or in the contexts of legitimate education or public affairs.

People should be entitled to believe as they wish, even when that involves points as silly as

"the Bible is nonfiction,"

"the Angels, Pirates, and Athletics are legitimate baseball clubs,"

"my fairy tale can beat up your fairy tale,"

"James Dolan and Jerry Jones are good sports owners,"

"cheeseburgers should be forbidden (especially on Friday) and shrimp cocktail must not be enjoyed on any day,"

or

"fairy tales are true stories."

[bernard11]

A little-known passage in the Talmud actually lifts the proscription on pork and shellfish, so long as they eaten in a Chinese restaurant.

[Don Nico]

bernard,
That passage is not as little known as you seem to think.
In addition tref does not include bacon.
My son-in-law thinks that it does not include pepperoni on pizza

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Ostensible adults, arguing about how fairy tales should govern their lives.

And expecting other people to take it seriously.

Carry on, clingers.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"It’s not inherently the religion that is a problem."

That's bullshit, your denunciations logically apply to Wiccans, mainline Protestants, Francis the Woke Pope, and others who side with you on key issues of the culture wars.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The part about trying to be enough of an adult not to swallow childish fairy tales and silly nonsense? Sure.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Your side - the side of progress - includes believers in Wicca, healing crystals, and Tibetan Buddhism. The clinger side includes Ayn Rand and Oliver Wendell Holmes, who must be enlightened and intelligent because they were atheistic (/sarc).

[Moderation4ever]

What I find strange is that women are more involved and tied to religion and yet so many established religions are dominated by men. I understand the involvement and ties as religions are social organizations. What I don't understand is women's willingness to accept the back seat.

[Ed Grinberg]

.

women are more involved and tied to religion

Or at least their understanding of it (which is sometimes at odds with the religion’s core doctrines).
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/06/15/thursday-open-thread-141/?comments=true#comment-10110830

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Ummm, I wonder if that has any relation to your general understanding of women?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

What I don’t understand is women’s willingness to accept the back seat.

The bolded part is the issue.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Some women are gullible, dumb, and overmatched by the reality-based world. Just like some men.

[Frank Drackman]

Always has to be about you, doesn't it?

[Bwaaah]

I’m curious as to why any woman would want to be a member of this congregation.

Maybe because those women consider themselves to be Baptists? And maybe your allusion to denigration of women is, in reality, a shallow, faithless, mostly hate-based analysis that ignores any genuinely useful emotional connection a parishioner may have with his/her faith?

[Malika the Maiz]

The SBC also called for government restrictions on IVF:

"The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, called Wednesday for restrictions on in-vitro fertilization, as the hot-button topic of reproductive rights takes center stage ahead of the November elections."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/southern-baptists-ivf-restrictions/

[not guilty]

I don't know if the draft resolution I have seen is the same as was adopted in final form, but I don't read this as calling for governmental restrictions on IVF. https://www.baptistpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/6-On-the-Ethical-Realities-of-Reproductive-Technologies-and-the-Dignity-of-the-Human-Embryo.pdf

[Armchair]

Garland has been found in contempt of Congress.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-vote-merrick-garland-contempt-biden-audio-recordings/

Now, Garland's clearly not going to prosecute himself. But I have to wonder, will the next AG hold Garland to the criminal code, and put Garland in Prison, like Bannon and other Trump officials who were found in contempt of Congress were?

[Moderation4ever]

No because Merrick Garland can claim "executive privilege" and the Bannon and Navarro really could not. That is a big difference.

[Mr. Bumble]

What "executive privilege"? The transcript has already been released.

[Krayt]

I think the theory is since the transcript covers the important stuff, there’s nothing there needing to be hidden behind executive privilege.

Oh what a tangled web we weave when Congress demands potentially embarrassing documents under cover of doing The People’s Work, when really it’s to leak it and embarrass the President.

Round and round we go. I have some hot sprinkles for popcorn. Also garlic sprinkles. Try some, friends!

[jb]

Garland is claiming executive privilege and Biden is supporting that claim.

Navarro and Bannon also claimed executive privilege but Trump did not support the claim.

Since the President is the one with the privilege, there's a pretty obvious difference between the cases even if you think the claim of privilege may or may not be reasonable.

[Sarcastr0]

You seem to be spending a lot of time lately speculating about future prosecutions of Democrats.

[Martinned2]

That can't be right. Prosecuting members of the other main party is wrong.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Only if you live by things called "principles", rather than by what the other side does.

[Ed Grinberg]

Yes, it's ever-so-principled to, using Justice Scalia's phrase, let your opponents fight freestyle, while you follow the Marquess of Queensberry rules. Republicans should totally listen to ObviouslyNotSpam!

[David Nieporent]

I guess it depends whether winning or principles are more important to you.

[Bob from Ohio]

“principles”

My principle is [figuratively] this:

He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue!

Unless you strike back, it just emboldens the bad actor to do it again.

[Nige]

So don't vote for the felon.

[Frank Drackman]

Hunter? wasn't planning on it. Didn't even know he was running.

[Sarcastr0]

Alas Martinned2, Dems have forced them into it. Which is why they can't stop thinking about it.

[zztop8970]

what goes around comes around

[Commenter_XY]

Armchair, this is just (D)ifferent. You should know that.

[Sarcastr0]

From the very next comment, "Merrick Garland can claim “executive privilege” and the Bannon and Navarro really could not. That is a big difference."

Your persecution complex is becoming an unthinking reflex. You'll be like Michael P in no time, at this rate.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, we know. It is (D)ifferent.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, believe what you want to believe; I think once things are established as different they should be treated that way and it's not some partisan push.

You, well, you are more into bumper sticker-style posts and trolling these days I guess.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

No, you've just become (D)umber and reflexively partisan since you no longer (did you ever?) care about facts or truth.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"...like Bannon and other Trump officials..."

Name these 'officials.' Make sure to include the specifics of their offenses and why they were ultimately prosecuted.

Then contort yourself like a pretzel to make it all sound exactly the same. Moron.

[ThePublius]

Anyone else following the Karen Read murder trial in Massachusetts?

Wow. Yesterday’s testimony from Trooper Proctor was so damning of him and his Canton police buddies. Wow. Brilliant work on the part of Read’s attorney, in my opinion.

I am sincerely hoping she’s acquitted, and also, that someone – the DoJ, perhaps? – pursues prosecuting Proctor, et.al., for framing Read, and also pursues the real murderer(s) of John O’Keefe.

Howie Carr: Absurdity in Massachusetts courts hits new heights in Karen Read trial

[Sarcastr0]

I have sure not been. Doesn't come up in any of my feeds or radio stations, left right or center.

Except for the VC. The more MAGA folks seem to have this as a Cause célèbre.

I'm not sure why.

[ThePublius]

There's nothing MAGA about it. In fact, I imagine more on the left would be upset about the corruption of the police and prosecutors in this case.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't see anything substantively MAGA about it but I also see who seems to be talking about it, and the pattern is undeniable.

[ThePublius]

You know, that's ridiculous. You're a smart guy, but you've really descended into troll-dom lately, just hiding under the bridge and attacking anyone who expresses a view.

There's nothing MAGA about it. Period! Outrage over police misconduct, and the framing of an innocent woman isn't the solve province of conservatives, last time I checked.

[Sarcastr0]

I do not trust you to tell me what is or is not MAGA.

I am not following this trial, I don't care to follow this trial. And you can't make me follow this trial.

There is an undeniable correlation here.

Dunno why that makes you so angry unless you yourself consider MAGA to tend to be delusional so you want to distance from them.

Probably one MAGA media guy picked up on it and it became a popular courtroom drama so everyone else in their peer network followed along.

[Drewski]

"I am not following this trial, I don’t care to follow this trial. And you can’t make me follow this trial."

Yet you've written hundreds of words about your opinion of it.

[ThePublius]

You don't know what you're talking about. There's a coincidence that a couple of us on here who are conservatives (not MAGA!) and also happen to live in Massachusetts are interested in this trial. So you equate conservative with MAGA, and you leap to the conclusion that being interested in this trial is a MAGA thing.

Have you ever heard of the concept of anecdotal evidence? Geez.

[Nige]

‘a couple of us on here who are conservatives (not MAGA!) ‘

Oh, so you’re AGAINST making America great again again are you? Nevertrumper!

[Bwaaah]

^THIS^

[Nige]

YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO NOTICE WHEN MAGAS FIND A CAUSE CELEBRE OR WONDER WHY

[Bwaaah]

Nige: MAGA, MAGA, MAGA.

Deep, Nige. Deep.

[Nige]

Things we're not supposed to pay attention to:

Everything Trump says and does.
Everything Republicans say and do.
Everything MAGA Trump supporters say and do.

Things we're supposed to pay attention to:

The hurt feelings of Trump supporters who don't like being lumped in with MAGA Trump supporters, regardless of how indistinguishable they mostly are.

[Bwaaah]

MAGA MAGA MAGA

[Nige]

Yes, MAGA Trump supporters say that! And now so do you! Toldja.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The guy writing a lot about the case (involving an execrable law enforcement officer as one of the lead investigators) says things like this:

“Joe Biden had his son Hunter working as his bagman. Proctor [the disgusting LEO] was using his sister Courtney.”

and this:

“What integrity? You’re a Massachusetts state trooper working for an obese Democrat hack who at the age of almost 70 has never once lifted his snout from the public trough.”

He also has a very weird, disjointed writing style. But the point is, he throws lots of red meat to MAGA types which probably keeps them reading his missives.

I haven’t read enough to have any sense of all of the evidence re Karen Read’s alleged guilt or innocence, but there is horrible, prejudicial conduct on the part of at least one of the investigators, so she will likely, rightly, be acquitted. As to whether she was actually involved in her husband’s death, I have no opinion.

[OtisAH]

Broad strokes, Read is charged with killing her cop boyfriend by running him over with her car and leaving him there. I’m not following the case except by what is reported on local news. Call it 1% of the evidence and testimony presented. But o that 1% includes some doozies.

For instance, a big piece of evidence against her was damage to her rear taillight. Except there’s video showing her back into a vehicle earlier on the night in question. But the big blow, I suspect, to the case against her was the behavior of the police investigating. And the major piece of that are texts from a state trooper who just spent 2-3 days under cross. Texts, that went to many recipients including acquaintances and supervisors, including “Maybe she’ll kill herself” and “We’ll get this whack job” and, as he goes through her texts and pics, “No nudes yet.”

Whether she killed him or not, the entire investigation seems to be in question and sounds, to those of us not getting the whole picture, as if the cops set her up and/or are protecting a buddy.

[ThePublius]

Indeed. The guy was 6' something tall. She supposedly backed into him, running him over and killing him. Yet, the body had not a single bruise on it, and he had dog bites on his arm, and his face was smashed in. The medical examiner couldn't determine the cause or manner of death. Proctor called her a whack job, too.

There's so much more. The whole case stinks.

[John F. Carr]

It's odd because MAGA types are usually pro-police. Howie Carr probably has something to do with it. He doesn't like the greedy crooked State Police. He turned MAGA a few years back.

[bernard11]

Only to the extent I can't escape it.

[Frank Drackman]

Great Congressional Baseball Game last night,
NOT!! (HT Borat)
had to quit watching during one of the Protester Delays (No, not MAGA, Environmentalists) ESPN Camerman probably herniated a Disc trying not to show the Repubiclown Pitcher’s “MAGA” Cap, Delays, and just the sheer display of poor Athleticism, and not a Left Hander to be found, again, great Security People in the District of Colored Peoples.

Frank "That George Will's full of Crap, Man!"

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, at least no Bernie Bros shot anyone.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you hear about the defense lawyer being held in contempt for not showing how he found out about an ex parte judge-prosecution-witness meeting??

Wild shit
https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2024/06/13/bond-granted-no-jail-time-this-weekend-young-thug-attorney-brian-steel/

[Mr. Bumble]

As I noted above: Fulton County GA is a hot mess.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yup. This is Fani Willis's office blowing an 18-month, million-dollar RICO prosecution over something really stupid.

[Bob from Ohio]

Is she sleeping with the lead prosecutor in this case too?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Yeah, we briefly discussed in the Monday thread. The judge looks really, really bad. I'm guessing he'll have to leave the case and probably has or will muck it up enough for a mistrial.

[not guilty]

I doubt that this judge will declare a mistrial. The denial of a defense motion for mistrial, however, may be grounds for reversal of any conviction.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Yes, this judge won't declare a mistrial. But, yes, I (knowing nothing about Georgia law and very little about criminal procedure generally) expect that any conviction is unlikely to survive appeal of a denial of the motions for mistrial at this point.

[Drewski]

I like the way they call it the highest-profile case in Georgia history. It's not even the highest-profile case in Georgia right now.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Did you see the GA Supreme Court put the smack down on that corrupt black judge and his conspirator black Fanni ?

[not guilty]

"Did you see the GA Supreme Court put the smack down on that corrupt black judge and his conspirator black Fanni ?"

No, I didn't. Do you have a link to an order of the Georgia Supreme Court?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

https://www.ajc.com/news/crime/young-thugs-lawyer-granted-bond-will-not-have-to-report-to-jail-this-week/H24G7FBH3JFE7CR632DRF7PIPM/

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link. Here is the order: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24742857/supreme-court-order-061224.pdf

Not a word there about the trial judge's "conspirator black Fanni".

Why am I unsurprised?

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

On my mind: this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugYHFMxYgBw&t=224s

[Balisane]

I’ll say based on the CPI report, that the modern day stock market is bad for America. It doesn’t help businesses raise capital, it doesn’t benefit the country as a whole, it benefits Wall Street and the rich. That’s it.

[Longtobefree]

Ever hear the term '401k'?

Perhaps you too are one of 'the rich'.

[Balisane]

Yes, the average 401K is $100k. Most stocks are owned by the rich.

[bernard11]

What does the CPI report have to do with it?

[Mr. Bumble]

Wish I had a nickel for every time the term "unexpectedly" was used in a story about the economy.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/finance-and-economy/3040593/inflation-unexpectedly-fell-to-2-2-in-may-in-producer-price-index-good-news-for-fed/

[OtisAH]

It’s “unexpectedly” because so many folks who should know better, and many who probably do, have been wish-casting for bad economic news for so long now that they never see the good economic news coming until it gets here.

[Jonathansingletary]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/10/us/politics/alito-pride-flag.html

I think what we’ve really learned from all this Alito business is that Martha-Ann loves herself a flag. Like there’s no problem she can’t fix by running one up the pole. My only question: while she’s glaring across the lagoon, seething about the damn queers, is she also admiring their shared love of a good flag waving?

[NOVA Lawyer]

My only question: while she’s glaring across the lagoon, seething about the damn queers, is she also admiring their shared love of a good flag waving?

Well played, Jonathan. Very well played.

[hobie]

Comment of the day, Sir.

[Estragon]

She seems like a thin-skinned lunatic. I assume this is what Josh meant when he wrote she was “formidable.”

Are the neighbors across the lagoon in spitting range? Watch out!

What do you think she means when says “when we’re free of this?” Is this the yearning for the post-constitutional America we’ve been hearing so much about from the Trumpists?

As I said previously— this flag kerfuffle has an easy solution. Retire for a nice, well-compensated sinecure at Jones Day! Then I can guarantee you—not one single person will care what psycho Christian dominionist flag is flying on your various poles.

Of course, we all know that won’t happen. Martha-Ann loves being married to one of the most powerful people in the country. The problem arises when she also demands that every single person she comes across obsequiously kiss her and Sam’s ass for his unaccountable exercise of said powers.

These people are royalists deep down, like “Dr.” Ed.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What do you think she means when says “when we’re free of this?” Is this the yearning for the post-constitutional America we’ve been hearing so much about from the Trumpists

No, it’s very clear from context that she’s talking about when Alito retires.

[Estragon]

“when Alito retires”

Can’t come soon enough

[Bob from Ohio]

"Can’t come soon enough"

Do your part, vote for Trump.

[Nige]

You think Trump will 'retire' Alito?

[Bob from Ohio]

No. Sam might feel able to retire without a lib replacing him.

I'm sure you will hate his replacement but GOP has a weak track record of appointing conservatives. Maybe you get another Souter or Roberts.

[Nige]

It's tough to get even conservative Judges who really don't give a shit about the law sufficently for your needs, I guess.

[Bob from Ohio]

It is!

[Nige]

Explains why you vote for a felon.

[hobie]

Retiring when the president is of similar ilk sounds partisan. Are you saying Alito may be partisan?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Alito will turn 75 early in the next administration. I think it’s quite plausible that he’d retire if a Republican were picking his replacement. Likewise Thomas, who’s almost 76. There’s basically a zero percent chance either will retire under a second Biden administration, though.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

She's a superstition-addled, delusional, mean-spirited bigot.

A conservative culture war reject.

And, apparently, a shitty neighbor.

[apedad]

The Christian right is coming for divorce next

Conservative commentators and lawmakers are calling for an end to no-fault divorce, arguing that it has harmed men and even destroyed the fabric of society. Oklahoma state Sen. Dusty Deevers, for example, introduced a bill in January to ban his state’s version of no-fault divorce. The Texas Republican Party added a call to end the practice to its 2022 platform (the plank is preserved in the 2024 version). Federal lawmakers like Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) and House Speaker Mike Johnson, as well as former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, have spoken out in favor of tightening divorce laws.

More recently, high-profile conservative commentators have taken up the anti-divorce cause. Last year, the popular right-wing podcaster Steven Crowder announced his own unwilling split. “My then-wife decided that she didn’t want to be married anymore,” he complained, “and in the state of Texas, that is completely permitted.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-christian-right-is-coming-for-divorce-next/ar-BB1o9QlZ?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=f50b2c01a88c471bb675ee55f46a2c4b&ei=57

Why the fuck would you want to remain married to someone who does NOT want to remain married?!?

[Balisane]

It's not so much about wanting to remain married, but about removing power women have, where they use the courts to ruin men. Divorce should be kept as it is, but women should never be entitled to alimony, splitting of any assets, or child support if they initiate it.

[NOVA Lawyer]

women should never be entitled to alimony, splitting of any assets, or child support if they initiate it

This in answer to the writing prompt: Say you despise women without saying you despise women.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Saying the Family Courts are incredibly biased against men is not saying you despise women.

If men and women are equal, and any man can be a real authentic woman, and vice versa, why do the Family Courts show such favoritism towards women?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Critical reasoning fail.

Saying the Family Courts are incredibly biased against men is not saying you despise women.

That's not what Balisane said.

He said women, particularly, should be denied child support and splitting of assets in all cases in which they initiate divorce. He focused on women and decided marital assets belong to men if women try to divorce them. That is just another way for him to say he despises women. And children!

[Balisane]

75% of divorces are initiated by women. Why should they get a financial benefit when they choose to break a contract?

[NOVA Lawyer]

If you’re truly unable to answer that question yourself, it’s unlikely I can explain it to you.

The marriage contract specifically provides terms for what happens upon dissolution, whether agreed to in advance or implicitly so given the law that applies. I think you may be confused because, for obvious reasons, the vows spoken at the ceremony typically don’t go into the specifics of what happens upon dissolution. But the vows aren’t the entirety of the contract.

More importantly, you're assuming the men the women chose to divorce hadn't already broken the contract. In many, likely most, cases that is what happened.

[Balisane]

No, usually women leave because they think they can do better.

Why should they get a windfall? The courts rule in equity here. They get advantaged by the system, and men don't.

[NOVA Lawyer]

usually women leave because they think they can do better.

Citation needed. This is only plausible if you disagree with Wuz and agree with me that they think they can do better than a cheating, abusive man they married. But the reality is that there are a lot of reasons people leave and the reason you posited likely doesn't crack the top 5, unless by "do better" again you mean escape abuse.

Also, women tend to see a 20 percent decline in income, men see a 30 percent increase post-divorce. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/the-divorce-gap/480333/

They get advantaged by the system, and men don’t.

Another citation needed. You probably have or heard a story about the woman making out well, but that's not the typical situation. I know as many women who got the short end as men. And statistics on post-divorce finances suggest the structural/systemic advantages are in men's favor.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

usually women leave because they think they can do better.

Citation needed. This is only plausible if you disagree with Wuz and agree with me that they think they can do better than a cheating, abusive man they married.

Are you really so bereft of reasoning skills that you don't understand...

"Think they can do better"

...does not imply, "Think they can do better than a cheating, abusive man they married? Or are you being intentionally dishonest?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Also, women tend to see a 20 percent decline in income, men see a 30 percent increase post-divorce. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/the-divorce-gap/480333/

You do realize that part of the article you're citing is based on an other piece by theguardian.com, which in turn based on UK government stats ( http://www.statistics.gov.uk), right?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Are you really so bereft of reasoning skills that you don’t understand…

Curious how you aren't upset with all that Balisane made an unsourced statement with no data, but you are upset that I said "citation needed." Can you be more of a tool?

[NOVA Lawyer]

You do realize

Yep. You have any stats disputing that women tend to be worse off financially after divorce and more worse of than men? Or are you just the statistics police for these threads, but only for people who share your politics?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

More importantly, you’re assuming the men the women chose to divorce hadn’t already broken the contract. In many, likely most, cases that is what happened.

And on what is the assertion that "likely most" divorces initiated by women are due to the man somehow breaking the marital contract based?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Common sense. Men cheat more than women. Roughly 20% of men have cheated (or maybe admitted to cheating) on their spouse. One third of women have experienced some form of physical abuse. Now, those categories undoubtedly have some overlap, but then there is also mental/emotional abuse and other breaches. It's unlikely that, by the time of divorce, most men haven't, in some way, breached the marriage contract. And that's before I even ask you what you think the terms are.

It could be otherwise, but given men are more likely to cheat and more likely to be physically abusive, two of the more likely breaches are things men are likely to do.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Common sense. Men cheat more than women. Roughly 20% of men have cheated (or maybe admitted to cheating) on their spouse. One third of women have experienced some form of physical abuse. Now, those categories undoubtedly have some overlap, but then there is also mental/emotional abuse and other breaches.

So you're just making a data-free assumption, based on other unsubstantiated numbers. Even if those numbers are even close to accurate, what % of the men who cheated on their wives did so after their wives had affairs? And the claim that, "One third of women have experienced some form of physical abuse"...even if true (recall that these sorts of "statistics" are based almost entirely on unsubstantiated claims), that doesn't translate to 1/3 of wives experiencing physical abuse at the hands of their husbands. Now, add in the fact that those things don't always lead to divorce (in fact you have no idea what % of them do) and you still don't have any sort of basis for your conclusion, other than biases and assumptions.

[NOVA Lawyer]

So you’re just making a data-free assumption, based on other unsubstantiated numbers.

I don't think you know what data-free means. You complain about the likely accuracy of the data to which I refer, but what you can't say is my argument is data free.

doesn’t translate to 1/3 of wives experiencing physical abuse at the hands of their husbands

Yes, it does. That's actually what the stat I cited was getting at, abuse by spouses.

things don’t always lead to divorce (in fact you have no idea what % of them do)

Nor do you, but it's not really whether those things lead to divorce as to whether they precede divorce. And it's a fair assumption that married women who divorce are more likely to have been cheated on or suffered physical abuse. So, if 20 percent of married women have been cheated on, then likely at least 20 percent of divorced women have. Ditto, if 33% of married women have suffered physical abuse by their spouse, probably at least 33% have suffered physical abuse. It's likely that the two categories overlap, but also not completely. So we can assume, based on data, that well-over 33% of women who choose to divorce either had a cheating husband and/or were physically abused by that husband.

you still don’t have any sort of basis for your conclusion, other than biases and assumptions

Nor does anyone else in this thread. At least I am transparent about mine and, contrary to your assertion, it is based on data (however much you dislike that data).

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I don’t think you know what data-free means. You complain about the likely accuracy of the data to which I refer, but what you can’t say is my argument is data free.

Of the two of us I appear to be the only one who does understand what data is, which is why I know you didn't supply any. You made claims, for which you cited no supporting data.

Yes, it does. That’s actually what the stat I cited was getting at, abuse by spouses.

And yet you said, "women" in general, not "wives".

Nor do you

Which is why I haven't made any statistical claims.

but it’s not really whether those things lead to divorce as to whether they precede divorce.

It absolutely is when you say, "you’re assuming the men the women chose to divorce hadn’t already broken the contract. In many, likely most, cases that is what happened." The implication is that the women in those cases are responding to bad behavior by the husband. A faithful wife responding to her husband cheating by initiating divorce is a very different situation from one in which the husband steps out in response to his wife cheating, especially given the context of this discussion.

And it’s a fair assumption that married women who divorce are more likely to have been cheated on or suffered physical abuse. So, if 20 percent of married women have been cheated on, then likely at least 20 percent of divorced women have.

No, that's not a fair assumption at all.

it is based on data (however much you dislike that data)

You have yet to cite any "data". You've made claims...none of which I have expressed any "dislike" for. If you can't be accurate, at least make an effort to be honest.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You made claims, for which you cited no supporting data.

No, you don’t understand what data is. I referenced data (20% of men cheat on their wives). I did not provide a link to the study that produced the data. Here’s a link: https://fcs.utah.edu/news/infidelity-wolfinger.php

From the link:

“Research from the past two decades shows that between 20 and 25 percent of married men cheat and between 10 and 15 percent of married women cheat, according to professor Nicholas Wolfinger.”

No, that’s not a fair assumption at all.

How is that not a fair assumption? You think women who leave their marriages are less likely to have been cheated on than women who stay? That doesn’t make sense.

Being cheated on is undoubtedly a reason why some women leave their marriage. I strongly doubt being cheated on is a reason any women stay in their marriage. Unless there is some other factor highly correlated with cheating that causes women to stay in marriages, it’s almost certain women leaving marriages were at least as likely to be cheated on as women in marriages generally.

You have yet to cite any “data”. You’ve made claims.

I referred to data, I didn’t link to data. There’s a difference. (And now above I linked to a summary of research that itself links to the study.)

Again, you asked why I estimated that half or more of the time men had broken the marriage contract prior to the wife filing for divorce. You don’t have to like the answer, but it was based on data (without links provided to you) and I explained what assumptions I made. Again, you can have a different estimate and/or think my assumptions are faulty, but I’ve been transparent.

[Don Nico]

NOVA,
I suggest that you read "The Sexual Victimization of Men in America: New Data Challenge Old Assumptions" June 2014, Vol 104, No. 6 | American Journal of Public Health.
You may find the actual world is different from the old mythologies.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Don Nico,

The article you cited is irrelevant to anything in this discussion. It suggests sexual victimization of males has been under appreciated. But women are still raped more, stalked more, more often subjected to sexual violence (all twice as often or more than twice as often). It seems they fall back on a slippery category (via self-reports) of "unwanted sexual contact" (which appears to include "unwelcome kissing, flashing, and sexual comments") to find some equivalence between men and women. And, of course, the problem of rape and other sexual victimization among inmates. Which is a huge, unconscionable problem with our justice system.

I also wouldn't estimate that more than half of men who initiate a divorce are doing so merely to "find something better" unless that means to get out of a marriage involving cheating or abuse, because, yes, being in a non-abusive relationship is better than being in an abusive one.

It's not clear what point you're trying to make.

[Ed Grinberg]

re: "arguing that [no-fault divorce] has harmed men and even destroyed the fabric of society"
Q: If you wanted to design a legal system that made marriage as unattractive to men as possible, how would it differ from the system we have now?
Q: What happens to "the fabric of society" when marriage becomes an unattractive proposition for men?

[Balisane]

Destroying the Judeo-Christian nature of the West is a feature for the liberals, not a bug.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Q: If you wanted to design a legal system that made marriage as unattractive to men as possible, how would it differ from the system we have now?

The possibilities are endless, but, for one, take Balisane's suggestion, but substitute women for men. (Make it so, in any divorce initiated by a man, the woman gets all marital assets and never has to pay alimony.)

Q: What happens to “the fabric of society” when marriage becomes an unattractive proposition for men?

Pew Research: "Not surprisingly, married adults are more likely than those who have never been married to say that society is better off if people prioritize marriage and having children (54% vs. 32%). Among the never married, women are less likely than men to hold this view (28% vs. 35%)."

Pew Research: "Never-married men and women have similar views on this question: 55% of men and 50% of women say they would like to get married someday."

Research shows men and women find marriage an equally attractive, or unattractive, proposition. If men were as put upon as you believe, one would expect the numbers to be different.

You live in a fantasy world where men are oppressed. Shocker.

[Balisane]

Women barely ever have to pay alimony anyway. It's a false example, and you know it.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Women barely ever have to pay alimony anyway.

But...

It’s a false example

So, they do sometimes have to pay alimony? Not a false example.

I notice you concede that it would be much more onerous for men if the women always got all of the marital assets. Which is to say, neither you nor Ed have any point other than you hate women. You maybe want to see a therapist about that.

[Mr. Bumble]

Guess Hunter hates women too since so far he has stiffed his ex-wife for $2.9 million in alimony.

[hobie]

Ding!Ding!Ding! And we have our first Hunter Biden non sequitur of the day.

[Don Nico]

"The Christian right is coming for divorce next"

It used to be a monotonous, "they're going to take away our Social Security."
Bullshit then,bullshit now.

[Sarcastr0]

Check out abortion law or schoolbook regulation - the right is quite willing to make some quite unpopular social conservative plays at the state level these days.

I'm not saying it's gonna happen, but it's hard to argue with the OP's evidence that at least some of the GOP Is coming at divorce.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Yeah it's totally unpopular to ban gay porn and groomer books in elementary school libraries!

[Don Nico]

Sure there are wingnuts that spout that nonsense. But it is not going to happen except in their imagination.

[Sarcastr0]

Just like Trump, ignore what people with power say, they will never succeed.

No, I won't go to sleep on this shit; and you should ask yourself why you find yourself urging complacency so often.

[Don Nico]

"why you find yourself urging complacency so often."
More lies. I've heard the same political bullshit before elections my entire life. You wallow in it but then you are an apparatchik.

[Sarcastr0]

I’ve heard the same political bullshit before elections my entire life.
I mean OK, but you're still urging complacency.

That is not a lie; it is a description of what you are posting.

[Nige]

No, it's not ging to happen if you don't give them the power to carry it out, you dimwit.

[Nige]

Why is it bullshit? They definitely want to destroy Social Security.

[shawn_dude]

It may be "bullshit" but it's documented bullshit that comes in the form of state GOP party planks. Further, the "monotonous" chants of taking at least some Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid away keep being documented in things like budgets and bills and submitted into state and Federal legislatures for passage.

After Dobbs, it's hard to believe these denials.

[Don Nico]

Sure shawn. But what has actually been done?
What Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid benefits have been cut and when. In fact SSA benefits have steadily increased although not really as fast as inflation.

[Nige]

Why is it that we're not allowed to take Republicans and Trump at their word? Because, and this is real galaxy brain stuff - *they haven't carried out their plans yet.* And that's even ignoring red states resistence to Medicaid.

[Sarcastr0]

Don on October 06 - 'why worry about Hamas? Sure they talk a big game, but what have they actually done?'

[Don Nico]

What lame gaslighting!
No one is Israel ever said that. No one.
Either your wallow in bad-faith commenting or you are a delusional liar.

[Sarcastr0]

It's your logic, Don.

Own it.

[Don Nico]

My logic. you just double down on lying. Don't the words get stuck in your throat.

[Sarcastr0]

You post "But what has actually been done?" as an argument for complacency in the face of and his folks', it's no lie to point out the overbroad implications of such facile thinking.

If you want to explain why Hamas' talk without any action yet is different from Trump and his fellows talk without any action yet, make the argument.

Right now you're just pounding the table.

[shawn_dude]

Well, they promised to overturn Roe v Wade and got that done. Are you asking us to bet on GOP incompetence or take them seriously as they repeatedly attempt to keep their promises?

[Sarcastr0]

Sometimes it seems like the GOP trajectory is to become purely a party of divorced dads and incels.

[Balisane]

And the Democrat trajectory is to become a party of low IQ third worlders, homosexuals, transgenders and other deviants, and bitter single women.

[Sarcastr0]

I guess I must be one of those 'other deviants.' Hell yeah!

Did you notice that your resentment applies to so many people it's a pretty huge voting coalition?

Divorced dads and incels are doomed!

[NOVA Lawyer]

The Supreme Court got the mifepristone case right (FDA vs. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine). No standing for the doctors. Unanimous decision. Thomas concurring.

To be fair, this was an easy case. The doctors' theories of standing were far-fetched. They advanced several "complicated" theories of standing as the syllabus puts it.

[David Nieporent]

Somehow I'm betting that Kacsmaryk is not going to be at all chastened by the fact that his position was too loony for even the 5th circuit and couldn't command a single justice.

[Bob from Ohio]

"not going to be at all chastened"

"They can't catch 'em all". Stephen Reinhardt

[OtisAH]

If Roberts Court form holds, this may be the soft jab of progressive concession that sets up the hard right hook of, perhaps, Convicted Felon Trumpian immunity or whatever other far right wish is still to be decided.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That would be one more step toward an improved, enlarged Supreme Court.

Bring it on, clingers. Let's get this culture war resolved.

[not guilty]

Like a blind hog finding an acorn, the clowns of SCOTUS got this one right. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I wonder how all those "Oh My Norms" people are doing now that the father of a confirmed crackhead, pedophile, convicted felon is running for office?

I'm going to guess the the "Sacred Norms" no longer matter.

[NOVA Lawyer]

At the risk of overusing this formulation:

Tell us you don't understand what norms are without saying you don't understand what norms are.

As to U.S. presidents with ne-er-do-well children, Google John Payne Todd. Others too, but the point is the U.S. has a long history of presidents with relatives who have had brushes with the law.

Norm: a principle of right action binding upon the members of a group and serving to guide, control, or regulate proper and acceptable behavior.

Biden didn't violate any norms by being related to someone who developed a drug addiction. That's something that happened to President (then Senator) Biden, not something he did. Now, if he appointed Hunter Biden to a high position in the government, that would violate norms. But that hasn't and won't happen.

You can stop pretending.

[Balisane]

You leftist pieces of shit said that Trump's family "violated norms" all the time. You pieces of excrement use "norms" and "civility" as a weapon against conservatives. Fuck you. I hope you choke on a bowl of dick.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Your homosexual fantasies notwithstanding (which maybe partly explains your hatred of women), whatever "leftist pieces of shit" said, I never said Trump's family "violated norms" all the time by being related to drug addicts.

Don Jr. certainly violated norms by meeting with a Russian agent while being a high-ranking member of his father's campaign. I leave it as an exercise for you to determine how the two situations are different and one involves norms and the other doesn't.

[hobie]

Wow. NOVA really gave you the red ass, didn't he?

[John F. Carr]

Elizabeth Warren has introduced a bill that she describes as jailing private equity executives who "loot" hospitals. The text of S.4503 is not yet available on the Senate web site. The substance seems to be
1. If evil or greedy practices of executives result in patient death, up to six years in prison.
2. If evil or greedy practices of executives result in bankruptcy, ten years of compensation can be clawed back.
Quoting reporter Christian M. Wade:

Warren cited the recent death of a woman at St. Elizabeth’s who allegedly bled to death after giving birth because the hospital didn’t have the equipment needed to stop the hemorrhaging. The equipment had been repossessed by the medical supplier because of Steward’s unpaid bills, Warren said.

My reaction is the corporate raiders will get away with it and the people they hire to run the business into the ground will be on the hook.

[bernard11]

This of course is related to the Steward mess which, AFAICT, includes a fair amount of bad conduct by execs and PE people.

Has any compensation been clawed back from de la Torre, or is he still sailing happily on one of his yachts?

I haven't seen the figures as to what Steward got from its land sales, what it did with it, or what rent it agreed to pay, but the deals have an uninviting odor.

[jb]

The way PE firms gut companies, take out the assets for their own benefit and then return less functional companies with huge debt loads that often end up going bankrupt is gross. There should absolutely be a mechanism to claw back compensation in these cases.

[Bob from Ohio]

"take out the assets for their own benefit"

Oh noes. The owners are cashing out their ownership interest.

Why do you hate free enterprise?

[jb]

I don't hate free enterprise. I think it's pretty great. What PE firms do has almost nothing to do with free enterprise, though. It's just financial engineering that doesn't add any value (see also: high frequency trading and synthetic CDOs).

[Sarcastr0]

Why do you hate free enterprise?

Shallow attack that proves too much.

Same argument works for prostitution, or legalizing drugs, or charging contract killers.

[Nige]

How dare they criticise The Owners!

[SimonP]

Ah, yes, free enterprise.

You know, like the old story goes - fella gets an idea, pours his heart and soul into it, makes it into a business, works all hours of the day for years to grow his business, grows it into a multimillion dollar business, is a committed and well-liked owner and manager, is loved by his hundreds of employees, one day decides it's time to cash out, starts by firing expensive employees, selling equipment, levers up the business, pulls all of the proceeds out via complex tax structuring so he pays as little as possible in tax, ultimately sells it to his son who finances most of the purchase price with a loan that the son is able to hoist back onto the business itself, son continues the process until he can sell to another buyer with a loan ready, and on and on.

The classic American tale!

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The way PE firms gut companies, take out the assets for their own benefit and then return less functional companies with huge debt loads that often end up going bankrupt is gross."

Why's it gross to put assets to more productive use?

[bernard11]

Why are the uses more productive? The guy who took down Steward seems to have spent his share of the haul on personal luxury consumption.

[TwelveInchPianist]

By selling off the company's assets. You don't get a haul unless you put the assets to more productive use.

[Nige]

Why isn't it gross to buy a company then deliberately fuck it up?

[Sarcastr0]

You don’t get a haul unless you put the assets to more productive use.

Ah yes, the perfect valuation (both now and in the future) of the market. And the subsequent giving it to rich people who are surely going to spend it well. It's not like it's easy to stay rich even if you're an idiot!

Do you hear that? It sounds like: 'the market likes it so it is good this is why the market only does good things' It is the tautological call of the blind market worshiper.

Markets should serve society. Any evidence of that here?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Do you hear that? It sounds like: ‘the market likes it so it is good this is why the market only does good things’ It is the tautological call of the blind market worshiper."

Huh? In an efficient market market valuation is the best evidence of the productivity of the assets. It's not market worship.

Perhaps John Carr is correct that the market valuations were affected by the bankruptcy, in which case we should fix that.

[Sarcastr0]

For certain definitions of efficient, valuation, productivity, and assets.

Lots of market failures hand-waived away with 'efficient.'

Valuation, in the real world, can be juked by those with the money to distort the system. People are stupid - check out Jucero.
The corollary to it takes money to make money is if you have enough money, you only fail up regardless of how stupid you are. Which means you can make bad valuation decisions over and over again and the market's punishment is a fly in your ear.

Productivity is not actually what someone is willing to pay; not unless we're all rational homo economicus.

And we'd better put a fence around what counts as an asset lest we end up in child labor or worse, eh?

I like markets; per Hayek they are better-than-human tools for information clearance and efficient distribution. But they are not perfect. And once you treat them as axiomatically correct, you are no longer using the tool of market forces; you have become a tool of the market.

It could be worse - I was listening to some excerpts from Friedman the other day and he felt markets were the only real way to deliver liberty, and thus the only moral system. That's writing some serious market-worship checks.

[bernard11]

So selling off essential equipment, or burdening the company with excessive rent payments, so you can take the money and buy yachts is "putting assets to more productive uses?"

[John F. Carr]

Bankruptcy is the problem, as is dumping pension liabilities onto the government (Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation). These deals can hurt third parties. If private equity firms were responsible for the debts of the carcasses of their acquisitions they would behave better.

[Kazinski]

There is new footage taken of Nancy Pelosi on Jan. 6th telling her staff that they screwed up by not having the National Guard already deployed.

There is also footage of the phone calls asking about the delays deploying the National Guard, tellingly everyone thinks the problem is Army Secretary McCarthy, just as the National Guard testifies.

And nobody asks why Trump hasn’t given the order. Making it obvious that was the plan they came up afterwards to blame Trump, when of course he had authorized the Guard days before and Capitol Hill officials turned down the offer.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/09/chaos-anger-congressional-leaders-jan-6-evacuation-00162424

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, that was (D)ifferent for Speaker Pelosi. Just like there are (R)easons she will not be held to account.

[Sarcastr0]

Why do you even bother with these shitposts?

[Kazinski]

Are you telling me that the Politico report says something different?

This is footage taken on Jan. 6th by Nancy’s daughter, I think it helps tell the whole story.

But I have to admit it doesn’t matter much, the whole blame Trump gambit failed with the electorate.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you think I was replying to you here, Kaz?

I was not.

Your critical thinking is awful - it's really just rationalization for partisanship. Your moral compass conveniently does not apply to politicians now that you're defending Trump to the hilt.

But you are not a shitposter; you think. Commenter used to think. Now apparently he does not.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sarcastro's projecting again.

[Bwaaah]

Sarcastr0: “Your critical thinking is awful – it’s really just rationalization for partisanship”

Trump: “Everything doesn’t always have to be about yourself.”

Pelosi: “Just because Trump said it doesn’t mean it’s wrong.”

Nige: “You should really consider all sides of an issue before speaking.

(One of these quotes is real.)

[Nige]

You're a few steps away from full-on gnomic mysticism to go with CXY's thought-ending repetitive mantras.

[Mr. Bumble]

Funny. The ultimate shit poster complaining about shit posts.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Grievance-consumed, delusional right-wing malcontents are among my favorite culture war casualties.

[Nige]

You're still reconciling yourself to the way that in general (R)epublicans behave shittily and illegaly and (D)emocrats do not.

[Sarcastr0]

If Trump wanted the National Guard to move, they would move.

He didn't.

The rest of this is immaterial, and of use only for those straining to apologize for Trump's telling failure to act.

[OtisAH]

I say “refusal to act” but why quibble?

[Sarcastr0]

You do have it right though - people were asking him to act to the point it was an undeniably affirmative choice by Trump.

[grb]

Quotes from the article linked below:

Donald Trump sat for hours watching the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol unfold on live TV, ignoring pleas by his children and other close advisers to urge his supporters to stop the violence, witnesses told a congressional hearing on Thursday.

Former White House counsel Pat Cipollone was asked question after question in the recorded testimony about Trump's actions: did he call the secretary of defense? The attorney general? The head of Homeland Security? Cipollone answered "no" to each query.

He's got to condemn this shit ASAP," Trump's eldest son, Don Jr., appealed in a text message to Trump's chief of staff, Mark Meadows. "They will try to fuck his entire legacy on this if it gets worse."

Witnesses in the room were Matthew Pottinger, a deputy national security adviser under Trump, and Sarah Matthews, a deputy press secretary in his White House. Both resigned in the hours following the riot. "If the president had wanted to make a statement and address the American people, he could have been on camera almost immediately," Matthews testified. "If he had wanted to make an address from the Oval Office, we could have assembled the White House press corps within minutes."

The committee showed video of several White House officials describing their dismay that afternoon at seeing a Twitter post by Trump to his supporters in which he blamed Pence for not stopping the certification. "Trump was pouring gasoline on the fire," Matthews said.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-capitol-probes-season-finale-focus-trump-supporters-three-hour-rage-2022-07-21/

[OtisAH]

That Junior quote makes me laugh because he tweeted a video at some point after the charge began. It was a short video where he’s excited about what was happening then panned the room to show Convicted Felon Trump sitting in front of a tv, elbows on his knees, just glued to the action. I’ll guess his concern over Convicted Felon Trump’s legacy came after he deleted the video.

[Kazinski]

But you are missing one thing, nobody testified that they were waiting for Trump to reauthorize the troops he had already authorized.

Nobody at the Pentagon testified they needed further authorization, nor did they even call the Whitehouse to ask.

Nobody in the National Guard testified they were waiting for Trump's ok, they said specifically they were waiting for Army Secretary McCarthy to give the ok. Trump had authorized the troops on Jan, 3rd.

The whole narrative is after the fact blame shifting.

What's more is it's failed, just look at the polls to confirm that. By the way RCP just moved VA to tossup from lean Dem this week, the last 2 polls show a tie, and those are the only 2 polls since January. NH will probably be moved to Tossup from lean Biden next time it's polled too.

[David Nieporent]

The whole narrative is after the fact blame shifting.

No, it's contemporaneous blaming. Again, even if your narrative were 100% true, it wouldn't exonerate Trump. People — including family members and close allies — were begging Trump to do something, and he didn't. He could have picked up the phone and called any one of a dozen people and said, "Make this happen now," and he not only didn't, but actively refused to. He didn't say, "Well, I already authorized it, so I don't need to give that order." He just said, "No; they deserve it."

[grb]

Items from the AP’s 06Jan timeline:

1. There’s a gap in the official White House phone notations given to the House committee investigating Jan. 6 — from about 11 a.m. to about 7 p.m., according to two people familiar with the congressional investigation into the riot. Details may still turn up; the former president was known to use various cell phones and often bypassed the White House switchboard, placing calls directly.

2. At 2:28, he tweeted not about the violence but to show his pique at his vice president: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!” (At this point, rioters were already rampaging thru the Capitol.)

3. At some point, Trump also talked to lawmakers. Republican Kevin McCarthy told a California radio station that he had spoken to the president. “I was the first person to call him,” McCarthy said. “I told him to go on national TV, tell these people to stop it. He said he didn’t know what was happening.” Washington Republican Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler said McCarthy relayed that conversation to her. By her account, when McCarthy told Trump it was his own supporters breaking into the building, Trump responded: “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.”

4. At some point, he sequestered himself in the dining room off the Oval Office to watch the violence play out on TV, rewinding and re-watching some parts, according to former aides. Unable to get through by other means, allies including his former chief of staff and communications director resorted to tweeting at him to try to get through. Chief of Staff Mark Meadows was getting a flurry of texts from lawmakers, from Fox News personalities and even Trump’s own children. “Hey, Mark, protestors are literally storming the Capitol. Breaking windows on doors. Rushing in. Is Trump going to say something?” reads one text. “We are all helpless,” says another.

As the violence continued, the president’s elder son texted Meadows: “He’s got to condemn this s(asterisk)(asterisk)(asterisk) Asap,” Donald Trump, Jr. texted. Meadows responded: “I’m pushing it hard. I agree.” Trump, Jr. texted again and again, urging that his father act: “We need an Oval address. He has to lead now. It has gone too far and gotten out of hand.”

https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-elections-donald-trump-presidential-elections-election-2020-3315609c4152b4429930a17191b5a217

[ThePublius]

That's B.S. Pelosi was responsible for Capitol security. Trump offer the Nation Guard on Jan. 3 and Pelosi declined.

[David Nieporent]

1) Pelosi was not responsible for Capitol security.
2) Trump did not offer, and Pelosi did not decline. (Pelosi is not in the chain of command and could not "decline.")

[Kazinski]

Trump didn't offer the troops, he just authorized them at the Pentagon's request.

The Pentagon offered them to Congress, they were turned down by the House and Senate Sargent at Arms, despite Chief Sunds request to accept them.

[David Nieporent]

Let's assume that your narrative is correct. Let's suppose that a few days before J6, someone in the chain of command called up the Capitol Police Board and said, "Hey, we can get you National Guard troops if you need them" and the CPB said, "Thanks for the offer, but no thanks; we've got this covered." So fucking what? All that would prove is that the CPB miscalculated the threat and/or their capabilities. It has literally no bearing on whether Trump acted appropriately on J6.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I hope no one relies on your judgment, ThePublius.

[Estragon]

Call out the national guard? For what?

I have been assured on these very pages that it was just grannies taking pictures inside the Capitol. Whatever happened to Jimmy the Dane, anyways?

As for who was hoping for unrest that day— I encourage you to review Pat Philbin’s testimony to the DC bar in re: Jeffrey Clark

[hobie]

You know, Kaz, if you were to devote this much energy into pondering the cause of the riot and the election fraud underpinning it, you'd have a nice epiphany

[F.D. Wolf]

Three individuals attempted to break into the home of a 77-year-old man in Oakland. He shot and killed one of them. This occurring in the Democratic Fruitopia of California, naturally, the homeowner is currently under arrest for murder.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/77-year-old-arrested-after-fatal-shooting-of-suspected-burglar/ar-BB1o9PDI?ocid=BingNewsSerp

[Mr. Bumble]

That's why it's called the golden showers state.

[David Nieporent]

So, naturally, this is not a fair description of events, per the very article you linked.

1) He hasn't been charged with anything, murder or otherwise.
2) He refused to give a statement to police. If you shoot someone and say, "It was self defense," they should not arrest you before investigating. If you shoot someone and don't say anything at all, though, are they supposed to just assume it's self defense and say, "Okay, never mind"?
3) The gun he used was allegedly stolen. Whatever the outer parameters of the 2A, it does not allow one to steal guns.

[Balisane]

1) Process is punishment
2) Yes, actually, self-defense is usually not an affirmative defense, so the police have to disprove it.
3) Even if the gun was stolen (and I suspect it wasn't by this man), that doesn't have any bearing on the self-defense claim, and you know it.

[Don Nico]

The man did not claim self-defense.
This is just another example of how badly crime is gripping the East Bay.

[Balisane]

He doesn't need to, if the facts are evident.

[bernard11]

The man did not claim self-defense.

Correct. He didn't say anything. That, as DMN says, is why he was arrested.

“If A shoots B without an explanation, the only thing to do, we can only go with what we have. There was a weapon recovered on scene, thus the individual was taken into custody,” said Frederick Shavies, Oakland Police Department’s acting deputy chief of investigations.

[Kazinski]

I hope if you were his attorney you'd advise him not to say anything too.

[David Nieporent]

You might, but you would do so knowing that it would lead to his arrest. You're consciously promoting his long-term interests — avoiding conviction — at the expense of his short-term interest — avoiding arrest.

[John F. Carr]

He is being punished for not talking to police.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You appear not to understand the situation. Is your strange conclusion generated by gun nuttery or are you just an anti-government misfit?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You sound like a disaffected right-wing culture war casualty and a confused or disingenuous gun nut, F.D. Wolf.

What happened to you?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

the homeowner is currently under arrest for murder

Where in that story does it say anything at all about him having been arrested "for murder"? Or do you have another source for that claim that you didn't share?

[ThePublius]

"The 77-year-old man was arrested Tuesday on suspicion of murder."

https://nypost.com/2024/06/12/us-news/cali-homeowner-arrested-after-fatally-shooting-burglary-suspect/

And, it's smart to not talk to the police, to avoid incriminating oneself. Many, many criminal defense attorneys recommend this approach. It does not make you guilty!

[Noscitur a sociis]

Declining to make a statement may well have been the smartest choice. But you can hardly fault the police for not listening to your side of the story if you don't tell it to them!

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

OK, so "suspected murder" seems like a pretty odd reason for the arrest, given the circumstances (assuming they were as reported). One would think the stolen gun would have been a more reasonable basis for an arrest. But given that the story originally cited by OP did not contain any mention at all of "suspected murder" I'm guessing there's a good chance that there are other relevant details missing.

[bernard11]

While the homeowner remains in police custody, he has not yet been charged with a crime. According to California law, prosecutors have 48 hours to file charges before a suspect must be released from custody.

[ThePublius]

Yea, that's fair, throw a 77 year old homeowner who was protecting himself into jail for two days. Like, he's going to flee, or shoot more people, or something?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The person did not provide a statement. How are the police supposed to determine that he was "protecting himself"?

A person already killed someone. Yes, even if the person is a senior citizen, there are grounds to be concerned he is dangerous.

The article also says "part of the reason" he was arrested was that he did not provide a statement. This suggests there is more to the story. Which is regularly the case in these "gotcha" stories.

Finally, the article says the police have 48 hours to hold a person before a suspect must be released. How long he actually will be held is unclear.

[David Nieporent]

throw a 77 year old homeowner who was protecting himself

He didn't say he was protecting himself.

[ThePublius]

I wonder if the surviving perps are in jail. I kinda doubt it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If only the news coverage answered that question!

[Noscitur a sociis]

For anyone curious: the homeowner appears to have been released without charges, while the two surviving burglars were charged.

[Z Crazy]

There's a sharp difference between the conviction of Donald Trump and the conviction of Hunter Biden.

Elie Honig said that “no state prosecutor – in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere – has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever.”

Plenty of prosecutors charged young, poor black men from the ghetto with what Hunter Biden was convicted of.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is it surprising that America's first criminal president was thought by some to be an exceptional criminal?

What do you plan to whine about in the wake of Trump's additional convictions?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"The federal gun charge, which makes it unlawful for a drug addict to possess a weapon, is a rarely used statute"

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/lawmakers-say-hunter-biden-gun-charge-prosecuted-often-rcna156786

Little-used statutes are in place for special situations. Others have discussed why Trump's prosecution was warranted using that rule of prosecutorial discretion.

Unclear why Hunter Biden warranted it.

[apedad]

Supreme Court Keeps Full Access to Widely Used Abortion Pill

The US Supreme Court preserved full access to a widely used abortion pill in a case that carried major stakes for reproductive rights and election-year politics.

The court unanimously overturned a federal appeals ruling that would have barred mail-order prescriptions for mifepristone, the drug now used in more than half of US abortions. The lower court ruling would have reduced abortion access even in states where reproductive rights have broad support.

The court stopped short of affirming Food and Drug Administration decisions to loosen restrictions on mifepristone starting in 2016. The majority instead said the anti-abortion doctors and organizations that sued lacked legal “standing” because they aren’t directly affected by the FDA’s actions.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-upholds-full-access-to-mifepristone-abortion-pill

OK, they went with the Standing issue and not the actual legal issue.

Still a good thing.

[apedad]

Sorry! Didn't see NOVA Lawyer announced first above.

[jb]

You have to establish standing to get to the merits, and the standing analysis by the District Court and the Fifth Circuit was so awful it's good that the Court made clear it wasn't valid.

[not guilty]

"OK, they went with the Standing issue and not the actual legal issue."

No plaintiff with Article III standing, no federal subject matter jurisdiction. That is a threshold determination that every federal court must make.

[SRG2]

From today’s decision in Vidal v Ester:

THOMAS, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part III. ALITO and GORSUCH, JJ. joined that opinion in full; ROBERTS, C. J., and KAVANAUGH, J., joined all but Part III; and BARRETT, J., joined Parts I, II–A, and II–B. KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined. BARRETT, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, in which KAGAN, J., joined, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined as to Parts I, II, and III–B, and in which JACKSON, J., joined as to Parts I and II. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which KAGAN and JACKSON, JJ., joined.

[Martinned2]

But the upshot is that there is no first amendment problem with the bit of the Lanham Act that stops people from registering trademarks that are the name of a living person.

Also, they somehow managed to write up all that mess in just 53 pages.

[Martinned2]

Or, shorter still: Trump won in the Supreme Court.

[SRG2]

LOL

[hobie]

What is he up to now, 2 out of 90 or something?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Thomas with Alito & Gorsuch: history and tradition!

Kavanaugh with Roberts: that’s fine, but not just that!

Barrett: Thomas is applying history and tradition in a sketchy fashion. Let's just use general 1A principles here.

Sotomayor and the liberals: Yup. But, the whole deal is silly. And, Thomas’ Bruen opinion is really stupid.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY
RACIAL SLUR SCOREBOARD

This white, male, conservative blog
with a thin, largely faded 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

TWENTY-SEVEN (27)
days without publishing at least
one explicit racial slur; it has
published racial slurs on at least

TWENTY-EIGHT (28)

occasions (so far) during 2024
(that’s at least 28 exchanges
that have included a racial slur,
not just 28 racial slurs; many
Volokh Conspiracy discussions
feature multiple racial slurs.)

A few more days, and these
conservatives might avoid using
a racial slur for an entire month!

This blog is outrunning its
remarkable pace of 2023,
when the Volokh Conspiracy
published racial slurs in at least

FORTY-FOUR (44)

different discussions.

These numbers likely miss
some of the racial slurs this
blog regularly publishes; it
would be unreasonable to expect
anyone to catch all of them.

This assessment does not address
the broader, everyday stream of
antisemitic, gay-bashing, misogynistic,
immigrant-hating, Palestinian-hating,
transphobic, Islamophobic, racist,
and other bigoted content published
at this faux libertarian blog, which
is presented from the disaffected,
receding right-wing fringe of
American legal thought by members
of the Federalist Society
for Law and Public Policy Studies.

Amid this blog's stale, ugly, and doomed thinking, here is something worthwhile. (One of rock's great drum intros, performed by Gary Mallaber.)

This one -- also featuring Gary Mallaber, as well as an ambling bass guitar line from John Klingberg that is probably my favorite to play with a good band -- is nice, too. I still can't add a third link, so far as I know, but check the version from Midnight Special with Etta James, George Benson, Santana, and a few other guests.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling GemStones:

First, one that is no rock 'n' roll show, a magnificent blues number that demonstrated the magic Mick and Keith could produce together, which they have subbed for Miss You recently on tour.

Next, a purple disco machine remix of a new tune that has been on several recent setlists.

Next stop: Cleveland. The song vote hasn't begun yet for some reason, but please vote for Far Away Eyes or Dead Flowers if possible so Cleveland can experience one good country song this year.

[apedad]

‘Survivor’ Winner Aims to Toss Tax Bill Three Times His Winnings

Richard Hatch Jr. asked District Judge William E. Smith of the US District Court for the District of Delaware on June 11 for dismissal of or summary judgment in the suit, saying he’s faced “prosecutorial misconduct, judicial bias, and wrongful persecution.” Hatch has been fighting income tax liabilities, interest, and penalties that have now reached $2.9 million for not reporting his $1 million in winnings to the IRS after he won the show’s first season in 2000.

Because the show was filmed in Malaysia and that nation didn’t have a bilateral income tax treaty with the US at the time, Hatch has argued the taxes should have been paid to Malaysia by either CBS or the show’s production company. The IRS, though, has argued he’s trying to evade taxes. Hatch pleaded guilty to two counts of tax evasion in 2006 and served 51 months in prison, but was still required to file amended tax returns.

Hatch represents himself.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-tax-report/survivor-winner-aims-to-toss-tax-bill-three-times-his-winnings

Can't talk to the tax issues but you'd think he would have gotten this figured out after 20+ years.

Especially after pleading guilty and serving 51 months.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Can’t talk to the tax issues but you’d think he would have gotten this figured out after 20+ years.

Especially after pleading guilty and serving 51 months.

I think you have your answer:

Hatch represents himself.

[John F. Carr]

Is he any worse off for having filed a probably frivolous motion? It's not likely he can pay the tax bill or even the interest on the tax bill. If somebody had hired O. J. Simpson for a million dollars per year he would not have been able to pay the interest on the civil judgment against him. So he might as well go golfing.

[NvEric]

Seems Caitlin Clark should go to the NBA.

[Bob from Ohio]

To be cut?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I haven't been a professional sports writer or sports editor for 40 years, but I still recognize that you are a hopelessly uninformed dope.

[Chumby]

As the ball girl?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>In the document, the OIG acknowledges that a contractor in Rochester, New York printed 650,000 general election ballots that went to Pennsylvania. Of the total, 450,000 went to Philadelphia County and 200,000 went to Chester County.

...

>Final point: The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania certified its 2020 election despite the undisputed fact that it had recorded 202,000 more ballots cast than voters. That disparity probably made the election certification illegal under Commonwealth law. Eventually, Pennsylvania “found” more voters, but not enough. To this very day it appears that there were 91,000 more ballots cast than identified voters. Of course, that number exceeds Biden’s winning margin.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/06/jesse_morgan_and_the_200k_missing_ballots__an_update.html

Stealing an election should be punishable by ______________. Fill in the blank with your opinion.

[David Nieporent]

>Final point: The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania certified its 2020 election despite the undisputed fact that it had recorded 202,000 more ballots cast than voters. That disparity probably made the election certification illegal under Commonwealth law. Eventually, Pennsylvania “found” more voters, but not enough. To this very day it appears that there were 91,000 more ballots cast than identified voters. Of course, that number exceeds Biden’s winning margin.

The ironically named American Thinker is lying. Not only is that not an "undisputed fact," but it is not any sort of fact. It's a stupid, obvious lie. And not even a plausible one. Turnout in Pennsylvania in 2020 was about 77%. There were 6,979,668 ballots submitted (not all counted; this includes provisional ones) and 9,090,962 registered voters.

Needless to say, 6,979,668 is not 91,000 more than 9,090,962.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I see you're a science denier and a threat to our Sacred Democracy.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These are your fans, defenders, and target audience, Volokh Conspirators.

And the reason the mainstream members of legitimate law school faculties do not respect or want to associate with the movement conservatives among them.

[Jerry B.]

Dan Helmer, a Democrat running for a Congressional seat from Virginia, is bragging that he is protecting Democracy by authoring legislation that would prevent “insurrectionists” from running for any office of public trust. Seems sorta undemocratic to me.

Here’s his bill.

https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+sum+HB280

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You sound like quite the Constitutional scholar and American patriot, clinger.

[Nige]

(I think this link is exploded because it's a gift link.)

Anyway, there's a serious fucking problem with the cops.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2024/police-officers-child-sexual-abuse-in-america/?pwapi_token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJyZWFzb24iOiJnaWZ0IiwibmJmIjoxNzE4MTY0ODAwLCJpc3MiOiJzdWJzY3JpcHRpb25zIiwiZXhwIjoxNzE5NTQ3MTk5LCJpYXQiOjE3MTgxNjQ4MDAsImp0aSI6ImJiOThiODE1LWYwOGItNDU3ZC05MTgxLWQ2YzhjOWI4Mjc0OSIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lndhc2hpbmd0b25wb3N0LmNvbS9pbnZlc3RpZ2F0aW9ucy9pbnRlcmFjdGl2ZS8yMDI0L3BvbGljZS1vZmZpY2Vycy1jaGlsZC1zZXh1YWwtYWJ1c2UtaW4tYW1lcmljYS8ifQ.KGpgyaLCRPPY5ElH_-r5cMz2SOEPmsp_tZL5BNnhL2U&itid=gfta

[grb]

Former President Donald Trump gave House Republicans a rambling talk Thursday during a visit to Capitol Hill, the first since his mob attacked Congress on 06Jan. Now, it’s pretty obvious Trump’s brain has decayed to the consistency of worm-ridden mush, but he didn’t bring up electric boats or sharks this time. Instead, he rambled like a “drunk uncle” and said one of Pelosi’s daughters told him that he and Nancy Pelosi could have been a couple.

“If things were different, Nancy and I would be perfect together,” Trump said, before noting their six-year “age difference.”

But that wasn’t his only rumination on the touchy subject of women. Trump also whined about Taylor Swift to the House Republicans – complaining about her endorsing Biden – and praised Steve Scalise’s wife for supporting her husband after he was shot:

“I saw him in the hospital. I can tell your wife really loves you, Steve, because some wives wouldn’t care.”

Sad! Trump also trashed the city hosting the GOP Convention, saying : “Milwaukee, where we are having our convention, is a horrible city,” Poor Wisconsin Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R) was pressed to perform damage control, insisting Trump only referred to the crime in Milwaukee, not the city itself. Apparently the only thing he didn’t discuss was – well – policy…..

“I didn’t hear any policy talk,” Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.) said after the meeting. “It was a pep talk.”

(Of course it’s hard to talk policy when your brain is decayed to the consistency of worm-ridden mush)

[Nige]

He has some stirring views on Bitcoin and how it should all be mined in the US, too.

[shawn_dude]

I hear Nevada has lots of mines...big mines...with lots of stuff coming out... we should build a bitcoin mine there. There are no sharks, though, so that's good for batteries. and people.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I love how you guys run to defend Milwaukee.

NPR published an article a few years ago with a title like "Why is Milwaukee so bad for black people" where they outlined how Milwaukee is the worst place in America for blacks.

That's probably different now and expanded to every Democrat ruled community, but that's what you're defending. lmao morons

[grb]

God above, but you're even incompetent at being a troll!

What a loser......

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/03/05/390723644/why-is-milwaukee-so-bad-for-black-people

You people are so f'n ignorant.

Maybe one of these days you'll reflect upon why your elites keep you so stupid. They do it on purpose to you and your children? Why do you think that? Why might a ruling class keep its subjects dumb as dirt?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” — James Madison

That's why the government/elites keep you people so stupid.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Why is Biden appeasing Putin by letting him conduct naval exercises off our coast?

Did Biden's paymasters in the CCP order him to allow it? Or is he just a coward and would rather give them billions of dollars like he has all our enemies.

[David Nieporent]

Why do you think that the U.S. could or would stop them?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Well, our DEI military can't stop a bunch of rock throwers from bombing ships in the Red Sea, so I don't think they could stop a foreign modern military even if it wanted to.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why do you repeatedly describe Jesus as a woman?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

How the fuck do you know how He identified? You bigoted transphobe.

You're so gross with your hatred for Jews and Jesus.

[Nige]

One joke.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The answer is that you are the type of illiterate, ignorant bigot this blog covets as an audience.

[Frank Drackman]

Pretty sure He can identify as a She if He wants to. He's Hey-Zeus, he can just miracle that shit,
"Hey, Disciples, check this out! Whammo!!!!" and now He's a She
the reverse would be even more astounding,
"Allright, time to go back, you all might want to step back a few feet"

Frank "I wish that I had Jesus's Girl"

[grb]

JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes : “Why is Biden…. (gibberish)”

If the Nazi child was capable of asking a serious question, I might be tempted to give a serious answer. I might note the U.S. has just sent one of its own nuclear attack subs (the USS Helena) to dock at Guantanamo Bay. The navy also deployed three guided-missile destroyers (the USS Truxtun, USS Donald Cook and USS Delbert D. Black), a Coast Guard cutter (the Stone), and Boeing P-8 submarine reconnaissance aircraft to shadow the Russian ships.

In addition, a whole fleet of navy drones are following the Russians in air and on water. Of course all this is all well-worn routine. As Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh said Wednesday, “This is not a surprise. We’ve seen them do these type of port calls before. We of course take it seriously, but these exercises don’t pose a threat to the United States.” The U.S. Navy probably welcomes the chance to practice anti-sub exercises on it’s own pet Russian sub (while given the chance).

That might be the response - if the Nazi child wasn’t a buffoonish troll.

[Don Nico]

Ask grb or S_0, they both have all the answers.

[Sarcastr0]

Throw in more with the antisemite – folks like him are known for good faith questions based on truth-based summaries of reality.

Oh, and be sure and not read any of the existing replies to the antisemite, lest your smug insult be overtaken by the obvious rejoinders to them.

Look at your bedfellows Don; they should give you pause.

[Don Nico]

"Throw in more with the antisemite"
Wow, that is dishonest distortion, bad even for you.
Don't tell me who my "bedfellows" are. That is just mind raping.
As for anti-semites, you have seemed to find good company with them defending thugs on campus.

[Sarcastr0]

This is the second time you've replied to the antisemite to align with his post and insult me and others.

Your posts are public, your bedfellows evident to all.

These are choices you are making; I'm just pointing them out.

[grb]

Here’s what I find hilarious about Don : Criticize him with anything but the softest kid gloves and he howls with indignation. At the same time, he regularly spews venom at everyone within spitting distance. Somehow the man doesn’t see the child-level hypocrisy with that, because he regularly shifts from “you’re so meanie and hurtful” mode to hosing people with toxic spite, often from one post to the next.

That he’s willing to pander to a worthless troll like JHBHBE just proves my point. His pretend standards don’t exist if he’s eager for play dates with the Nazi child.

P.S. I answered the troll’s B.S. question immediately above Don’s silly taunt I should try – a full sixteen hours before. Sometimes Don’s just plain dumb.

[Sarcastr0]

"Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose three trips that were paid for by GOP mega-donor Harlan Crow, according to information obtained by the Senate Judiciary Committee and released Thursday.

According to the panel, Thomas did not disclose information on three trips he took on private jets funded by Crow: a trip from St. Louis to Montana and back to Dallas in 2017; round-trip travel from Washington to Savannah, Ga., in 2019; and round-trip travel from Washington to San Jose in 2021.

The information was obtained through documents and information that Crow delivered to the committee dating back seven years.

Also included in the trove of Crow’s documents was information about the 2019 trips to Indonesia and California, which included private jet travel for both and an eight-day yacht excursion in Bali. The committee noted that a recent report totaled the gifts Thomas has received at nearly $4.2 million, far exceeding the totals of other justices. "
https://fox59.com/hill-politics/clarence-thomas-fails-to-disclose-three-harlan-crow-trips-senate-records-show/

Bestest Justice Evar.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

As corrupt, imperious, and disingenuous as he is obsolete and disaffected.

His obituary will lead with his ethical failures and the Supreme Court reforms they precipitated.

[grb]

I remain impressed by the irony of this. Back when Thomas was a young man on the make in Right-Wing-World, he hit upon the perfect branding tool: While giving a speech to a winger group, he brutally trashed his own sister as a welfare leech. Of course the tactic worked; the crowd cheered and cheered. It might have been the deciding factor when Reagan gave him an administration position a few months later.

Now, the sister did go thru a rough period over three years while caring for a sick relative, but has been a respectable & productive citzen before and since. Meanwhile, Thomas proved to be the welfare queen. Thomas is the one who can’t live within his means. He's the member of the family who’s alway has his palm out. He's the one addicted to freebies & handouts.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Good points, but I doubt you are scoring many points with Blackman, Volokh, Bernstein, or the other Federalist Societeers at this white, male, movement conservative blog.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I checked out an old post from 2010 and Blackman was just an ordinary commenter with a Disqus account!! Pretty crazy!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Blackman is still just an ordinary commenter.

Leo's wingnut cash bought him a (dead end) position and (shitty) title but it can't buy him any credibility, reputation, integrity, or ability. And the guy who placed him atop this soapbox is an early cashout from academia.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

lol no one cares whatever message the commies at State or the IC are pushing.

Otherwise, great comment!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Any else notice how our powerfully diverse military can’t stop a bunch of 2nd century goat fuckers from blowing up ships in the Red Sea?

I bet every ship commander there is some AA diversity promotion.

Diversity is our strength! Enlisting and promoting a bunch of homos, trannies, and Yaaaas Quueeens keeps our warfighters ready! So capable!!

From $500M piers to nowhere to getting dunked on by a bunch of cavemen (not once but multiple times) the Mighty US Diverse Military is so feared!!

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Remember when Trump’s first military order resulted in SEAL Team 6 assassinating a little American girl and 9 of her little friends?? And Trump sacrificed a SEAL for the mission and nothing of value was recovered…that was weird, right??

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Probably less weird then when Obama sacrificed that whole entire SEAL team for an election prop.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

America's military hasn't won a war in more than 75 years. The problem seems to drawling, half-educated, low-character, rural recruits rather than anything associated with diversity. If we want a strong military we will need to institute a draft or find a way to attract a better class of people -- rather than a bunch of hayseeds from red states --- to military service.

[Commenter_XY]

Sure, hamas has no support, lol.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-support-for-hamas-on-the-rise-among-palestinians-now-double-fatahs/

This is why they must be utterly defeated, and seen as utterly defeated throughout the arab world.

[Sarcastr0]

Like we defeated the Taliban and Al Qaeda?

Grand pronouncements don't make things more possible.

Israel is learning the lesson we did - when it comes to fighting a counterinsurgency, don't.

[Michael Ejercito]

And the alternative is what?

Let them take more hostages?

[Commenter_XY]

America incompetently fought both. Israel is not America. The circumstances are not the same (geographically).

It is a formal war goal.

Israel doesn't have a choice, it is an existential fight.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If that is true, Israel is finished.

Bacon cheeseburgers for everyone! On a Friday, ideally

[Frank Drackman]

Wrong as usual, I'd say you're like a stopped clock, but you're not even right that often.
We were fighting A-rab Terrorists literally on the other side of the World.
Israel is fighting A-rab Terrorists literally in their back yard.
We love Hypotheticals here, 5,000 Mexicans fly gliders into El Paso, murder 3, 000 Amuricans, you think even Sleepy Joe doesn't fuck the shit out of Ciudad Juarez?
Umm, Bad Example, he probably wouldn't he'd say

"Sure, 3,000 Amuricans murdered by Mexican Terrorists, but how many are murdered by Amuricans with AR-15s" (a few hundred maybe, almost all people who need to be murdered)

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

Ah. Expand the scope to the entire Arab world but be more competent than the US when you do it.

Seems like you’ve cracked the problem wide open!

[tylertusta]

Israel is learning the lesson we did – when it comes to fighting a counterinsurgency, don’t.

Some wars are winnable, including some insurgencies.

Some are not, including some insurgencies.

If the lesson you took from the war in Afghanistan is to not fight against insurgencies, then that was the wrong lesson.

[Sarcastr0]

The lesson I took is don't take an insurgency head on with military force.

Oh hay guess what Israel's only plan seems to be. And guess how they're doing.

[tylertusta]

Like I said, you've learned the wrong lesson.

And you misunderstand the nature of the conflict that Israel is fighting: they aren't fighting an insurgency in Gaza. They're fighting a conventional and guerrilla war.

There's no insurgency in Gaza because Israel isn't trying to setup a governing presence there. Yet. If they bother to do it.

Insurgencies come later, once the dust settles and scores are to be settled.

[Nige]

'Let's create the perfect conditions for decades of bloody insurgency!' Great idea.

[tylertusta]

I would be perfectly happy if there was a Palestinian insurgency against the Hamas government.

If Israel can make that happen by doing what they're doing now, we should give them all of the help they need.

[Nige]

I'm sure a bloody civil war breaking out in Palestine would be delightful to lots of people, but those people are psychotic idiots. They also think that Israel killing thousands and thousands of Gazans will primarily make Gazans ready to fight Hamas, or that even if Hamas is overthrown, whatever replaces it will be well-disposed towards Israel.

[tylertusta]

I'm sure a lot of people would rather Hamas be allowed to continue raping and murdering Jews, but those people are psychotic idiots.

[Nige]

Yes, both those sets of people have a lot in common.

[NOVA Lawyer]

If Israel can make that happen by doing what they’re doing now, we should give them all of the help they need.

You do realize the OP indicated that support for Hamas is growing. Why might support for Hamas be growing? Could it be Israel's tactics?

Before the war support for Hamas was 20%. Now it's 40% according to that poll. Doubled antipathy to Israel among Palestinians. Great job, Netanyahu!

[Don Nico]

" Could it be Israel’s tactics?"
Or could it be the well financed Hamas propaganda campaign, that so many naive students have bitten into?

By the way, tomorrow is the anniversary of the US bombing raid on Tokyo that killed 100,000 people in one night. Bombing was especially heavy in residential districts.

[Nige]

I’m not sure how much hamas propaganda is required to tell you that some Israeli bombs or rockets just killed most of your family.

And the anniversary is to be used to inspire people to emulate it, reproduce it, celebrate it?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Or could it be the well financed Hamas propaganda campaign, that so many naive students have bitten into?

Seriously. Do you think that propaganda is helped or hurt by Netanyahu's and the IDF's actions since October 7th?

[Don Nico]

NoVA,
Of course, Israel's action play into the propaganda narrative. That is by the deliberate design of Hamas. But Israel actually had little choice.

[NOVA Lawyer]

But Israel actually had little choice.

Why does this remind me of all the times Republicans want to do something objectively unethical/immoral/unconstitutional and they always say it's not their fault, they were forced to do it?

Israel did have a choice. Just like they had a choice whether to help fund Hamas or not and Netanyahu chose to help fund them. That was a bad choice. Objectively.

I think currently they are making a bad choice.

It's almost always a cop-out to say an individual or government had no choice but to X. There are almost always choices. And there definitely was after October 7. There is now. It's a cop-out to say Israel had no choice.

[Mr. Bumble]

That's been the Hamas plan.

[tylertusta]

Hamas's plan was to start a war, and then the Israeli counterreaction was going to draw in Israel's Arab neighbors. Those Arab nations would attack and destroy the Israeli state, allowing Hamas and the Palestinians to wipe out the Jews.

They succeeded in starting a war. Unfortunately for Hamas, it turns out that the Arab nations aren't interested in fighting a war with Israel.

[Mr. Bumble]

Could be that when they tried that in the past they came up losers.

[tylertusta]

Yep. Israel's Arab neighbors realized several things in the decades since the war in 47: Palestinians are bad refugees and the Israelis will leave Arab nations alone if they leave Israel alone in turn.

It took several decades and hundreds of thousands of deaths for those lessons to sink in.

The only people to not learn those lessons are the Palestinians.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Israeli terrorists in the West Bank -- superstition-addled, bigoted, violent assholes supported by a superstition-drunk, bigoted, violent Netanyahu government -- refute your stupid lies every day, clinger.

Not necessarily for much longer, though. Without American skirts to hide behind, Israel's right-wing belligerents might stop being a criminal problem for the rest of the world.

Fire up the grills. Bacon cheeseburgers!

[Sarcastr0]

I disagree with your definition of insurgence - Israel is occupying large parts of Gaza and trying to pacify the whole region.

But semantics are a distraction. What doctrine do you see would succeed in wiping out Hamas? I think there were some nonconventional options early on but at this point you can’t get there from here.

[ThePublius]

It's a very difficult situation. Hamas are dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the extermination of Jews. That's, but definition, an existential threat to Israelis and Jews.

So, you prosecute this war, and then, when 'victory' is achieved, you go about the business of "mopping up" - assassination of remaining Hamas, perhaps by Mossad. Then, very aggressive activism, culturally, to eradicate this Jew and Israel hatred among Palestinians in Gaza. It will take generations. It should start with the schools.

I don't see much chance of success.

[Nige]

'Then, very aggressive activism, culturally, to eradicate this Jew and Israel hatred among Palestinians in Gaza.'

The brutal pie-eyed propaganda of this. You're not going to make people whose families you've killed and whose homes and businesses you've destroyed and whose country you have stomped into the mud as if it were a nest of insects not hate you with 'aggressive activism' while continuing to kill and destroy and stomp.

[Sarcastr0]

I agree with your last paragraph, and most of your first (existential threat to Israel seems well beyond Hamas' power; doesn't mean they shouldn't be wiped out).

But your middle plan is very flawed.
1) no clear demarcation of what victory means,
2) your sense of intelligence to allow the targeting of 'remaining Hamas' suffers from both lack of realism and a muddy definition of who counts as Hamas.
3) have reeducation camps ever worked?
4) the harsh measures you lay out would make Israel a pariah state. It may be on its way there already, but its current glide path is decades and not quite assured; this would make the timeline years and lock it in.

[Don Nico]

So you effectively consider leaving a terrorist group in control of Gaza. Admit it because that is as deep as your "analysis" goes.

How about Israel reintroducing Fatah into Gaza and having them kill Hamasniks? Fatah fights with Hamas are as recent as a dozen years ago. But with the help of Mossad, Fatah could be far more effective
Maybe that is a 2-state solution that Abbas would agree to.

[Nige]

Well, leaving a terrorist group in charge of Gaza was the policy that lead to this, so perhaps the people who thought that was a good policy should not be listened to any more, and probably should not be allowed to keep proposing and executing stupid wasteful and horrific policies.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm sorry that the only plans I see are bad ones; Israel truly has tied itself in a knot.

Describing is not the same as endorsing.

[NOVA Lawyer]

What Nige said.

you effectively consider leaving a terrorist group in control of Gaza. Admit it because that is as deep as your “analysis” goes.

A common tactic with you: Put words in someone else's mouth.

No, I don't agree with Netanyahu's policy of helping keep a terrorist group in charge and well funded. Weird that you apparently hate that policy but haven't a word to say against Netanyahu, but would rather make up the beliefs of people who don't blindly support the regime that brought you this mess.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

So long as Israel is controlled by bigoted, superstitious, violent right-wing assholes, I will be rooting against Israel and its government. One way or the other.

No free swings, clingers.

[NOVA Lawyer]

very aggressive activism, culturally, to eradicate this Jew and Israel hatred among Palestinians in Gaza

You do realize the OP pointed to evidence that support for Hamas (i.e., hatred of Jews) has doubled (from 20% to 40%) among Palestinians since the start of the war?

I'm pretty sure you can't get where you would like Israel to go (getting Palestinians not to hate them) by first radicalizing over half of Palestinians against Israel. Sometimes it's true that things have to get worse before they get better, but I don't think that's the case with intergroup hatred that is "solved" by one group killing vast numbers of the other group.

[tylertusta]

I mean, you can disagree with the dictionary, but it doesn't change the fact that what Israel is fighting now is something that is wholly different from traditional insurgencies like Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Chechnya, etc.

You call it a distraction, but it's actually a very important distinction.

Insurgencies are characterized as a rebellion against an established government. The tactics used to fight an insurgency are very, very different from fighting a conventional or guerrilla war. Conventional forces aren't especially useful against an insurgency for all of the reasons that you're thinking of: you make more enemies when you're trying to keep the population on your side.

But Israel isn't trying to win over the Gazan people. They're in a foreign country wiping out its government, military, and material capability to wage war. Conventional forces are very, very good at achieving that. Insurgencies don't save governments, they try to end them.

What doctrine do you see would succeed in wiping out Hamas?

Israel hasn't said that "wiping out Hamas" is their goal. They said that they want to rescue the remaining hostages and to dismantle Hamas's rule over Gaza. Those are both very difficult goals, but they are achievable ones with conventional military forces.

It's the what comes next that would allow for an insurgency. If Hamas's rule over Gaza is broken, who steps in? An Israel-backed government? The PLO? UN Peacekeepers?

Whomever steps foot in Gaza to rebuild it is going to have to deal with an actual insurgency against them.

[Nige]

Exactly. The whole thing is an horrific shitshow that won't solve anything.

[tylertusta]

Quite the contrary: this is going to solve a lot.

If Israel can smash Hamas's material capability to wage war (the tunnels, underground factories, smuggling exits into Egypt) and if Israel can kill/capture Hamas's leaders and soldiers in Gaza, Hamas will have to take time to rebuild back into a fighting force.

If Israel also simultaneously offloads Gaza to another country to deal with, then Israel won't have to deal with the resulting insurgency. If Israel can pull that off, they might very well buy themselves years of relative peace as Hamas and other terrorist groups struggle to reassert themselves in the postwar Gaza.

Already much of Hamas's organized military forces have been destroyed. It's going to take quite a while for Hamas to recruit and train competent soldiers.

[Nige]

This is whistling past a whole series of mass graves.

'they might very well buy themselves years of relative peace'

They HAD years of relative peace. Turns out it was bullshit. So maybe this whole hard-right extremist militaristic approach is bullshit.

[tylertusta]

How do you suggest that we get Hamas and Israel to stop killing each other?

Realistic answers only. The floor is yours, Nige.

[Nige]

Oh, I’m sorry, you want me to run up a complete Middle East peace plan in a comment? Always the cop-out when it’s incontrovertible how fucking disastrous current and recent policy has been and is, and how obvious it is that it's only going to make things worse. First suggestion: abandon the failed current and recent policies. Fire everyone responsible.

[tylertusta]

How is it a cop-out? You seem to have all of the answers already, so why not share them with us?

Come on now. Surely you have something besides "stop the fighting?"

[Nige]

No, you claim to know the answer, and the only answer, but the answer you're proposing and supporting is just the same answer as before, only with even more people dying.

I gather you were not pampered and spoiled like some of the rest of us but grew up in some war-torn hellhole where you learned the harsh life-lessons that only by escalating violence can you hope to stop escalating violence, and when it doesn't work, you just escalate some more.

Any other solution will, of course, not be simple, or easy. But 'just keep killing' IS simple and easy! Yay!

[tylertusta]

How do you propose to stop the killing?

[Nige]

I expect a decades-long peace process might be better than blowing up families. At, y'know, stopping killing.

[tylertusta]

Ok, so how does it start? A cease fire?

[Nige]

Well it's not going to start while families are being wiped out.

[tylertusta]

Lets say that a cease fire starts.

Hamas then takes a potshot at Israel and kills a bunch of Israeli civilians with a rocket.

What then?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Hamas then takes a potshot at Israel and kills a bunch of Israeli civilians with a rocket.

You realize that Hamas has fired more rockets since the war started? And that other groups, like Hezbollah have fired more rockets at Israel since the war. If you are truly worried about rocket attacks, what Israel is doing doesn’t seem to be helping that situation.

But, as importantly, despite an estimated 19,000 rockets fired at Israel, I am unable to find, in a quick search, any news story saying any Israeli citizens have been killed by Hamas rockets (or Hezbollah rockets for that matter). (Wikipedia has a list of Hamas rocket attacks. Out of 19,000, it appears two Israelis were killed.) So the likelihood of your "what if" scenario happening appears to be close to nil.

Also, that would serve only to strengthen Israel’s moral position that Hamas must go. Maybe the 20% of Palestinians who supported Hamas prior to October 7 would have gone down to 10% instead of up to 40%. The current Netanyahu policy is about immediate gratification (and his own self-interest), not solving any long-term problem. We should at least be clear-eyed about that.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This is going to arrange the withdrawal of the American skirts Israel has been operating and hiding behind for decades.

That seems likely to solve a lot.

Perhaps relatively quickly.

Bad things can't happen to Israel's right-wing belligerents too quickly or too severely.

[Nige]

'What then?'

Then it wasn't a ceasefire. But if anyone actually wants peace, there needs to be a way to avoid de-escalation while still treating the violence seriously. This would mostly involve international arbiters, peacekeepers, sanctions, embargos, whatever approach or combination of approaches would be effective in disarming, defunding and marginalising Hamas.

[tylertusta]

Nige: Then it wasn’t a ceasefire ... This would mostly involve international arbiters, peacekeepers, sanctions, embargos, whatever approach or combination of approaches would be effective in disarming, defunding and marginalising Hamas.

Ok, so Hamas isn't abiding by a ceasefire. Hamas is already largely defunded, marginalized, and sanctions, and that hasn't stopped them already. Indeed, all that's left to cut off at this point are the food and medical shipments to the city, and I'm positive you don't want to do that.

So you send in peacekeepers... to do what, I'm not sure, but l'm assuming they aren't there to battle Hamas. Perhaps they'll do something like knock on the doors to Hamas's bunker complex and ask nicely that they stop shooting.

What happens when they Hamas shoots the peacekeepers, or takes them hostage? What is the response if Hamas refuses to accept a ceasefire and keeps shooting at Israel?

Let's assume that Israel is somehow just sitting there taking it on the chin with rockets blowing up a new school full of children in Israel day after day. Hamas is the one killing children every day but Israel is not.

NOVA Lawyer: You realize that...

You realize that this is a hypothetical, right?

[Nige]

What if, what if, what if, don't overdetermine your hyopthetical, it gives the game away.

'I’m not sure, but l’m assuming they aren’t there to battle Hamas.'

That would be the opposite of a peacekeeping role.

'What happens when they Hamas shoots the peacekeepers, or takes them hostage? What is the response if Hamas refuses to accept a ceasefire and keeps shooting at Israel?'

Then I expect there would be a lot of very careful negotiations.

'Hamas is the one killing children every day but Israel is not.'

This is, of course, a counterfactual. Israel is currently killing all the children every day. The peacekeepers may have more to worry about from Israel than Hamas.

[tylertusta]

Then I expect there would be a lot of very careful negotiations.

Assume that Hamas is now executing the 'peacekeepers.'

Hamas is now demanding weapons- rockets, mortars, high explosives, mines- in exchange for the lives of peacekeepers and will continue to do so until they get weapons.

What happens now? Negotiation has failed- this is now straight-up blackmail.

This is, of course, a counterfactual. Israel is currently killing all the children every day. The peacekeepers may have more to worry about from Israel than Hamas.

Assume Israel stops any offensive action, yet Hamas does not.

I've cleaned up my hypothetical to reduce confusion.

[Nige]

Suppose they don't do that. Phew! Bullet dodged.

[tylertusta]

Suppose they do. Dead peacekeepers. Hamas demanding weapons in exchange for the rest.

What next?

[NOVA Lawyer]

You realize that this is a hypothetical, right?

You realize an unrealistic hypothetical is a bad argument?

But I see you kept spewing them, so apparently you don't.

You seem to think it's clever to ask what if a bunch of unlikely bad things happened. An equally valid retort is what if a bunch good things happened. What if de-escalation resulted in Palestinians getting a government responsive to their needs and they turned away from Hamas instead of (like after the IDF's killing of lots of civilians) turning to Hamas? What if a ceasefire followed by peacekeepers actually kept the peace?

We can do hypotheticals all day. Yes, if a strategy that does not involve killing thousands and likely tens of thousands of strategies fails, then that's less than ideal. But if a strategy that does not involve killing thousands or tens of thousands succeeds, that's good. How has that conversation moved the ball forward for you?

Again, the OP pointed out that Palestinians went from 20% pro-Hamas prior to the IDF killing thousands of civilians and causing incredible hardship for Palestinians to 40% pro-Hamas support after the IDF's actions. That's not a hypothetical, that's an actual data point that the IDF's tactics are making long-term peace less likely. More Palestinians support terrorism now than before the IDF used the tactics they have. You have to deal with that. That can't be answered by fanciful hypotheticals.

[Sarcastr0]

Insurgencies are violence against not neccessarily the established government, just established authority.

I do not see how this distinction matters. The asymmetries in power are the same.

Israel [is]...in a foreign country wiping out its government, military, and material capability to wage war
Hamas is in no way the current government of Gaza.

Israel hasn’t said that “wiping out Hamas” is their goal.
Just "war to the end" and "absolute victory." Come one, man.

Bottom line - I do not believe that if presented with information that all the hostages were either freed or dead they would pull out, do you?

Israel is in a bind very similar to Iraq and Afghanistan, and its frankly denial to claim otherwise.The wack-a-mole has already begun with Hamas popping back up in the north of Gaza after that area was cleared.

[Don Nico]

"Hamas is in no way the current government of Gaza."
Maybe not exactly at the present. But where have you been since 2006? Besides moving goalposts.
You conveniently forget that there are other Arabs in the regions that are not Iranian sock-puppets,

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not talking about 2006.

There have been recent developments that have really changed the game in the area.

[Don Nico]

"There have been recent developments that have really changed the game in the area."
Those developments are the IDF. We all know that. For the camplus shitheads still think that Hamas runs Gaza.

[Sarcastr0]

This is not the thread about campus shitheads, so this is not relevant. And I don't know if Hamas' authority is really much on their self-righteous minds.

[David Nieporent]

Hamas is in no way the current government of Gaza.

It is in every way the current government of Gaza. De facto rather than de jure, of course.

[Sarcastr0]

They are mostly in hiding and doing asymmetric warfare stuff; I don't see how they are governing much de facto or de jure.

[tylertusta]

Insurgencies are violence against not neccessarily the established government, just established authority.

I do not see how this distinction matters. The asymmetries in power are the same.

It's not about asymmetries in power. Neo-marxist worldviews are not going to help you understand what is happening here.

Has Israel imposed their authority on the Gazan people? Are they governing or ruling them? Outside of the refugees that Israel currently has under their charge, the answer is no.

Hamas is in no way the current government of Gaza.

Even Wikipedia says you're wrong.

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

Just “war to the end” and “absolute victory.” Come one, man.

Clearly you haven't looked too closely at the situation. I suggest you dig deeper. I suggest you start searching in different time periods- from 10/8 until late November, from November until March, and then from March until present. You'll find different goals and aims, and they change over time as Israel's invasion progressed.

Bottom line – I do not believe that if presented with information that all the hostages were either freed or dead they would pull out, do you?

If Israel got the rest of the hostages out and if they wrecked Hamas, they'd pull out.

Israel even did it once before in 2009. I suggest you look up that war because there are some distinct parallels between that war and the current one.

Israel is in a bind very similar to Iraq and Afghanistan, and its frankly denial to claim otherwise

Only if they stick around.

You may be too young to remember this, but the Iraq War was was two distinct phases: large-scale combat operations, and the follow-on insurgency.

The first one was a conventional and guerrilla war where the coalition sought to destroy the Iraqi army, capture or kill the government, and control the geography of the country. That was completed in roughly 45 days. It was the resulting insurgency took the better part of a decade to stamp out.

Afghanistan had a similar trajectory: large-scale combat operations to drive out the Taliban government and military, but then the follow-on insurgency was never defeated.

Israel's current situation is currently analogous to the initial invasion phases. If Israel sticks around, they will definitely have an insurgency to deal with. However, Israel is unlikely to do so. They previously tried to deal with a Palestinian insurgency and decided that pulling out of Gaza was the better course of action, so they did in 2006.

[Sarcastr0]

Neo-marxist worldviews sorry I don't know what this means.

You’ll find different goals and aims, and they change over time as Israel’s invasion progressed. Ah so don't listen to the quotes, trust only your importantly different take ('wreck[] Hamas?')

Your argument that this is a guerrilla war with the victory condition of 'save all the hostages' and 'wreck Hamas' does not really allow Israel to pull out anytime soon with those conditions met. They can declare victory and pull out anytime; but that's true of counterinsurgency operations as well.
Your distinction remains immaterial.

[tylertusta]

sorry I don’t know what this means.

I'm referring to the Marxist theory of international relations. Whereas classical Marxist view of international relations is of the class disparity, Neo-marxism is a more distilled, reductive view of mere raw power asymmetry.

It's unhelpful because a power asymmetries are ultimately meaningless for describing wars. Peer nations can fight guerrilla wars, and weak nations can conventionally defeat larger ones. Some wars have different theaters and overlapping sub-conflicts that are fought in different ways concurrently with each other. A much better classification of wars isn't a power disparity, but rather a holistic definition based on the weapons, tactics, strategy, and context of the conflict.

A war involving small teams of infantry fighting against a mechanized, combined arms opponent is either conventional, guerrilla, or both depending on the exact tactics used.

Suffice to say, the conflict in Gaza right now is not an insurgency. Hamas is using convention and unconventional forces and using conventional and guerrilla tactics to fight in the war.

Ah so don’t listen to the quotes, trust only your importantly different take

Yes, countries will put out propaganda. The best you can do is see how their public statements changed. As I said, go check for yourself. Don't take my word for it- do a Google search bounded by various dates and you'll see how their rhetoric and war aims were then versus now.

A good example of another conflict with this is what has happened in Ukraine. If you asked Russia what their goal was on the first day of the war in 2022, they would say it was to liberate Ukraine from the Nazis in Kiev. Ask them six months later, it was to liberate the Donbas. Ask them now, and it's to hold on to what they have.

But their *actual* war goals was a moving target, was largely private, and quickly became more realistic as the reality of the conflict dawned on the planners in the Kremlin.

They can declare victory and pull out anytime

And if Israel don't want to fight an insurgency, they will do that. The longer they stick around in Gaza, the worse it will get.

[Sarcastr0]

Power assymetry may not determine the outcome of wars, but they sure seem vital to describe them!

After all your words about how policies are not to be gleaned from statements, and tactics are conventional, etc, you end with "if Israel don’t want to fight an insurgency, they will do that. The longer they stick around in Gaza, the worse it will get."

It's been over 8 months.

[tylertusta]

Power assymetry may not determine the outcome of wars, but they sure seem vital to describe them!

I never said that it determines the outcomes. However, it's absolutely useless in describing or categorizing them.

However, if you want to start talking about causes of wars, then you'd have a very valid point that is backed up by academics in the field.

The longer they stick around in Gaza, the worse it will get.”

And they still aren't fighting an insurgency! Perhaps the US should ask the Israelis how to avoid fighting insurgencies in the future.

[Don Nico]

The best chance that Israel has is to come to terms with Fatah, which has been, to the greater extent sitting on the sidelines. Fatah has a deep an long-standing enmity vis a vis Hamas. Of course, they will have to deal with the fact that Gazans preferred Hamas in 2006. Since that time they were raped by Hamas and are not been killed by the IDF (as was hoped by Hamas).
Are Gazans smart enough to embrace other Arab Palestinians?
Is Israel ready to try once more to find a modus operandi with Fatah.
Is Abbas clever enough to know that this is his last best chance as a true leader of Arab Palestinians?
Who knows?

[Mr. Bumble]

Better hurry up because Abbas has one foot in the grave.

[David Nieporent]

Hamas isn't an insurgency. You're misapplying lessons from inanalogous other conflicts.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't see a material distinction in terms Israel attaining victory.

[Don Nico]

"Israel is learning the lesson we did"
More of your strategic brilliance? Sure, you want a Judeocidal terror group to rule in Gaza.

[Sarcastr0]

you want a Judeocidal terror group to rule in Gaza.

I don't, of course.

I believe that the situation sucks and has no evident way out.

I don't know what you believe, at this point.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He toes the right-wing line, predictably and immorally, usually with a heavy dose of childish superstition.

[Don Nico]

Read above.
There are two choices:
1) a single secular state from the river to the sea dominated by an unholy alliance of Likud and Fatah
2) two symbiotic states one governed by Jewish parties and the other governed by Fatah with the support of the jewish states and Sunni Arab states.

[Sarcastr0]

I get you think you have a new silver bullet solution.

I don't know enough to say you don't!

But I do know enough not to accept your obvious false choice here.

[Don Nico]

“your obvious false choice here.”
Typical. Any suggestion that is not yours.. you criticize. When asked for you idea, you refuse or are afraid to say.
Please explain why Mr. Abass would walk away from a deal with Israel that is backed and bank-rolled by the KSA?
Why do you discount any role for Fatah? Again, give hard evidence, don't stamp your feet with an ipse dixit.

You say I give two false options. Prove it. C’mon.
Present a better alternative. Your Master on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. doesn’t have one. Just meally-mouthing about two states.

[Nige]

Is it possible that the current conflict is creating more and more extremists? No! Kill more families!

[tylertusta]

Out of the mouths of babes.

[Nige]

Not the ones blown up by rockets, presumably.

[tylertusta]

Just the ones who live pampered lives and who don't understand the world.

[Sarcastr0]

That’s lost babies.

[Sarcastr0]

Lots of babies, but too late now.

[Nige]

Pampered by not being blown up. Some understanding of the world that is.

[tylertusta]

I love it when people stumble into the correct answer.

Yes. You have not personally experienced war or lived in the middle of a conflict, so you are truly pampered and spoiled.

[Nige]

A bit like if a child isn't beaten and abused they're pampered and spoiled? I would say you are experiencing the very basic level of safety and security and stability every single person should have. Treating it as a luxury is a concession to warmongers and macho fools.

[tylertusta]

If someone were to say that no parent beats their children, and they say that because they never experienced so much as a spanking, I'd call them too pampered and spoiled to understand reality.

It's not warmongering to want to live in peace. Nor is it warmongering to fight back when attacked. Nor is it warmongering to destroy the enemy's capability to destroy you.

But yes, you're too spoiled and pampered and naive to understand the way that the world works. Sometimes force is truly the only option to end a greater evil.

Warm and fuzzies didn't stop Hitler; just ask Chamberlain.

[Nige]

‘If someone were to say that no parent beats their children, and they say that because they never experienced so much as a spanking’

And you have met such a person who said that to you?

‘But yes, you’re too spoiled and pampered and naive to understand the way that the world works’

Ah, yes, the sensible realistic, pragmatic, tough approaches that ultimately gave us… Oct 7th. See also, Afghanistan and Iraq.

‘It’s not warmongering to want to live in peace. Nor is it warmongering to fight back when attacked. Nor is it warmongering to destroy the enemy’s capability to destroy you.’

Perhaps not, but all warmongers say things like that.

‘Sometimes force is truly the only option to end a greater evil.’

That’s just what Hamas said!

‘Warm and fuzzies didn’t stop Hitler’

Oh yes, making concessions to far-right militaristic extremists most definitely did not stop Hitler.

[tylertusta]

And you have met such a person who said that to you?

You come closest, Nige.

Ah, yes, the sensible realistic, pragmatic, tough approaches that ultimately gave us… Oct 7th. See also, Afghanistan and Iraq.

I'm sure the Kuwaitis would love to hear how the coalition was wrong to liberate them in 91, or how the French were better off under Nazi rule in 44.

Perhaps not, but all warmongers say things like that.

Just as all useful idiots start by crying "think of the children!"

That’s just what Hamas said!

Yup. War is complicated and hell. Glad you're starting to understand.

Oh yes, making concessions to far-right militaristic extremists most definitely did not stop Hitler.

I agree. However, you forget that it took a bunch of warmongers to put a stop to the Nazis, including a killing a bunch of babies in Germany's burnt out, destroyed cities.

Should the warmongers have just sat back and let the Nazis have their way with Europe?

[Nige]

'You come closest, Nige.'

So you've never met anyone who said that.

'I’m sure the Kuwaitis would love to hear how the coalition was wrong to liberate them in 91, or how the French were better off under Nazi rule in 44.'

Ah yes, 'good' wars. Not the results of disastrous interventions and international failures, just 'good' wars to mythologise 'good' warfare.

'Just as all useful idiots start by crying “think of the children!”'

Yes, it's useful idiocy not to want to see children die by the thousands.

'War is complicated and hell'

One is not a reason to give up morality, the other is a reason not to have wars.

'However, you forget that it took a bunch of warmongers to put a stop to the Nazis,'

No, it was an alliance of people who really didn't want a war, but whose disastrous approach to avoiding war was to give warmongers what they wanted.

'Should the warmongers have just sat back and let the Nazis have their way with Europe?'

Doing that is what led to WWII.

[tylertusta]

Ah yes, ‘good’ wars. Not the results of disastrous interventions and international failures, just ‘good’ wars to mythologise ‘good’ warfare.

War is sometimes necessary, but it's never good.

One is not a reason to give up morality, the other is a reason not to have wars.

Tell that to Hamas, or Saddam Hussein, or Hitler, or Napoleon, or Darius of Persia.

No, it was an alliance of people who really didn’t want a war, but whose disastrous approach to avoiding war was to give warmongers what they wanted.

So they should have done what, exactly? Please elaborate on what should have happened sooner.

[Nige]

'War is sometimes necessary,'

War is usually the result of fucking idiocy.

'Tell that to Hamas, or Saddam Hussein, or Hitler, or Napoleon, or Darius of Persia.'

Be interesting to hear who was telling the first two what, at least.

'So they should have done what, exactly?'

Isn't it a pity they didn't put Hitler in jail for breaking the law and instead listened to his aggrieved supporters and let him remain in active politics?

[tylertusta]

War is usually the result of fucking idiocy.

Hatred, greed, and/or fear is what causes wars. Idiocy plays its part, but it's distant behind those three.

Isn’t it a pity they didn’t put Hitler in jail for breaking the law ...

They did.

instead listened to his aggrieved supporters and let him remain in active politics?

Instead of one tyrant and his police state, you would replace it with another?

[Nige]

'Hatred, greed, and/or fear is what causes wars. Idiocy plays its part, but it’s distant behind those three.'

You seem to think there's a difference between any of those, and idiocy.

It's weird how fascists have to be appeased and treated as above the law, or else the state is fascist. Then you get, say, WW II. Idiocy.

[tylertusta]

You seem to think there’s a difference between any of those, and idiocy.

Because there is.

It’s weird how fascists have to be appeased and treated as above the law, or else the state is fascist. Then you get, say, WW II. Idiocy.

Who said appeased? Hitler was tossed in jail, and those who took part in the Beer Hall Putsch.

But to arrest his supporters, who did not participate in his crime, is just a crime against them.

[Nige]

'Because there is.'

Not really.

I mean, it's funny, you're pious about how awesome it was to destroy cities but draw the line at a arresting a bunch of murdering fascist street thugs .

[tylertusta]

I mean, it’s funny, you’re pious about how awesome it was to destroy cities but draw the line at a arresting a bunch of murdering fascist street thugs

Never said I was pious for destroying cities. I've said that war is a regrettable necessity sometimes.

Tell me, are you in favor of the death penalty?

[ThePublius]

Or the ones baked in ovens, as on Oct. 7, 2023?

[Nige]

Not them either. You almost got it, there.

[John F. Carr]

Remember that George W. Bush was the most popular president in modern memory because of the 9/11 attacks. That support was not really for Bush, it turned out, but for the office of president in a difficult time. He went on to become the least popular president in modern memory.

Hamas has the poll numbers because Hamas is "us" and not "them" in the ongoing war. The goal of the West and Israel is to find a non-terrorist or at least less terrorist Palestinian group to transfer that support to.

[Nige]

Which is a good goal, but you're not going to find many non-terrorists when you're killing so many members of everyones' families.

[apedad]

You're not going to find many international supporters either.

[shawn_dude]

Nor are you going to find any Palestinian faction that would ally in even the smallest way with Israel after demolishing Gaza, killing families, and forcing even more to suffer through disease and starvation. Any such faction would be seen as a puppet government.

[Don Nico]

"Nor are you going to find any Palestinian faction"
You don't know that. And it has not been tried. Have you figured out yet why Mahmoud Abbas has been so quiet.

[Nige]

Let's let them kill thousands more chidlren, then maybe they'll be lining up.

[Currentsitguy]

The only thing that is on my mind is my Xterra blew a clutch flid line two days ago and I have to leave tomorrow morning and drive close to 300 miles to near Lancaster, PA for a Penn State Master Gardeners seminar so it looks like I have to cram myself, my wife, and all of our stuff into our RHD 93 Suzuki Cappuccino, which looks like a Miata if you put one in the dryer and shrunk it.

Should be a pretty drive but the motel at the end may need grease and a crowbar to get us back out after close to 6 hours.

The top normally fits in the trunk but we’re going to have luggage, laptops , etc. and there’s a good chance of rain, so I can’t leave it home. Looks like a non-convertible trip unfortunately and I just cut the AC belt last week to get the alternator belt replaced and I haven’t picked up the tool to loosen the AC compressor to get that belt back on yet.

With the heat wave coming I may learn how little clothing you can wear while driving and not get pulled over.

I might get a spray bottle and fill it with ice water and have my wife keep spraying us down. ????

[ThePublius]

You could rent an SUV.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Just how far into the sticks do Hertz and Enterprise venture in these scaled-back days?

This is another reason smart, productive, educated people choose modern, strong, educated, urban or suburban communities rather than desolate, can’t-keep-up rural and southern stretches.

[Currentsitguy]

Not too many hicks own or drive rare, exotic, imported antique foreign sports cars. They're more the jacked up monster truck types.

I'd rent, but right now I'm a bit overextended for about 3 weeks due to a lot of unforeseen last minute expenses selling my mom's house. It is what it is.

It just came at a bad time. Also in the process of restoring our Mini Cooper or I'd take that.

[ThePublius]

That sucks about busting a clutch line. I was never a fan of a hydraulic clutch. It's really much more maintenance than a cable or rod, and when they go, they can be an expensive nightmare to fix. For example, my BMW R1100RT motorcycle has a cable clutch. In subsequent model years they went to hydraulic. The slave cylinders will fail, and when they do, they spray hydraulic fluid all over the flywheel and clutch disc, necessitating the replacement of the latter!

How old was that clutch line? I find that few people ever have hydraulic lines replaced, particularly brake lines, until they fail. Ten years is tops, in my opinion.

Good luck.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yeah, nothing like having to drop the transfer case and transmission to replace a $30 part on a Ford 4x4.

[John F. Carr]

A respectable failure, at least. My car was out of action because of a dead battery. To fix my older car I could unscrew two wingnuts and swap batteries and be on my way in the time it took to go to Autozone and back. Replacing my newer car's battery is not a DIY job. Not a AAA battery replacement service job. After disassembling the engine to get at the battery you need to tell the computer the battery has been replaced. Talking to the computer requires a special tool rather than touching a button on the touchscreen. Fortunately we have "right to repair" and I could take it to a mechanic instead of a dealer.

[ThePublius]

Yikes! What kind of car, may I ask?

That's reminiscent of a tale a friend told me about replacing headlight bulb on his Toyota Prius. $600! Required all kinds of machinations, including disconnecting the "big" battery, etc.

I have a 2013 Honda Crosstour that I'm hoping will last forever. So far, so good: tires, brakes, oil changes, a wheel bearing, and that's it so far.

My 2008 BMW X3 suffered 27 different issues while I had it, that last requiring a repair exceeding the value of the car. Never again!

[John F. Carr]

My car is a Mini, made by BMW without the prestige or stigma of the BMW logo. Other modern cars require computer intervention for other parts that used to be purely mechanical jobs.

I changed a headlight bulb on a 2008 Prius not too long ago. The only difficulties were mechanical, getting the dumb old analog light bulb into place.

[Don Nico]

I ran my 2007 BMW x5 for 15 years with any such problems. You got a lemon.

[grb]

“The Taste of Things” is a glorious movie to watch. A French film, it has Juliette Binoche & Benoît Magimel as leads and is by Anh Hung Tran, the Vietnamese-born French director.

First and formost, it’s about the sensuous joy of serious cooking and eating. The opening scenes go on&on with minimal clipped dialog as a meal of multiple courses is systematically preapared and cooked. The setting is late 1880s France, and Magimel is an aristocrat living in a comfortable house in the country. He’s an elite gourmet, who partially cooks for himself & partially supervises his equally talented chef Binoche, who’s been with him over twenty years.

They are also lovers, but with ambivalance. Magimel repeatedly proposes to Binoche, but she always turns him down. He goes to her room at night, but the door may be locked or open. Part of the teasing fascination of this gentle thoughtful film is questioning what makes a relationship. Cooking shoulder to shoulder, enjoying a moonlit evening together at day’s end, (and adding that chef-with-benefits aspect), they are closer than 99% of man&wife couples. After he finally gets her to say yes, Binoche asks him if she’s wife or cook. He hestitates, answers “cook”, and she is radiant with joy. Of course radiance comes easy to Juliette Binoche.

There’s also a greek-style chorus of Magimel’s four friends, men united with him in the pursuit of the perfect meal. There’s a young cook’s assistant and her ethereally pretty young niece, who is obviously a future master chef. It is a slow lingering film to savor, but driven by a quiet intensity. I kinda liked it!

[Paladin_44]

Thanks for the review. Most anything with Binoche is worthwhile.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

She sounds like quite a dish.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Before his work escaped that lab in Wuhan, here's Fauci bragging about illegally funding Gain of Function research.

https://twitter.com/HansMahncke/status/1800860853279080660

Why isn't he being held accountable?

[M L]

Just another professional liar of the Washington D.C. establishment. But more than that he is an evil guy. Reminds me of this:

"James Clapper's perjury, and why DC made men don't get charged for lying to Congress

In DC, perjury is not simply tolerated, it is rewarded. In a city of made men and women, nothing says loyalty quite as much as lying under oath." https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/19/james-clappers-perjury-dc-made-men-dont-get-charged-lying-congress-jonathan-turley-column/1045991001/

[BadLib]

Yes, I know it's no longer "Thursday", but there's been no post on the Cargill decision so here I am...

Alito's concurrence asserts:

There can be little doubt that the Congress that enacted 26 U. S. C. §5845(b) would not have seen any material difference between a machinegun and a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock.

I don't think this is at all true. A machine gun can be held in much more flexible ways and still fire at a high rate of speed until its ammunition supply is exhausted (or it malfunctions). A bump stock is far more constrained it its use.

Try, for example, to hold a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock around a corner and fire it rapidly using the bump stock without exposing anything but your hands and arms. Now do the same with a true machinegun. If you're shooting at me, I'm definitely hoping you chose the bump stock route as I know you're going to quickly discover you can't fire it rapidly holding it that way.

(Also, doesn't anyone proofread these opinions before publishing? The syllabus has the sentence:

This argument rests on the mistaken premise that there is a difference between the shooter flexing his finger to pull the trigger and pushing the firearm forward to bump the trigger against his stationary trigger.

I assume the "Reporter of Decisions" meant to include the word "finger" before the closing sentence as I checked my high school biology book and didn't find an external human body part called a "trigger".

[ThePublius]

I'm doubly confused now. Is Alito saying there's no diff between a mg and bs?

[ThePublius]

But, be that as it may, I think machine guns should be just as legal as any other firearm, as that is what the U.S. armed forces use, and the civilian populace should be able to so equip themselves. Some even argue that they are required to by federal law, regarding the militia.

[Sarcastr0]

Good luck with that.

Easy to type smooth ideals from the Internet. In real life, this is not a viable policy for reasons that should be obvious.

There is a nobility in tilting and windmills, but realize that by leaving common cause behind you have become an idealogue, not an idealist.
Don Quixote was a satire, after all.

[ThePublius]

Perhaps baby steps. The Marine Corps. adopted the M16-A2, which is selective fire except that instead of full-auto, it fires three shot bursts. Maybe that's a first step.

Know that for a long time machine guns were available, up until the gangster era. You could order a Thompson submachine gun from the Sears catalog and the US post office would deliver it to your door.

[Sarcastr0]

I’m not talking about America for a few decades after their invention, though gun laws had a lot of variance back then too.

Anyhow, you can keep hoping but just don’t be bitter if it’s not moving the direction you want it to.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Great mind reading comment!

[Nige]

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/14/weather/heat-dome-summer-hurricane-climate/index.html

[ThePublius]

And?

[Nige]

If you're Ron DeSantis you pass legislation removing all references to climate change from Florida state law. Then Florida gets hit by a rain bomb.

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha. There is no such thing as a rain bomb, heat dome, or any of this other alarmist, sensationalist nonsense. It's just weather, and it's been going on forever.

I assume when you use the term "climate change" you are saying that it's caused by human activity? More nonsense.

[Nige]

There's no such thing as rain, snow, fog, ice, wind - it's all just weather!

A heat dome is a weather phenomenon of extreme heat caused by the atmosphere trapping hot ocean air.

A weather bomb is an unofficial term for a low pressure system whose central pressure falls 24 millibars in 24 hours in a process known as explosive cyclogenesis.

But they don't exist! And never happen! Except, recently, in Dubai, Sydney, Florida, California, Mexico, Western Europe, and North Africa!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Yeah in a system with a million variables Da ScIEnCE has determined the sole cause is something the which makes up 0.0003% of one of them.

lol your religion is stupid

[Nige]

Oh no, the racist anti-semite doesn't understand climate change.

[grb]

Now that Trump's brain has rotted to the consistancy of worm-ridden mush, there's new comedy every day. Within the past week we've had electric boats, sharks, ruminations on the Trump-Pelosi romance that never was, and (just yesterday) Trump unveiling a new debate stategy during an interview:

“Maybe I’m better off losing the debate, I’ll make sure he stays. I’ll lose the debate on purpose, maybe I’ll do something like that.”

Hard to figure. Trump's so far out in front of Biden on the shark question and all Hannibal Lecter-related issues, he must have the debate already locked-up. Wanna know what's really hilarious? Trump's booklickers and lickspittles in this forum will probably run with that excuse. Hell, Kazinski will probably write a treatise on the genius of it all.

[ThePublius]

You are obsessed with Trump. TDS.

Now do Biden.

[Nige]

When was the last time you 'did' Trump?

[ThePublius]

I have two words for you, and they aren't 'happy birthday.'

[Nige]

Do Trump! Do Trump! Do Trump!

[ThePublius]

Watch this and tell me you don't think Biden is senile, or has Alzheimers.

https://x.com/charliespiering/status/1801677881107497043?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1801677881107497043%7Ctwgr%5E0105c9e4b5150e7082b7d88ef92b707b1de92f5f%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F653279%2F

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Yall constitutional scholars maybe surprised to discover this but apparently the constitution sets out that the DOJ is a superior department over Congress and has the power and authority to decide what is a legitimate Congressional interest or not.

I can’t remember the article or amendment that describes this DOJ supremacy but it must be in there somewhere.

I think the DOJ should become a self funded independent agency that way this critical function can operate without political interference. The head should also be on 10 year appointments with no clauses for removal to protect its leadership from any political malfeasance.

It's just too important. In fact, there are already 30+ independent agencies many of which are self funded. I think every executive branch department should be made independent and self funded. They are just too important to our Sacred Democracy.

[Nige]

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-covid-propaganda/

[NOVA Lawyer]

FFS.

While the Pentagon saw Washington’s rapidly diminishing influence in the Philippines as a call to action, the withering partnership led American diplomats to plead for caution.

And, so, the CIA lies to them in ways that might cost lives such that, if it ever comes to light which it will and obviously has, will alienate them further. Fire everyone involved. The way you beat China is to be better than China. They gave away free vaccines, so we lied the the vaccines didn't work? What utterly immoral jackass thought that'll help the U.S.?

[David Nieporent]

But Sinovac didn't work very well.

[NOVA Lawyer]

But Sinovac didn’t work very well.

It didn't work as well as other vaccines. It was still better than no vaccine.

If that's the only vaccine available at the time (which it was in some of the targeted countries), it literally kills people to encourage people not take it.

Also, as the article points out, undermining a population's trust of a vaccine tends to undermine trust in all vaccines which is bad for a population's overall and long-term health. It's a bad thing to do.

And, of course, it came out that the U.S. was doing it. So was this program a success? Do we look better or worse compared to China after this campaign? They were giving free vaccines, we were trying to manipulate the populace in a way that likely killed some of them. That is not the way you win hearts and minds. In other words, the end result of this campaign was not just the evil done by discouraging vaccine use, it was a lowered standing for America vis a vis China in the region. Exactly the opposite of the intent.

Everyone responsible for this campaign should be fired.