Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Stephen Lathrop]

Question for Trump threats minimizers—the folks who say pay no attention to extreme stuff he threatens to do, like using the Justice Department to prosecute liberal journalists, or to target legal experts who criticize Trump on television.

Perhaps you believe that is all performative. Have you considered what would happen if Trump won the election backed by a MAGA base who believed he Trump meant what he said, and who insisted that they gave Trump a mandate to do it. Which of Trump’s congressional allies would not be pressuring him to come through on those promises, lest their own election prospects suffer in two years?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not a question of performative, it's a question of it all happening already, and thinking the only way it's going to stop if the people doing it now get a taste of it, too.

[Martinned2]

So you're advocating for the Macron "Let Le Pen run the country so that voters can see her fail" theory of government? (Also known as the Brüning/Von Papen theory)

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure where you got that from.

I'm saying that the MAGA folk think that everything you're accusing Trump of intending to do is being done already by the Democrats, and that all Trump is proposing to do is make it mutual.

The DOJ going after journalists? Targeting opposition lawyers? Already going on.

[Martinned2]

O, sorry, I misread. So we're back to the "every Trumpist accusation against the Democrats is a pre-emptive justification of something they want to do" problem again?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, we're back to, "Democrats attack Trump for proposing to do to them what they're doing to him."

The guy who just nailed him in the balls with brass knuckles sees him reaching for a rock, and screams, "How dare you fight dirty!"

Personally, I'd prefer that Democrats give up the dirty tactics, but not much chance of that as long as they seem to be working.

[Martinned2]

Motivated reasoning is a powerful drug...

(And so is self-delusion, for that matter.)

[Sarcastr0]

And thus via sufficiently motivated delusion, do conservatives justify any action by their own party, no matter how immoral.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why did I even bother linking to examples, when I knew up front you'd pretend they were imaginary?

[Martinned2]

In Sarcastro's defence, the examples you linked don't remotely resemble your description of them, so they might as well be imaginary.

[Riva]

A link discussing Biden’s IRS goons going after political enemies is inapposite to the ridiculous claim that President Trump may abuse his power to go after political enemies? Way to doublespeak. You democrat thugs are surpassing 1984.

[Sarcastr0]

"Biden’s IRS goons"

Riva, your allergy to citing sources continues to really undercut these sick burns of yours.

[Riva]

It's one of the links referenced in the above comment you pathetic gaslighting clown. And not just gaslighting, a frigging idiot too.

[Armchair]

Not "want to do". Already doing.

[Nige]

If you really thought that, you'd want to stop it happening, not perpetuate it.

[CountmontyC]

One way to stop such behavior is to return the behavior in kind. If a person attacks me i reserve the right to fight back. If they punch or kick me i reserve the right to punch or kick back. If they know that if the punch or kick me that I will punch and kick back that very well might discourage them from punching and kicking in the first place.
What you and your leftist brethren seem to want is to allow only one side to use lawfare because if you didn't want lawfare you would have been condemning it the last 3 plus years. Instead you and your leftist brethren have encouraged the lawfare against Trump and only now that it looks likely Trump will be re-elected and could the tables on his persecutors do you seem to fi d an issue with it( and all will still supporting lawfare vs Trump).
If you don't want lawfare neither side should use it but if one side uses it the other side should as well.

[Nige]

‘One way to stop such behavior is to return the behavior in kind’

The people who want to engage in this kind of behaviour are exactly the sort of people who would lie and claim they are returning behaviour in kind. Why should anyone trust anyone explicitly advocating this behaviour when they make claims about their reason?

‘What you and your leftist brethren seem to want is to allow only one side to use lawfare’

You elected a guy who has used lawfare, mostly to get out of paying people he owes money to, and who has been in and out of court most of his adult life. Now you’re mad he continues the trend.

‘If you don’t want lawfare neither side should use it but if one side uses it the other side should as well.’

If you don’t want lawfare, don’t elect a lawfaremonger.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Game theory suggests the best cooperative strategy is some version of tit-for-tat.

The two worse strategies are aggressively cheating your opponent, or passively accepting everything your opponent does.

Tit-for-tat.

[Stephen Lathrop]

CountmontyC — Convicted felon Trump was not targeted by the Justice Department. He was indicted by grand juries in New York, DC., Georgia, and Florida. Convicted felon Trump was in New York afforded opportunity to hit back, and to say with impunity anything at all he chose to say about anyone. He declined to do it. He found the obligation to do so under oath to tell the truth too onerous. Convicted felon Trump is presently under the protection of corrupt courts in at least DC and Florida.

Do you suppose for a second that Joe Biden would be fearful of injustice if afforded the same protections convicted felon Trump has received? You know Biden would not. Which is why you, your ilk, and especially convicted felon Trump have no intention to afford any legal protections to perceived enemies they threaten to attack.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You're trying to reason with ignorant, superstitious bigots.

You can't reason with superstition, bigotry, or belligerent ignorance. It is pointless to try, perhaps even counterproductive.

The thing to do is to continue to stomp conservatives' stale, ugly, delusional thinking into irrelevance in the culture war.

Nothing wrong with mocking and scorning these hayseeds along the way, though.

[Riva]

I would not recommend republican prosecutors abuse the law and manufacture cases against democrats as the democrat thugs do. Since they're democrats, I suspect there are plenty of real violations of the law to prosecute, once the kid gloves and whatever polite deference may have restrained actions in the past. Time to abandon that. Way past time.

[Nige]

'I suspect there are plenty of real violations'

wink-wink

[Riva]

I guess maybe the democrat goons shouldn't have crossed the lawfare Rubicon, huh? Sow the wind and all that.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How can a "legal" blog attract such a remarkable concentration of uninformed, delusional, disaffected, autistic, obsolete, antisocial bigots?

Start with a lineup of fringe right-wing law professors from the Federalist Society . . .

[Nige]

'Sow the wind and all that.'

The veneer isn't even paper thin.

[Riva]

It's called justice.

[Nige]

It actually just revenge for thwarting your Dear Leader.

[Riva]

"You Have Released The Whirlwind And You Will Pay The Price" then-Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY),

[Nige]

"Neah, what's up, doc?" - Bugs Bunny, Rabbit, esq.

[Riva]

I must assume that makes some sense in your broken little mind. Maybe you and the Rev. nut-burger here got together and watched some cartoons?

[Nige]

Oh, I thought we were just throwing out random quotes because you'd run out of anything else to say.

[Riva]

It’s a quote of a democrat using the same expression you suggested indicated my intent to advocate for some sort of revenge, you monumental imbecile.

[Nige]

Lots of people have used that phrase, it's actually quite the cliche. Meanwhile – Trump’s next term in office would be one of authoritarianism and revenge based on the greivance that he isn’t treated like a king by his opposition.

[Riva]

Not so cliched that you could recognize it. But you are a partisan twit who apparently can't recognize when you're making an ass of yourself.

[Nige]

Yeah, that was the first time I heard that phrase, ever. Do you think the concept of 'revenge' is brand spanking new, too, or do you think if you find a single instance of someone else taking revenge then that makes it ok to vote for an a vengeful authoritarian? Watch Death Wish, maybe. Charles Bronson is in it.

[Gernonen]

I would. You need to get even, or you end up losing.

Trump should order prosecutions of Bragg, Engoron, and every other Democratic parasite.

Come to think of it, Bragg's sentence should be force feeding him bananas.

[Martinned2]

LOCK THEM UP!!! LOCK THEM UP!!!

[not guilty]

"Trump should order prosecutions of Bragg, Engoron, and every other Democratic parasite."

Prosecutions based on violations of what federal criminal statutes? Please cite such statutes by number.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You have lost, Gernonen. You and the other clingers.

The modern American culture war is not quite over but it has been settled. The good guys have won. Conservatives have lost.

Choosing backwardness, bigotry, superstition, ignorance, dogma, nonsense-based education, can't-keep-up backwaters, and country music had consequences.

[Gernonen]

Your idea of "winning" is getting a pounding at the local gay bar.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

My idea of winning is watching Federalist Society members depart legitimate, mainstream campuses for mouthpiece-for-hire shops that promote conservative bigotry and right-wing backwardness.

Celebrate with cheeseburgers!

[Armchair]

I do want it to stop happening. The party in power is currently doing it. So, to stop it they need to be voted out of power.

[Nige]

But you're voting for the guy explicitly promising to do it, so clearly you don't actually mind it being done, and the sort of person who will vote for that will also, frankly, lie about other people doing it as a pretext.

[Armchair]

"But you’re voting for the guy explicitly promising to do it"

And? The other party is actually doing it right now. This isn't that hard a logic problem to figure out. Politicians make promises all the time. That doesn't mean it actually occurs.

Let's assume you don't like "bad thing happening"
Party 1 is actively doing bad thing now. 100% chance of bad thing happening.

Party 2 "promises" to do bad thing if elected. But...they might be bluffing. Or change their mind. Or someone or something may prevent them from doing bad thing. This is <100% chance of bad thing happening.

Party 2 is obviously the logical choice. <100% chance of bad thing is clearly superior to 100% chance of bad thing.

Logic.

[Nige]

‘The other party is actually doing it right now.’

No. You claim it is, as a justification. But since you’re voting for that explicitly, it’s obviously pure bad faith.

‘But…they might be bluffing. Or change their mind.’

So what? An asteroid might fall on the White House. It’s what you’re voting for. These are your principles now.

‘<100% chance of bad thing is clearly superior to 100% chance of bad thing.’

But the supposed 100% chance is a lie to promote the <100%.

Generally if you think a government is behaving badly you campaign to stop it, not double down on the bad behaviour. And since there’s always something happening that ought to be happening even with the bettter governments, countries being large and governance being complex, there’s always some example to be waved like a red flag, often quite justly, which is why we need an opposition, freedom of the press and freedom of speech. But using the outrage to justify doing even worse things, deliberately? Naked authoritarianism.

[Armchair]

Nige,

I do believe the current administration is doing many of these extreme actions in targeting their political opponents, and using the power of the state to do so.

You may not like the logic, and the concept of a "lesser evil". But the logic is sound.

If your only argument is "you can't really believe the current administration is targeting Trump supporters"...then make that argument as the original point.

But don't accuse me of bad faith, after repeatingly making the argument "If you really believe that," then not liking where the logic ends up, and being "Well, you can't really believe that you're just a liar".

[Bwaaah]

Armchair: Here’s an interesting data point. I was in Connecticut last week with four middle-aged male professionals, all of whom indicated their inclination to vote for Biden. When one asked the others what they thought of the Trump prosecutions, all promptly expressed the view that the prosecutions were solely motivated by politics and were a wrongful use of state power. There was no wink-wink or satisfaction that accompanied those opinions; all seemed to find the prosecutions to be a serious breach of the election process.

[Nige]

'But don’t accuse me of bad faith, after repeatingly making the argument “If you really believe that,”'

No, I'm making the argument that it simply isn't true.

[Nige]

‘all seemed to find the prosecutions to be a serious breach of the election process.’

Is there an election process that precludes the prosecution of politicians for crimes they may have committed? Or, as in Trump's case, did commit?

[Bwaaah]

“Is there an election process that precludes the prosecution of politicians for crimes they may have committed? Or, as in Trump’s case, did commit?”

No. But prosecutorial discretion, if believed to be exercised for the purpose of hampering political candidacy, is perceived to be a wrongful abuse of that discretion. So the people were expressing two sentiments:
1) the prosecutions of Trump were/are politically motivated for the purpose of hampering his candidacy, and
2) that action is unfair and strikes them as undermining the fairness of the election

[Nige]

Y'know, neither of those examples have anything to do with Trump declaring himself dictator and you cheering him on.

[NOVA Lawyer]

it’s a question of it all happening already, and thinking the only way it’s going to stop if the people doing it now get a taste of it, too..

First, this comes from fantasy world.

The lawyer discipline issue involves people like Rudy Guiliani and Lin Wood who are not being disciplined by or at the behest of the Biden administration or "the Democrats", but by courts and state bars because they lied to the courts. Sure, go after attorneys who lie in court filings or participate in criminal activity. We should all want that.

If all you have on the tax front is the Matt Taibbi case, there are no news stories since May 2023 and he said himself he wasn't worried and owed no taxes. Further, are you forgetting about the mysterious audit of James Comey and Andrew McCabe? Under your theory, the Taibbi incident, which didn't involve anything as painful or intimidating as an audit, was merely giving MAGA world a "taste" of the medicine the Trump administration already doled out. (BUT NOTE there is no evidence the Taibbi incident was, in any way, linked to Biden or was an intimidation tactic or was a retaliation for those likely politically motivated audits.) My point is that, even accepting your framing, that was actually a weaker "taste" than the Trump administration already gave to its enemies. You can't apply your moral world of "we'll do to them what they did to us" from just one side. If you want to play this childish game, MAGA started it.

My bigger point is that the sort of stupidity you are advocating leads to forever wars like Israel and Palestine or the Troubles in Northern Ireland, or the Hatfields and McCoys. Each side thinks the other started it and each side thinks the other's transgressions are worse, so the cycle of tit-for-tat continues and escalates to no good end. Your defense of Trump here relies on a vacuous moral theory that is disproven to be effective in reality.

Shorter Brett: When we think they go low, we'll go lower!

This defense of weaponizing government is so stupid it's evil.

[Nige]

'Look what you're making us do' is such a profound way to deny responsibility for your own actions, and then you get supposed centrists going 'look what you made them do,' so no wonder they've internalised it so completely.

[Gernonen]

Those "state bars" and "state courts" are all run by Democrats, and all Democrats bow down to the diaper shitter in charge. The buck stops with that traitorous piece of shit. Hopefully, he and Hunter both get cancer and can join Beau in the afterlife, but in the instance of the Biden crime family, the afterlife is underground.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett -- Mutual Assured Destruction has prevented the use of nuclear weapons for 80 years. When we nuked Japan, there was no concern that anyone would ever be able to nuke us -- kinda like the current scorched earth tactics of the Democrats.

But once Stalin had nukes, both sides agreed not to use them. And once both sides get to experience what only one side is having to deal with right now, there very quickly will be a consensus to go back to an environment where it is agreed that there are things you don't do because you won't always be in the majority and don't want them being done to you, either.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Just when I thought the argument couldn't get dumber, Dr. Ed enters the room.

[David Nieporent]

He doesn't make things up.

[bernard11]

Oh bullshit, Brett.

If you think those links show what you claim you really are deranged.

The Taibbi story is one of your old standbys, like the Scalise shooting, that you like to drag out to justify your paranoia, and the lawyers in the other article were arguably engaged in serious misconduct.

And it's not "the Democrats" doing it, no matter what your conspiracy-addled brain tells you.

[Nige]

Either you think that sort of thing is wrong or you don't. If you vote for it, you don't. Claiming it's already happening is nakedly a pretext, and frankly a lie.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It's only a lie (from one perspective) if you're smart and decent enough to recognize the lie. Otherwise, it can be every bit as true as the Book of Revelation, the MAGA hymnbook, the virgin birth, and Bugs Bunny.

[Krychek_2]

I'm actually far more concerned about a multi-times convicted felon again having access to highly classified documents. I think there should be a rule that people who would not be eligible for a security clearance can't see classified documents even if they're president, though I'm not sure how that would work in actual practice.

[Martinned2]

It wouldn't. You could go for a constitutional amendment to exclude convicted felons from the right to stand for office, but I don't think that would be a good idea even apart from the potential for abuse.

(E.g. Trump shouldn't be let anywhere near classified documents in my view, but that opinion isn't materially affected by his NY felony convictions. On the other hand, there are many convicted felons who might be perfectly fine with classified documents, e.g. because their convictions are a long time ago, had nothing to do with trustworthiness and/or secrets, etc.)

[Krayt]

It might be a good amendment, but now would be an idiotic time to send it out to the states.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned2 — Why should anyone care about your hypothetical good felon? If barring that person from office conveniences a rule to bar bad felons as a group, on what principle would it be unwise to have that rule?

In American constitutionalism there is no right to hold office. Election to office is a gift bestowed by the jointly sovereign People. The elections belong to the People, and they are completely at liberty to decree whatever rules convenience them in the exercise of their constitutive power.

[Martinned2]

When in doubt, the people should have the right to elect whom they please. On a case-by-case basis, there might be good reasons to exclude someone from the right to vote and/or be elected, e.g. because they attempted to overthrow the government of the United States, but whether a specific person is suited to hold office is normally a question of judgment that should be left to voters.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned2 — The premise of my comment, which you seem not to have noticed, is that the American People had in fact decided to elect whom they please, and precluded in advance from consideration all previously convicted felons. No questions of rights, for anyone, are legitimately involved in that premise.

[bernard11]

the American People had in fact decided to elect whom they please, and precluded in advance from consideration all previously convicted felons.

But why in advance? If the American people don't think a convicted felon should ever be elected, they won't elect one. Why do we need such a rule? Of course, the same question could be asked of the actual requirements. If we want a 30-year-old President , or a foreigner, why not?

My presumption is that they are there to prevent momentary passions, or some strange political events, from leading to the election of someone who would, by virtue of inexperience or dubious loyalties, be a poor choice.

We are Ulysses tying himself to the mast. Should that plan apply to felons also?

[Stephen Lathrop]

But why in advance? If the American people don’t think a convicted felon should ever be elected, they won’t elect one

Because there are classes of convicted felons that almost everyone would agree should not be candidates for office, and other classes about which folks would disagree. There is no possibility to find a bright line that will satisfy everyone, all the time. So for the sake of uniform standards, the entire class gets disqualified, to convenience reliable disqualification of those most offensive, despite not being able to define quite where the line is.

This is not at all hard to understand, unless you reject the notion that the jointly sovereign American People are rightly empowered to bestow the gift of office at pleasure, and without constraint.

[David Nieporent]

There is no possibility to find a bright line that will satisfy everyone, all the time. So for the sake of uniform standards, the entire class gets disqualified,

You're begging the question. Why is a bright line needed? Why are uniform standards needed? Why not decide on a case-by-case basis who should be elected? You know, by holding an election?

This is not at all hard to understand, unless you reject the notion that the jointly sovereign American People are rightly empowered to bestow the gift of office at pleasure, and without constraint.

Once again: you are the one proposing to impose the constraint!!!!!!!!! You are the one proposing to strip the rights of the so-called jointly sovereign American People to pick who they want!!!!!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, American constitutionalism defeats you. I have no personal agency to do what you say. The jointly sovereign American People do not exercise their constitutive power as a matter of right.

The jointly sovereign People enjoy powers, not rights. The powers they enjoy are superior to rights; they are powers unconstrained by anything, including their own Constitution. When the People act in their jointly sovereign capacity, due process does not constrain them, separation of powers does not constrain them, rights do not constraint them. Least of all are the jointly sovereign People constrained by their own governments.

The People constrain the governments, and the office holders within the governments. It must never be the other way around. The conclusion of an election cannot be a surrender of power to government, or to an autocrat who controls government.

Because so many people think as you do, this nation is struggling through a constitutional crisis graver than you understand. If any branch of government enters into a contest for sovereignty against the People themselves, and the People allow that to continue—or for want of power, fail to end the contest promptly—the mere continuation of the contest calls the People's sovereignty into question. Any rival which can constrain a sovereign has by that feat alone put a demonstrable end to the principle attribute of sovereignty—power sufficient to act at pleasure and without constraint.

That is a concept which Donald Trump and his MAGA legions apparently understand. President Biden, Merrick Garland, and a host of others, including you, have yet to grasp it—or perhaps you all merely shrink from its implications and hope for the best.

That baleful contest for sovereignty is underway now, with a Judicial Branch in open rebellion, and an interrupted coup attempt being re-organized in plain sight, led by a former president, abetted by many members of the House and Senate, and supported widely by a substantial but foolish minority among the populace.

Alas, in this nation, the elections you suppose will resolve this crisis have little power to do it. The nation has recklessly neglected to fix an electoral system increasingly apt to deliver minoritarian victories which encourage challenges to sovereignty instead of chastening them.

We saw during the last election that an actual minority, organized to respond to adverse electoral happenstance with intimidation and force, need not cease struggling. So long as a feckless declining sovereignty fails to muster force sufficient to end it, the struggle can continue, despite any electoral result. For that reason, it is unwise to suppose the accustomed political course toward Election Day is tending toward resolution, instead of toward crisis.

[David Nieporent]

The jointly sovereign People enjoy powers, not rights.

Like SovCits, you think that law is about magic word games. Whichever word choice is used changes nothing about what I said.

Fine, use "power." You are trying to strip the so-called "jointly sovereign People" of their power to elect whom they want. If the "jointly sovereign People" want to elect a convicted felon, or an insurrectionist, or G-d forbid, a Yankees fan, you're trying to prevent them from doing so. You are imposing constraints on them.

[David Nieporent]

Of course, another problem is this:

When the People act in their jointly sovereign capacity,

But the People do not act in any such capacity. They can't. There is no The People. There's a government. It can act. The People can't.
​
​
I mean, sure, a subset of The People can riot, defy the government, try to overthrow the government, seize power/control/whatevertermyouwant for itself. And other subsets of The People can resist. But that's just a state of nature at that point, not a "jointly sovereign People."

[Martinned2]

If we want a 30-year-old President , or a foreigner, why not?

Exactly. It makes sense that there are rules to make life hard for carpetbaggers, but I think the requirements for President rule out way too many individuals that the American people might reasonably want to elect.

I'd argue that the starting point should be that the right to vote and the right to be elected should apply to the same people: 18 years old or older, and US citizen at the time of the election. And then you can add some more disqualifications for the right to be elected (not have their right to hold office taken away pursuant to a court verdict that can no longer be appealed, not under conservatorship), but those disqualifications should be few and generally based on a specific decision by a judge about the specific individual.

It's not 1789 anymore. The American people have a lot more information about presidential candidates than they used to. No reason to categorically disqualify large groups of people.

[Stephen Lathrop]

No reason to categorically disqualify large groups of people.

Except for this reason: to thus disempower the joint popular sovereign's capacity to decide otherwise pitches overboard the entire basis of American constitutionalism.

Martinned2, please explain on what other basis you suppose a nation state can be left at liberty to choose a system of government at pleasure and without constraint?

Or to put the question another way, what implicit power were you referencing as the author of your own categorical presumption?

[Martinned2]

WTF are you talking about? Try speaking English, please.

In a sound democracy the free will of the people to make their own laws through their own freely chosen representatives should only be restricted as much as is necessary to protect the liberty of the minority. That is what the bill of rights is. Restricting the freedom of the people to choose who they please in a way that they cannot easily undo, because it's written into a difficult-to-amend constitution, is undemocratic.

Remember, sensible constitutions delegate certain questions to ordinary legislation. (As does the US constitution for the time, place, and manner of holding elections.) In this case, you might write: "The legislature may by statute set a minimum age for election for president. This minimum age may be no higher than 35 years." That's still better than putting the exact age in the constitution.

[David Nieporent]

Except for this reason: to thus disempower the joint popular sovereign’s capacity to decide otherwise pitches overboard the entire basis of American constitutionalism.

You. Are. The. One. Trying. To. Disempower. The. Joint. Popular. Sovereign's. Capacity. To. Decide.

[Don Nico]

Martin,
SL almost always invokes magic words "jointly sovereign People" to justify any nonsense that he writes interminably about.
You are not expected to understand incantations.

[Bwaaah]

Martinned: "I’d argue that the starting point should be that the right to vote and the right to be elected should apply to the same people"

That's an unusually straightforward, elegant, symmetrical rule that seems biased most in protecting voter choice of candidates. It strikes me as so sensible that the existing constitutional limitations, e.g. being at least 35 years of age and natural-born, seem presumptively narrow-minded. The only real requirement should be a commitment to abide by the constitution (i.e. within the determinations of the Supreme Court). All other rules are potentially the preferences of some people at the expense of more people.

The "will of the people" may sound overly trite and simplistic, but in preference to what alternative? To whose alternative? I place my bet on voter choice because the only appealing alternative is me, in charge of everything, for life, and that's a *very* unappealing alternative.

[David Nieporent]

No questions of rights, for anyone, are legitimately involved in that premise.

Um, you seem to forget about the rights of voters.

[Gernonen]

Of course. That means his bullshit "felony convictions" are irrelevant, even under your standard.

[David Nieporent]

The elections belong to the People

Lathrop continues to not be smart enough to understand that he's arguing against this position at the same time he's stating it.

"Barring felons from holding office" is taking away elections from the people.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, American constitutionalism is too hard for you. Maybe it's your libertarian ideology, which insists you subtract from every question any implication of sovereign power.

Your ideology, of course, was unheard of during the founding era, when the principles of American constitutionalism were laid down. Nevertheless, to insist American constitutionalism cannot legitimately apply to the jointly sovereign People's power to control elections remains not only paradoxical, but stupid.

Ask yourself this question: If “Barring felons from holding office” is taking away elections from the people, who would be doing the, taking away?

[David Nieporent]

Ask yourself this question: If “Barring felons from holding office” is taking away elections from the people, who would be doing the, taking away?

The government, which would be enforcing that rule. Perhaps you think that the reified Sovereign People would be the body enacting this rule in the first place. That would be wrong as a factual matter, but even if it were true — let’s say it were somehow enacted via popular referendum — would still be wrong, since “the People” are not a static body. The Sovereign People who passed that rule in (say) 2024would be depriving the Sovereign People of all future times — who are different people — of their right to elect whomever they want.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Yes, Nieporent. The notion has always been a continuously-active joint sovereignty shared alike among an ever-changing cast of citizens—in short, the joint antecedent of, "you," in Franklin's undying remark, "A republic if you can keep it."

[Armchair]

Why?

Prison or felony conviction is not bar to being a member of Congress (See Matthew Lyon), and they have access to highly classified documents.

Does being a felon in and of itself make a person more of a security risk? Why?

[apedad]

Here's what the govt says about criminal activity and security clearances.

Security Executive Agent Directive (SEAD) - 4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines

Guideline J: Criminal Conduct

The Concern: Criminal activity creates doubt about a person's judgement, reliability, and trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person's ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, or trustworthiness;

https://www.dni.gov/files/NCSC/documents/Regulations/SEAD-4-Adjudicative-Guidelines-U.pdf

There are mitigating factors too like if the event happened a long time ago, evidence of successful rehabilitation, etc.

Also note, the President does not go through normal security clearance processing and is automatically authorized access to classified information simply because he/she/ze is the President.

[Armchair]

“Criminal Activity” is not being a “Felon”

One can be conducting criminal activity, without actually being a felon. It’s a subtle, but real, distinction. Likewise, some convictions that make one a felon, wouldn't necessarily be considered "criminal activity" by most.

Matthew Lyon is a good case example of this.

[Martinned2]

some convictions that make one a felon, wouldn’t necessarily be considered “criminal activity” by most.

Really?

[Armchair]

Really.

Let's use the Matthey Lyon example.

Matthew Lyon was convicted of violating the Sedition Act for publically criticizing the government at the time (and publishing that criticism). Is that "Criminal Activity" as would be understood for security clearances?

Or MLK Jr. He was arrested and convicted of "Contempt of Court". Would you consider his actions "Criminal Activity" that would disbar him from Congress? (Yes, he was assassinated later, but you get the point).

[Martinned2]

Both of those would be considered criminal activity "by most" people who don't have a party-political reason to look the other way.

[Armchair]

I do not believe that MLK Jr's contempt of court conviction would be considered "Criminal Activity" such that it would bar him from Congress or the required security clearances.

Such a law would simply condense power in the hands of the political elites who may "commit" the criminal activity, yet never be "prosecuted" for it...because they hold the chains of government. Meanwhile they can prosecute their political enemies, and keep them from ever having the access to government they need.

That's what happened in MLK's case. The political elite in power prosecuted him. But sometimes, similar activities by those in power...are not prosecuted. Merrick Garland is charged by Congress with Contempt of Congress. But Garland won't prosecute himself, no matter how guilty he may be. So...he keeps his security clearance. Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury. But...no prosecution. So, keeps his clearance.

The US government has enough power at its current levels to keep those who are committing actual criminal activity (Theft, rapes, drug rings, murders etc) from security clearances. Such a "law" would not serve any additional purpose, beyond condensing and maintaining power for the political elite.

[Martinned2]

I do not believe that MLK Jr’s contempt of court conviction would be considered “Criminal Activity” such that it would bar him from Congress or the required security clearances.

That wasn't your question. Your question was whether most people would consider it criminal activity, not whether most people would yank someone's security clearance over it.

[Armchair]

"Your question was whether most people would consider it criminal activity, not whether most people would yank someone’s security clearance over it."

Well if you follow the train, I continually put it in the context of security clearances.

" Would you consider his actions “Criminal Activity” that would disbar him from Congress? "

[apedad]

But in order to be labeled "Felon," a person has to be found guilty of criminal activity.

And, " . . . wouldn’t necessarily be considered 'criminal activity' by most," who cares what people think?

The govt found them to be a Felon and the govt decides who gets access to classified information.

[Armchair]

"who cares what people think?"

We're a Democracy. The people care.

[apedad]

Then change the law.

Otherwise, who cares what people think.

[Krychek_2]

Well, according to conservatives whenever the electoral college comes up for discussion, we are not a democracy.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

According to conservatives who understand we are representative republic.

Which is factually correct.

How dumb is this new moral panic from you people? Utterly utterly dumb.

[Bwaaah]

OMG!! A FELON!!!

What’d he do? He purposely tried to hide an embarrassing fact from the voters.

And we’re talking about letting a guy like that be President of the United States??? How can we trust him with secrets? What if he does that kind of thing in office? What kind of President would that be?

Have we gone mad???!!!

[Nige]

Trump is such a joke, the only way of defending him is a slightly hysterical affectation of taking nothing seriously.

[David Nieporent]

I dunno; I think a guy who routinely falsifies business records may not really be trustworthy. (Let’s not forget the civil case wheee he was found to have done the same!)

[Davy C]

If writing something in the memo line of a check counts as falsifying records, I'm guilty.

The mishandling of classified documents is *way* more relevant, but he hasn't been convicted of that yet.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You'll be bleating the same bullshit after Trump is convicted of election fraud, mishandling of classified documents, and whatever else emerges.

[David Nieporent]

But in order to be labeled “Felon,” a person has to be found guilty of criminal activity.

No. If that were the case, we wouldn’t need the term “convicted felon”; it would be redundant.

[Martinned2]

That's an interesting question of linguistics. I think a good case can be made that, in common parlance, the "convicted" part of "convicted felon" is indeed redundant. But the dictionary seems to agree with you: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/felon

[Noscitur a sociis]

My idiolect is in line with your intuition, but I was presented with enough compelling cpunter-usages last time this came up that I think I have to concede they’re right.

[Mr. Bumble]

So there is no presumption of innocence?
Felon definition: a person who has been convicted of a felony,

[David Nieporent]

The presumption of innocence is a statement about the burden of proof in a criminal proceeding. If you don’t work for the government (or serve on a jury), you are not required to treat someone as innocent merely because he hasn’t been convicted.

(And the definition of “felon” is someone who has committed a felony, not someone who has been convicted of one.)

[Mr. Bumble]

"(And the definition of “felon” is someone who has committed a felony, not someone who has been convicted of one.)
Source? There seems to be multiple definitions. Tried OED but it requires subscription.

[David Nieporent]

Source?

I mean, one such source is literally several comments above, posted by Martinned.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The OED has (in 3.a., the relevant sense) "Law. One who has committed felony." So to the extent that it's relevant, it does support David Nieporent's position. Although two of the usage examples (the earliest ones, actually), in my view, unambiguously refer to people who been convicted ("Al þat þe felon hath, þe kinges it is." and "Þauh þe fader be a frankelayne and for a felon be hanged."), versus only one that unambiguously refers to someone who has just committed a felony ("Pursued with hue and cry as a felon."). (Many of the others probably are unambiguous one way or the other in context, but I don't feel like taking the time to look it up.)

[Voize]

the President does not go through normal security clearance processing

Not just the President.
The Vice President, members of Congress, and federal judges are all exempt from the requirement to hold an appropriate security clearance before they are eligible to receive classified information.

[Don Nico]

"automatically authorized access to classified information"
should read "automatically authorized access to and control over classified information" simply because he/she is the President

[Krychek_2]

Being a felon makes someone more of a risk because it indicates an unwillingness to follow the rules. We can quibble over the specifics of this or that particular situation, but it's not irrational to have a policy that if you have demonstrated that you don't obey the law you're a higher risk.

Members of Congress still have to have security clearances to see at least some classified documents. Every member of the House Intelligence Committee got thoroughly vetted by security staff. Matthew Lyon was a long time ago and I very much doubt he would be on any intelligence committees if he were seated today.

[Armchair]

I believe the potential for abuse is much higher than any provisions that the law protects. The Federal Government is more than capable within its powers to protect its secrets.

Matthew Lyon was a long time ago, sure. MLK Jr...not so long ago.

I can easily see certain people in the government weaponizing this law to stay in power and prevent secrets from getting out.

[Krychek_2]

Actually, the federal government has repeatedly proven itself unable to protect its secrets -- Aldrich Ames, the Walkers, Robert Hanssen, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Wikileaks.

Any law at all can be weaponized by a prosecutor with a vendetta, so the solution is to have enough checks in the system to make that difficult. But let's talk about the specific case at hand -- Trump.

What is the argument that it's a good idea for Trump to have access to highly classified documents? After the discovery of the documents he took with him to Florida and his stonewalling about it, after his demonstrated and repeated fraudulent conduct over many decades, after his demonstrated willingness to use his power for his own enrichment, why would anyone think that he should be seeing classified reports again?

There are some close cases in which weaponization of the law is a concern. This is not one of them.

[Joe_dallas]

You are omitting Hillary and her bathroom server. She was fully aware that her bathroom server violated security protocols. Any claim that she wasnt aware of the violation and any claims she did not transmit classified info is simply partisan coverup.
The lessons of the cracking of the purple, magic and J codes is ignored by the partisans dismissing hillary's violations.

[Nige]

Are you arguing for or against Trump being allowed access to classified documents?

[Krychek_2]

And that quite likely cost her the election. She may not have gone to jail but she didn't get to be president either.

However, you are omitting that the GOP investigated her nonstop for years, decades even, and never found anything to charge her with. GOP investigators and prosecutors are either monumentally incompetent or maybe there really was no there there.

[Joe_dallas]

You mean investigated by republicans such as peter strzok , Commey Lisa Page.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

lol yea good one

[David Nieporent]

You are omitting Hillary and her bathroom server. She was fully aware that her bathroom server violated security protocols.

1) If you think Hillary had a server in her bathroom, you misunderstood the story.
2) It did not, in fact, violate anything. While it may have been imprudent, no law forbid that. Nobody was supposed to be sending classified material to her unsecured email whether it was her own server or a commercial one or her state department account. The people who did were the ones violating the law. (What she did wrong was be careless about some of the material sent to her.)

[Armchair]

"Actually, the federal government has repeatedly proven itself unable to protect its secrets — Aldrich Ames, the Walkers, Robert Hanssen, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Wikileaks."

And how would the proposed law have stopped any of those cases? Were any of them convicted felons before they were given their security clearance?

[Don Nico]

"What is the argument that it’s a good idea for Trump to have access to highly classified documents?"
Simple K_2. S/he is the primary and highest classification authority of all material (objects and information) classified by Executive Order.

[Noscitur a sociis]

MLK Jr…not so long ago.

I don’t think he should have had a security clearance either!

[Gernonen]

Democrats only love felons when they have a lot of pigment in their skin.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Former professor Volokh and his fellow bloggers, on the other hand, love everything you write, gernonen. You (and people like you) are the reason they produce this blog.

[Frank Drackman]

I don’t think Senator Menendez is on the email chain

[Frank Drackman]

Would you have the same opinion if Sleepy Joe was convicted in Dum-Fuck Idaho of a bunch of bullshit charges? I don’t know, aggravated stupidity, 3rd degree Creepiness, Insulting Cannibals? That’s a theoretical, you Shysters are supposed to be good at those

Frank

[Krychek_2]

Yes. If Joe Biden were to be convicted of a felony, I absolutely would say that he should not have access to classified documents. Depending on the felony I would probably go further and say he should resign.

And given that Biden, unlike Trump, understands concepts like shame and decency, he would probably quietly resign at that point anyway.

Any more irrelevant what-abouts you want to raise?

[Martinned2]

Any politician who is convicted of a felony should resign, with the possible exception of a felony they committed well before the last time they were elected, which was widely reported before the last time they were elected.

[CountmontyC]

How about a politician who committed perjury while in office?

[Krychek_2]

If he's convicted of it, absolutely.

[Martinned2]

Indeed. And politicians, including the president, should not be given a pass on being investigated/prosecuted during their time in office, except to the extent necessary to allow them to carry out their duties.

[CountmontyC]

But at the time one politician was caught being a perjurer the left said that we should "move on" and that it was only about sex so no big deal. Why is it now (D)ifferent?

[Nige]

Even better question: why is it now diffe(R)rent?

[CountmontyC]

Trying to use the same standards the Democrats used when their guy was caught committing perjury is diffe(R)ent how?
Your side set the standard and want to change it now why? What is (D)ifferent now?

[Nige]

You don't have standards of your own at all? Absolutely none? You have entirely situtational ethics whereby you are going to do something anyway, then cast around into history for some vaguely similar behaviour so you can deny being responsible for your own actions? You're right, that's not diffe(R)rent. Rs have always been like that.

[Krychek_2]

I think conviction is a bright line. I agree with Lord Acton that great men are rarely good men, and most politicians probably have bad behavior somewhere. But a criminal conviction is a big deal for a reason.

[Brett Bellmore]

But the problem in a 3 felonies a day world is that a rule that convicted felons can't hold office, or perhaps are cut off from a significant aspect of the office, is just too convenient as a way of deciding elections outside the voting booth.

And not just a 3 felonies a day world. There are real crimes out there, such as wrongful possession of classified documents, or insider trading, that 'important' people routinely get a pass on prosecution.

There's no question at all at this point that Joe Biden retained, illegally, possession of classified documents, and shared them with people who lacked security clearances, let alone need to know. And, yeah, Trump did, too, at least the possession part. And those are legit crimes.

But Biden didn't get prosecuted, and Trump did. Very convenient.

And it's not a symmetric convenience, either; Democrats have major jurisdictions, such as Manhattan, or DC, where they are such a large percentage of the population that you can basically guarantee a 100% Democrat jury. There really aren't any significant jurisdictions where Republicans are similarly placed.

The result has been, once the norm against political prosecutions was breached, an escalating waging of lawfare. Republicans aren't blind to that, and can't be expected to not want to respond in kind.

[David Nieporent]

Sigh. As has been explained many many many many times, Trump did something very different than Biden (or Pence). Trump is not being prosecuted for possession of classified documents.

[Commenter_XY]

Arguably, what Biden did was far worse, his docs went back for quite a number of years. He is not being prosecuted for it because SC Hur did not think he could persuade a DC jury to convict him.

[Nige]

He wasn't prosecuted because he didn't try to hold on to them upon their discovery.

[Sarcastr0]

No, that’s not arguable Commenter.

Biden didn’t hide or lie or move or do anything to stymie the records’ return.

That is the important bit, as had been pointed out over and over.

The rest is all talking points and deflection.

[Nige]

'The result has been, once the norm against political prosecutions was breached, an escalating waging of lawfare'

I don't think a norm where politicians can't be prosecuted for crimes would be a good norm.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I agree. The only thing worse than the prior norm of politicians not being prosecuted for crimes, is only politicians of one party getting prosecuted for crimes.

[Nige]

Good thing that doesn't happen.

[Voize]

You think Bob Menendez is not being prosecuted for crimes?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"The only thing worse than the prior norm of politicians not being prosecuted for crimes, is only politicians of one party getting prosecuted for crimes."

That hasn't happened, except in Bizarro Right-Wing Autism World.

[bernard11]

I didn't know Blagojevich was a Republican.

[bernard11]

But Biden didn’t get prosecuted, and Trump did. Very convenient.

You really should drop this business. It makes you look like an idiot, or so dedicated to Trump that you simply refuse to see obvious facts, no matter how often they are pointed out to you.

[Nige]

'But Biden didn’t get prosecuted, and Trump did.'

You know perfectly well that had Trump returned the documents when requested there would have been no prosecution.

[CountmontyC]

But at the time one politician was caught being a perjurer the left said that we should "move on" and that it was only about sex so no big deal. Why is it now (D)ifferent?

[Sarcastr0]

Don't like the current conversation so trying to take us back 30 years for a change?

[not guilty]

"But at the time one politician was caught being a perjurer the left said that we should 'move on' and that it was only about sex so no big deal. Why is it now (D)ifferent?"

Bill Clinton was found in civil contempt for willfully giving false, misleading, and evasive answers during his discovery deposition. Jones v. Clinton, 57 F.Supp.2d 719 (E.D. Ark. 1999). He could have been criminally prosecuted after leaving office, but he had the good sense to negotiate a non-prosecution agreement with Robert Ray (Kenneth Starr's successor as Independent Counsel). He agreed to a voluntary five year suspension of his law license and promised to cover $25,000 in legal fees related to disbarment proceedings against him in Arkansas. In exchange, Ray agreed not to indict Clinton on perjury charges.

Clinton did not claim to have done nothing wrong. He accepted responsibility for his bad conduct. That stands in marked contrast to Donald Trump, who has refused all manner of accountability.

[Nige]

You didn't think it was no big deal at the time. You clearly still don't. Does it sting, killing your principles?

[David Nieporent]

He accepted responsibility for his bad conduct.

…eventually.

[not guilty]

Yes, Bill Clinton's acceptance of responsibility was slow to happen. But we are all better off that he kicked Newt Gingrich's ass first.

I have long thought that an important reason that Clinton survived impeachment is that his harshest critics harped on character flaws that the voting public had already taken into consideration. In 1992 and again in 1996, the electorate knew that Clinton had a zipper problem and that he did not always tell the truth. They nevertheless preferred him as president to George H. W. Bush, and then to Robert Dole. Republicans never got over their incredulity about the election results.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah right, if he was convicted of the bullshit crimes I mentioned, by some Waterhead Prosecutor in Hayden Lake Idaho, with a Jury of 12 "The Order” members, you wouldn’t have a problem with it? I think it’s actually worse if you’re telling the truth.

Frank

[Krychek_2]

Frank, just because you’re unprincipled doesn’t mean so is everybody else. And if you think there aren't local prosecutors in places like Hayden Lake who would love to bring charges if they could think of any to bring, you are mistaken. But that's the key: there aren't any to be brought.

Suppose you're an Idaho prosecutor. What exactly could you find to charge Biden with in your jurisdiction?

[Frank Drackman]

I have principals, and if you don't like them, I have others!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What are you, a junior high school (with incompetent English teachers)?

[MoreCurious]

I'm surprised you even bother asking. Drackman's arguments, language, and grasp of grammar and spelling show beyond a reasonable doubt that he is too stupid to be hired as a kennel-cleaner, much less a doctor as he pretends to be.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I haven't dismissed the prospect that Drackman is a Conspirator's sockpuppet.

Or maybe Karen Alito's.

[Frank Drackman]

You’ve obviously never tried to get a diagnosis from a Nephrologist(You can’t even own a Dialysis Clinic if you don’t have a “Patel” in your fambly)
“So is it CKD Stage 2 or 3? It makes a difference!(for billing, actually Renal function doesn’t matter much on Anesthesia, we just want to make sure your “K” isn’t to high so you don’t code from the Succinylcholine)
And there always the pricks who demand releases it triplicate, HIPPA, it’s why the English kicked that ass for centuries

Frank

[Drewski]

Hey, one of those guys is a vice-principal and that guy is only interim. What kind of an operation are you running?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These hayseeds will never get. That ship sailed in seventh grade English, along with the average clinger's economic adequacy prospects.

[Frank Drackman]

I get paid for giving people laughing gas, Fentanyl, Propofol, and Volatile Anesthetics that are basically furniture polish, and I’m the Idiot?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

With a capital I.

[Don Nico]

K_2,
Who are you to define the powers of the President? In your hypothetical Mr Biden would have full right to control over any classified document with the possible exception of those classified by the Atomic Energy Act as amended

[Dr. Ed 2]

All the NY charade did was discredit the concept of white collar crime -- the left spent sixty years trying to get society to consider it as serious as violent crime and wasted all that effort in this ONE trial.

And not only is Trump a ONCE-convicted felon (with numerous counts) but he technically isn't guilty until his appeals are exhausted. At least in Massachusetts, if you die before your appeals are exhausted, you are considered INNOCENT -- that may have come out of the witchcraft mess and may be unique to MA.

[Noscitur a sociis]

And not only is Trump a ONCE-convicted felon (with numerous counts) but he technically isn’t guilty until his appeals are exhausted.

That is both technically and actually incorrect.

At least in Massachusetts, if you die before your appeals are exhausted, you are considered INNOCENT — that may have come out of the witchcraft mess and may be unique to MA.

It didn't, and isn't.

[Don Nico]

"multi-times convicted felon again having access to highly classified documents"
He would not only have access but control over. That is just democracy in action.

[Krychek_2]

No, that's the electoral college in action. If we had democracy in action we wouldn't even be having this conversation because the chance of Trump getting another term would be next to non-existent.

[Don Nico]

K_2,
We're not discussing whether Trump should be on the ballot. Your contention is that POTUS can be denied access to classified materials.
Just admit when you are wrong and move on.

[Krychek_2]

I was responding to your specific comment that this is democracy in action. It's not. And I haven't said he shouldn't be on the ballot.

[Armchair]

The electoral college is representative democracy.

[Don Nico]

In other wrong, you can't admit it when you are wrong.

[Bob from Ohio]

"not be eligible for a security clearance can’t see classified documents even if they’re president"

The President has the "Executive Power" per Article II. So he cannot be constitutionally denied any executive power, including the right to see every document.

[Martinned2]

The Congress has the "Legislative Power" per Article I, including the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof", which includes the power to define the scope of the Executive Power except to the extent that the Constitution expressly grants certain powers to the president, such as the commander in chief power or the pardon power. But even those can be regulated.

[Don Nico]

Martin,
Your comment is why POTUS does not control the classification of Restricted Data as defined by the Atomic Energy Act. By does control materials classifeid by Executive order.

[Bob from Ohio]

Classification is a "commander in chief power" as well as a general power.

Congress can legislate but denying the president the right to see classified documents would be outside that scope. How can a president exercise command of the armed forces unless he knows our strengths and weaknesses?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"How can a president exercise command of the armed forces unless he knows our strengths and weaknesses?"

Trump did it for four years. We survived.

[Don Nico]

Bob,
If a document is classified by law passed by the congress and sign by the president at the time, the current POTUS is not empowered to nullify the law.
Nonetheless it would be highly inappropriate and downright stupid for POTUS to be unable to see Restricted Data

[Kazinski]

I’m glad you are making an informed decision.

But if you are worried about classified documents, and security concerns, how about someone known to keep classified documents in his unsecured garage where they were easily accessible to a known felon, drug addict, and on the payroll of corrupt Ukrainian and Russian oligarchs, and selling influence to known CCP assets?

I have come to a different conclusion about where the greater risks lie.

[Sarcastr0]

You can come to any conclusion you want if you turn your critical thinking off and don’t care much about evidence.

[Kazinski]

When I decide to outsource my critical thinking you will hardly be my go to replacement.

But really my point to Krychek is, everyone has already made up their minds. If he wants if he needs to justify his vote for Biden, well by all means justify away, but he isn't changing any minds.

[Sarcastr0]

This says a lot. You seem to be arguing all that matters is political allegiance.

That's nonsense. Facts matter

If you believe bullshit, or equate things that aren’t equivalent, that’s not just politics that’s self-delusion and it’s not subjectivity or opinion it’s bad.
Truth is good. Lying, even if just to yourself, is bad. Looking at other people to justify your rejection of reality because all that matters is justification is bad.

[Kazinski]

No, that's not what I'm arguing, or even close to it. The facts lead me to believe Trump is less of a danger than Biden.

Less of a danger to the USA's security, less of a danger to my civil rights, less of danger to the economy both for me and everyone else.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah but the fact you cite are…alternate.

And you countered that everyone has already made up their minds.
Which shouldn’t matter in what the facts are. So why mention it?

[Nige]

Only if you completely ignore what Trump says and does. You only ever argue against Biden, often with the most ridiculous spin and speculation, never directly address what Trump is actually going to do, and his actual record.

[Bwaaah]

Nige: "address what Trump is actually going to do"

As if language alone could turn concept into reality, moron into soothsayer.

Nige: "and his actual record."

...of "being a dictator" and "destroying our democracy."

MAGA MAGA MAGA (TDS)

[Nige]

Guess the days when you liked to claim you had opinions of your own that didn't align with the left/right dichotomy are gone, eh?

'As if language alone could turn concept into reality, moron into soothsayer.'

Not language alone. Voting for him will help.

'…of “being a dictator” and “destroying our democracy.”'

Remember when he had a go at fraudulently overturning an election he lost?

[Bwaaah]

Please, Nige, do address what Trump is actually going to do. I mean like literally what he's actually going to do.

You can't even see your tautological nonsense.

MAGA MAGA MAGA (TDS)

[Nige]

'Please, Nige, do address what Trump is actually going to do. I mean like literally what he’s actually going to do.'

Man, what a wonderful cop-out. Just the sheer cowardice of this is amazing. Were you always too spineless to stand up for your choices, or did you always squirm around trying to be clever, invoking the uncertaintly principle, 'well it's the future anything can happen!'

Trump is literally going to do the things he promises he's going to do. Why would anyone think anything else? Seems like the safest assumption when it comes to voting in an open authoritarian.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think that my critical thinking stands out. I absolutely fall for stuff or get caught arguing and led into an indefensible place.

But that doesn't mean I can't spot that your critical thinking turns off at the sniff of partisanship.
You have very different standards for what you take as sufficient support from something bad appearing about Biden, versus something bad about Trump.

You're note exactly an unthinking partisan like Bumble or the antisemite or Michael P. You do some work. But it always ends in exactly the same place.

[Nige]

'everyone has already made up their minds'

'Undecideds' is literally a category of the voting demographic.

[Nige]

'I have come to a different conclusion...'

Working backwards, with a LOT of backfilling.

[Armchair]

That's simple. Trump might say that stuff. But Biden and the Democrats are actually doing it now (to the other side)

So, given the choice between one side who "might" say something bad, and the other side who is actually doing all those bad things, the choice is easy.

[Sarcastr0]

MAGA authoritarians trying to insist we don't listen to what Trump is promising to do is bad faith. We all know you'll cheer and defend whatever heinous shit he does.

Trump was previously President; funny how many Trump supporters have amnesia from that time. Trump tried to do all sorts of awful stuff,
-Pardoned war criminals
-Performative cruelty at the border
- Used his businesses as naked ways for people to funnel him money to influence him.
- Used the bully pulpit to divide the country, attack the press, defend white nationalists, and turn faith our democracy and institutions into a partisan thing.

And that doesn't count all the shit he tried to do, but was blocked because he accidentally appointed a few people with scraps of integrity still. He has promised not to make that mistake again
- Attempted to overturn the election he lost
- Publicly urged the FBI to investigate his opponents, Hunter Biden, Google, random Democratic lawmakers,
- Tried to strongarm Ukraine to help his election

He also failed to do a lot of stuff a President should do.
-Giving up lots of opportunities to unify the country or just act normal during national emergencies, Covid and others.
-Lagging with Covid travel bans
-Undermining anti-Covid measures, but not really offering any alternatives.

Now he's talking martial law, ideological purges, being a dictator. And you're like 'you're the real fools for listening to him, now allow me to yell about Biden old.'

No one not already into Trump doing some radical shit is buying the complacency you're selling.

[Armchair]

Moving goalposts from OP. Next.

[Nige]

We are talking about what Trump says and does, arent we? And we are repeatedly told to ignore what Trump says, right? Well, here's examples of what he does.

[Krayt]

He's an awful president. A committee should be formed to boycott him. You can, if you can form such a committer, put me down for a donation of one thousand dollars.

Until then, you will stop turning the investigative and prosecutorial power of government against a political opponent.

You've just admitted all of it! And you do so, while claiming to fear the techniques you use against him, are thus valid to use against him.

[Nige]

Cf, centrists/both-siders: 'look what you're making them do!'

[Bob from Ohio]

Nice Citizen Kane reference. I just saw that scene on a movie history twitter feed last week. Welles could really bring it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

You’ve just admitted all of it! And you do so, while claiming to fear the techniques you use against him, are thus valid to use against him.

Not in my case Krayt. I do not in the least fear the techniques used against Trump, should they be applied to Biden, or to me. I fear Trump's contempt for those techniques, and your misunderstandings of them, and the misunderstandings of the MAGA ilk Trump deceives.

Grand juries which charged Trump would protect Biden. They would do it legitimately, working just as that institution is intended to work—to use the power of the jointly sovereign People to constrain unjust prosecutions by the People's government.

Have you even noticed that Trump got indicted repeatedly across a range of politically assorted venues? Have you read the Florida indictment? I doubt you have.

To read the Florida indictment, and to understand there is provable fact behind every sentence, ought to chasten all criticism of Trump's treatment. It's little wonder that the MAGA world cheers desperately for corrupt Judge Cannon to make certain that case never comes to trial.

[Don Nico]

"power of the jointly sovereign People"
the MAGIC words have been spoken

[Dr. Ed 2]

He could have -- and arguably should have -- declared martial law when BLM was burning cities flat. He didn't.

Your criticism of him not being fascist enough in dealing with Covid is exactly that -- he COULD have seized power the way a lot of Governors did -- and he didn't.

Actions do speak louder than words. He may be a loud-mouthed New Yorker (is there any other kind?) but look at what he actually did.

[Nige]

Doing all what things? Can you list all the things Trump is promising to do and show examples of Biden doing them all first?

[Guten]

How often is Trump saying/threatening to prosecute liberal journalists or legal experts?

[Martinned2]

Every day, pretty much. (Not to mention judges who give rulings he disagrees with.)

This is not what a healthy country or political party looks like: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-election-threats-courts/

[Riva]

Projection dialed up to 11. So noteworthy of truth that it should have been a comment on Pravda, if they had a comments section.

[Nige]

It's literally what he's promising.

[Riva]

It's literally what Biden and his goons are doing.

[Nige]

That’s a lie, but either way, it’s what you want.

[Riva]

In doublespeak I guess.

[Nige]

You're voting for it, aren't you?

[ReaderY]

The formerly mainstream Republicans who think that they can easily control Trump should remember that Von Papen only barely escaped with his life, and a good many of his colleagues didn’t. Or the old Communists who thought Stalin would be a safe chairman. I could go on…

Do they think their fate will be any different? These folks need enemies need to be seen visibly crushing enemies as part of both their political raisin d’etre and their vindictive and sadistic inner personalities. They need enemies to crush so badly that they will readily invent new ones if the.current supply gets exhausted.

The apparently bumbling and naive external personality these types project fools existing powers into thinking they are easily controllable. It’s a disguise. It’s part of the strategy. The strategem has been used many times before. People keep falling for it.

[Shamie Ervin iv]

You unlettered doom prophets forget about checks and balances, separation of powers.

[Nige]

But why would you vote for someone promising all that, thereby endorsing it?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Because SOMEONE has to reign in the left.

[Nige]

Why, because people keep inconveniently voting for them?

[Jerry B.]

Because that's what happened in 2016, and we're now a MAGA dictatorship?

[Martinned2]

So your argument is that Trump, being too incompetent to end US democracy and the rule of law on the first try, should be given another opportunity to try again?

[Mr. Bumble]

In what way did Trump try "to end US democracy" while he was president?

[Nige]

And these people accuse Biden of senility.

[Jerry B.]

Just answer the question.

[Nige]

How many times until it sinks in?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Jerry B — Apparently we are in a MAGA dictatorship, at least in Judge Cannon’s courtroom. And likely in every court in the nation which our corrupt Supreme Court enjoys power to overturn.

What kind of American thinks a President accused of an attempted coup ought to be shielded from legal reckoning by the courts, without even a chance for a jury to see the evidence?

[Moderation4ever]

While there is a lot of concern about the prosecution of enemies, my biggest concerns about a second Trump administration is what might happen to the civil service system. When we see people in the government placed by loyalty to leader over merit will see corruption in government rise dramatically. People can buy their way into position and then use those position to make money. This has happened in this country in the past and we see it now in other countries where loyalty to the leader is required qualification. Businesses can complain now when a bureaucrat is slow in granting a permit, but think about when a business is expected to kick back to get a permit.

[Joe_dallas]

Moderation4ever 3 mins ago- "Businesses can complain now when a bureaucrat is slow in granting a permit, but think about when a business is expected to kick back to get a permit."

Did you forget about NYC or Chicago?
One of my clients does a lot of construction for school districts. The owners of company stated to me that they will not do work for the largest school district in the north Texas area specifically because of the "required" kickbacks.

[Moderation4ever]

Do you expect to get any better when the only qualification for a bureaucrat is loyalty to a leader?

[David Nieporent]

Trump just said this week that business executives who don’t support him should be fired.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Let Trump break the civil service system, then there will be a bi-partisan consensus to reform it. That's not going to happen right now because the left likes what is there now -- even though all the bureaucrats hired by LBJ have retired, they have been replaced with like minded folk. Even during the Reagan Administration, it was the lefties who got hired.

[Moderation4ever]

How exactly would you reform the civil service system? The current standard is merit and an applicant must have the required skills. MAGA seems to want hiring on the basis of loyalty to the leader. What is the reform you are looking for? I would also add that the idea that civil servants are left of center is wrong. Most civil servants you meet are just like the average person. Is a nurse in a VA hospital different than one in a private hospital?

[Martinned2]

There are already ridiculously many political appointees in the US, which results in the politicisation of administration in a way that is adverse to the interest of good government, or the public's confidence in the government.

[Bob from Ohio]

"MAGA seems to want hiring on the basis of loyalty to the leader."

Its not hiring, its firing that must be reformed.

Un-fireable executive bureaucrats is not democratic, it lets them disregard elections and political direction they do not like.

[Moderation4ever]

Again, explain why firing must be reformed? During the Trump administration people were fired. In some cases, Trump fired people just before they were eligible for pension, just out of spite. What sometime happens is people can't be fired because of the political heat it will bring on, like Nixon's Saturday night massacre when he fired Archibald Cox. You cannot really reform to avoid that happening.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Trump fired people just before they were eligible for pension"

Oh? Don't recall that.

Civil service protected people?

[not guilty]

Andrew McCabe comes to mind. He sued and got his pension restored. https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/14/politics/andrew-mccabe/index.html

[Commenter_XY]

Go ahead, tell me about my lying eyes again. 🙂

https://x.com/FoxNews/status/1800537244966490117

The debates (assuming they happen) should help answer any remaining questions.

[Martinned2]

Even if Biden was actually dead the ethical voter should still vote for him over Trump.

[John F. Carr]

In the 2000 election for Senator from Missouri John Ashcroft lost to a dead man. Democrats were thrilled until they got Attorney General Ashcroft as a result.

[Mr. Bumble]

That would be poetic: dead people voting for a dead candidate.

[Commenter_XY]

That happens in NJ. 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Another all-talk asshole who raves about Republican backwaters but lives in a civilized, modern community rather than moving to Idaho, Mississippi, Wyoming, Alabama, Arkansas, or West Virginia.

Much like the Volokh Conspirators, who whine about mainstream schools all day but don't leave their perches at mainstream campuses until they are asked or told to depart. When Kerr moves to Liberty, or Bernstein to Ave Maria, or Whittington to Hillsdale, or Calabresi to Regent, etc., I'll believe these clingers mean what they say. Until they, they're just a bunch of all-talk phonies.

[David Nieporent]

No idea what your eyes think you see. I don't even get the whole "appeared to freeze" talking point that MAGA has been pushing. What is "freezing" supposed to be a symptom of? But since he was standing still to begin with, how can he appear to freeze? He certainly appears socially awkward, like an 80-year old white guy who can't dance and doesn't want to try, but "freeze"? No.

[Brett Bellmore]

There’s a heck of a difference between standing still, and standing frozen in place like a department store manikin. Biden’s been doing the latter.

You can recognize a Republican doing it, and Republicans are glad to admit he’s doing it, and McConnell was hugely more animated than Biden was.

Look, this is not a partisan thing, too many of our political leaders are so old they’re practically walking corpses. We’re being told we should treat it as normal when people in the highest positions have these sorts of seizures, but we shouldn’t. These people are not medically competent for the positions they hold!

I had a co-worker once who started acting exactly like Biden does. He turned out to have a brain tumor!

[Sarcastr0]

Look, this is not a partisan thing

Haha, yes it is. FOX News is making an explicit push on this with respect to Biden, with 10-second clips and the like. They’re not being very subtle about it; plenty in the rest of the media have noticed it.

You can say ‘politicians too old’ but that’s not really counterbalancing anything on any practical level.

I had a co-worker once who started acting exactly like Biden does. He turned out to have a brain tumor!
Consider if someone pulled this kind of comment about Trump in this thread; that conclusions would you draw about that person?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Consider if someone pulled this kind of comment about Trump in this thread;"

Oh, I'm sorry, is Trump having seizures and freezing in place, like Mitch or Joe? I must have missed the video, you have a link to it?

I've already said many time that Trump is too old to be running for President, that he should have retired and endorsed somebody else. What more do you want? My thinking he's too old to cause me to vote instead for the guy who's older?

[Mr. Bumble]

Who knew GaslightO watched Fox?

[Sarcastr0]

"plenty in the rest of the media have noticed it."

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/biden-cheap-fakes-republicans-trump-deceptive-videos-1235042544/

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, real videos go away if you can identify any deceptively edited ones.

[Sarcastr0]

FOX News blew their credibility by showing they were quite down with deception on this front. I don't trust their videos on this to be legit.

I sure don't trust you or Commenter to figure out what is real and what is not, you so very much want to believe.

[Riva]

Cheap fake (noun) - any unedited video of joe biden’s cognitive decline that the Biden administration does not want the public to see

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “Right, real videos go away if you can identify any deceptively edited ones”

Why do you bother with this bullshit, Brett? The whole world is going to see Biden and Trump on a debate stage for a long extended session. There will be no teleprompter, no notes, and no questions on electric boats or sharks. Who do you think will have a rational functioning brain? Who do you think won’t?

You were talking the same garbage back in ’20 and it didn’t survive the debates. It won’t this time either, no matter how many edited video snippets you produce.

[Mr. Bumble]

If it happens, then we will see.

[Sarcastr0]

No, we won't. Bumble. Or rather you won't.

You'll either declare Biden saying 'um' once show's he's a vegetable, or declare he was drugged up/cheating, or (my bet) as with the State of the Union just be quiet for a month and then restart the yelling that he's senile with come new goalpost or chopped up video.

[Mr. Bumble]

yada,yada,yada, douche, douche, douche.

[Nige]

I think Bumble might be in line for writing Trump's debate speeches.

[Sarcastr0]

having seizures

Ole doc Brett is on the case.

[Nige]

Remember that time you were convinced, absolutely convinced, that a photo of Biden was done on greenscreen? That's how much we trust your interpretations of images.

[grb]

Good Lord above! I'd totally forgotten that one.....

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, had me fooled for whole hours.

[Nige]

You stood, frozen, staring for hours....

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett -- Biden has had what -- two brain bleeds?

Those do damage to you. I'm not sure that Biden would pass a DOT physical -- that he is medically qualified to drive a truck or bus. But to be President?

All his life he wanted to be President and it's sad that he isn't able to realize that he now is.

[grb]

Why do you bother with this bullshit, Ed? The whole world is going to see Biden and Trump on a debate stage for a long extended session. There will be no teleprompter, no notes, and no questions on electric boats or sharks. Who do you think will have a rational functioning brain? Who do you think won’t?

You were talking the same garbage back in ’20 and it didn’t survive the debates. Why keep making the same mistakes over & over & over?

[Mr. Bumble]

Again, assuming the debate occurs.

[David Nieporent]

True. Trump keeps floating reasons to back out, like the pussy he is.

[grb]

Not to mention the interview late last week where Trump said he might lose the debate on purpose. For this pathetic loser statement he gave a pathetic loser reason : To "keep Biden in the race".

Of course we all know that's a lie - just like everything else from the man's mouth.

[Frank Drackman]

He looks like the friggin Original Nosferatu, about to go bite Lucy's neck.

[Mr. Bumble]

+1

[Kazinski]

“ appeared to freeze” talking point that MAGA has been pushing.”

I’m concerned about Mitch McConnell too, but at least he is standing down as Minority leader and says he won’t run again.

[Sarcastr0]

Commenter, remember drip drip drip?

That's been abandoned it seems, in favor of your new hobby horse.

We'll see how long you're convinced of this one.

[Kazinski]

Probably would be a good idea if you published your rules for commenters telling us how many different facets of a topic we can address, what sources we can use, and tone guidance.

[Sarcastr0]

Commenter was convinced of one thing, and it did not come to pass.

Now he has a new thing he's flogging, and it's just as selective and scanty and outcome-oriented. And anti-Biden.

It's a trend.

You play the old hits sometimes, returning to phantom whistleblowers or Comey press releases and whatnot. That you remain fooled is whole different can of worms.

Commenter does not remain fooled - he just looks for another hook to bite on.

[Jerry B.]

Deepfake, of course.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes of course. It was my lying eyes....Deep Fake. 🙂

[Kazinski]

I think the term is now "cheap fake".

Deep fake has a definition, so it's problematic. Cheap Fake can mean anything, including undoctored clips.

[Sarcastr0]

Undoctored doing some work here.

Is a 10 second contextless clip damming?

What about showing Biden walking slow but not mentioning his foot injury?

Sometimes I wonder if you care about the truth or if you just want to grab whatever reaches your desired outcome.

[Commenter_XY]

LOL, keep going Sarcastr0....you provide comedic gold. I mean that. 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, you were just as certain Biden would be impeached or resign for his clear crimes by now.

[Martinned2]

Nothing yet on how the Louisiana 10 Commandments law is perfectly fine under Van Orden v. Perry somehow?

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/19/politics/louisiana-classrooms-ten-commandments/index.html

[John F. Carr]

I thought the law might survive thanks to the stricter enforcement of standing rules in recent decades. Mostly I think it's not that important if Louisiana posts the Ten Commandments and California hangs a rainbow flag.

[Martinned2]

1. Presumably the pupils (and their parents) would have standing?

2. The 10 Commandments are an endorsement of religion. The rainbow flag is not.

[John F. Carr]

In the short term the plaintiffs will find a friendly judge. There is a late 20th century exception to standing rules allowing the ACLU to sue when it is offended by religion. A couple years down the road the Supreme Court may decide that exception is no longer justified.

[Martinned2]

There are many situations where standing is an issue, and I'm as sympathetic to narrowing down standing rules as the next person, but in this case I honestly don't see why it would be a problem.

[Krychek_2]

It's also an equal protection problem. Why shouldn't teachers who are Hindu or Muslim --- other similarly situated religions -- be permitted to display quotations from their sacred writings instead? I were a Muslim teaching in Louisiana, I would be highly tempted to display something from the Koran instead; the resulting lawsuit would be interesting to say the least.

[Armchair]

I'm sure Muslim teachers do display stuff from the Koran in LA, from time to time.

[Krychek_2]

If that's true -- and the fact that you're sure isn't evidence -- then they, too, should be told to knock it off.

[Armchair]

Why should they be told to knock it off?

[Martinned2]

I know you are just trolling, but I'm procrastinating so that works out great.

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

[Armchair]

That's formally teaching religion and state institutionalizing it.

But a passing remark, teaching religion in a class about religion, a religious school, telling the students what the cries of "allahu akbar" mean and where it comes from...

[Martinned2]

Comparative religion is not an endorsement of any religion, that is true.

[bernard11]

Posting the Ten Commandments is not a passing remark.

It is a clear endorsement of religious views. Have you read them?
Much is explicitly religious instruction and has nothing to do with common morality.

[David Nieporent]

Posting the Ten Commandments is not a passing remark.

It is a clear endorsement of religious views. Have you read them?

Even worse: passing one specific religion’s version of the 10 commandments.

[Krychek_2]

If they're teaching comparative religion that's one thing. If they're using their positions as teachers to propagate their religion, that's another.

[Commenter_XY]

How is one to know the difference?

It is a fine line between proselytism and citing something of a religious character that might be relevant. I am not saying you cannot do it, but what is the bright line between those two places? That is the crux of the matter, correct?

Thought experiment: Suppose the LA legislature passed a law stating that ten L Ron Hubbard quotes had to be posted along with the Ten Commandments in every classroom in LA.

If you are not good with that, then you should not be good with that legislation. What was the legislature trying to accomplish?

[Nige]

'How is one to know the difference?'

What is it with the modern right and not being able to tell the difference between things?

[bernard11]

Why are you sure? Why do you post crap, other than you just want to throw some shit out there?

[Armchair]

What harm would be demonstrated?

[Sarcastr0]

What's the harm endorsing Christianity as a state religion?

Between this and your weird zoning screed yesterday, you're getting pretty theocratic these days.

[Armchair]

Ad Hominem, skipped.

[Sarcastr0]

How after all these years do you still not know what ad hominem means?

[Brett Bellmore]

True, it may be a fallacy, but ad hominem is at least a form of argument. That wasn't an argument, it was just an insult.

[Sarcastr0]

JAQing off about government endorsement of religion doesn’t require much pushback, and is indeed theocratic.

[Armchair]

Fair enough

[hobie]

Ad hominem? Which part?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You really think that everyone else doesn't see that you just can't answer the question?

Pathetic.

[Bwaaah]

You really are patient with Sarcastr0. I usually skip him without even reading. He's almost always unresponsive in argument His fake argumentation tool bag (e.g. ad hominem attack, moving goalposts, strawman argument, citation, MAGA, etc.) is tired and useless because he cycles through them as both accuser and abuser like all is fair in the hands of Sarcastr0.

Yes, he sometimes incorporates real argument. But it's hard to have an appetite for good food dropped into a sewer.

When pressed, he doesn't deny his lack of interest in sincere argument. And he doesn't like it when I speak about him like he's a real human being, as I do here.

And, yes, this is just an ad hominem attack. He may have said something worth considering, but why waste more time picking through his sewage?

[Don Nico]

+1

[M L]

+2

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, dude. You reply to me all the time but rarely read me.

And you have a habit of make general accusations but never have much to point to.

Remember when you said I lack empathy just out of the blue? That was random.

I would not recommend piggybacking on Armchair's incorrect use of ad hominem if you're looking for a specific post to object to.

[Bob from Ohio]

"What’s the harm endorsing Christianity as a state religion?"

Moses erasure.

[Bwaaah]

Armchar: "What harm would be demonstrated?"

The first commandment seems to put forth a principle assertion that there is a god, one god, no other god, and that nobody should rightfully believe otherwise.

As such, the Commandments actually attack/deny atheistic beliefs. They are an endorsement of one religious perspective to the exclusion of others. When presented in schools as a featured argument that is superior to others, that strikes me as a problem with respect to the Constitution and the Establishment clause.

Overall, excepting that problem, I find them to fall pretty much in the range of what might be called good practices, and not just that, but important good practices.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure your 2nd point is actually all that strong. It depends on how you define "religion"; Is belief in a deity actually an indispensable part of religion? Not legally, no. Look at Buddhism, for instance. No deity there, but it's legally treated as a religion.

Functionally, a lot of nominally 'secular' belief systems are essentially religions, and the reasoning for not having the government endorsing them is the same.

[Krychek_2]

Brett, none of which has anything to do with the equal protection issue I actually raised.

[Martinned2]

Sure, and science is "essentially" a religion too, if you squint hard enough.

But seriously, the establishment clause does not mean what you think it means, and there is no reason to be overly rigid in defining religion in the two religion clauses.

[Brett Bellmore]

Science isn't a religion, but sciencism could be.

[Nige]

Presumably this is in reference to science stuff you don't like or find inconvenient or which you have to deny is real to be a Trump supporter.

[Nige]

'Functionally, a lot of nominally ‘secular’ belief systems are essentially religions'

Speak for yourself, Trump voter.

[bernard11]

But the Ten Commandments do in fact explicitly endorse a set of religious views. You don't get to anything general until #5, "Honor thy father and mother."

Before that there are only specific rules for believers.

[bernard11]

Functionally, a lot of nominally ‘secular’ belief systems are essentially religions, and the reasoning for not having the government endorsing them is the same.

Sophomoric bullshit.

[not guilty]

"Nothing yet on how the Louisiana 10 Commandments law is perfectly fine under Van Orden v. Perry somehow?"

In regard to the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms, the relevant precedent is not Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), but instead is Stone v. Graham, 449 U. S. 39 (1980) (per curiam). The Louisiana law conspicuously omits any mention of Stone. https://legiscan.com/LA/text/HB71/id/3004342/Louisiana-2024-HB71-Enrolled.pdf

SCOTUS in Stone held unconstitutional a Kentucky statute requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public schoolroom, reasoning that in the classroom context, we found that the Kentucky statute had an improper and plainly religious purpose. 449 U.S. at 41 ("We conclude that Kentucky's statute requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school rooms has no secular legislative purpose, and is therefore unconstitutional.")

There was no opinion of the Court in Van Orden. Per Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977), the holding of the Court in Van Orden, is not the four justice plurality, but instead is Justice Breyer's opinion concurring in judgment. Even the plurality opinion of Chief Justice Rehnquist recognized the continuing validity of Stone v. Graham:

[Stone] stands as an example of the fact that we have "been particularly vigilant in monitoring compliance with the Establishment Clause in elementary and secondary schools," Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578, 583-584 (1987). Compare Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. 577, 596-597 (1992) (holding unconstitutional a prayer at a secondary school graduation), with Marsh v. Chambers, [463 U. S. 783 (1983)] (upholding a prayer in the state legislature). Indeed, Edwards v. Aguillard recognized that Stone — along with {School Dist. of Abington Township v.] Schempp, [374 U. S. 203 (1963),] and Engel [v. Vitale, 370 U. S. 421 (1962)] — was a consequence of the "particular concerns that arise in the context of public elementary and secondary schools." 482 U.S., at 584-585.

In McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union, 545 U.S. 844 (2005) (decided the same day as Van Orden v. Perry), Justice Souter wrote for the Court about the religious significance of the Ten Commandments:

Stone stressed the significance of integrating the Commandments into a secular scheme to forestall the broadcast of an otherwise clearly religious message, 449 U. S., at 42, and for good reason, the Commandments being a central point of reference in the religious and moral history of Jews and Christians. They proclaim the existence of a monotheistic god (no other gods). They regulate details of religious obligation (no graven images, no sabbath breaking, no vain oath swearing). And they unmistakably rest even the universally accepted prohibitions (as against murder, theft, and the like) on the sanction of the divinity proclaimed at the beginning of the text.

545 U.S. at 868.

[hobie]

Of course Stone was the result a a largely progressive court. And so far, Harlan Crow has found no precedent that he won't overthrow

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

STATES RANKED BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
(includes territories; 52 jurisdictions ranked)

HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA
Louisiana 48

COLLEGE DEGREE
Louisiana 49

ADVANCED DEGREE
Louisiana 46

DRAWLING HAYSEEDS
Louisiana 4

UNRECONSTRUCTED BIGOTS
Louisiana 5

SUPERSTITIOUS DUMBASSES
Louisiana 6

Louisiana is a national leader in ignorance, crime, drug abuse, and poverty. It is a national disgrace with respect to education, health, and economic development.

Of course those Bayoubillies see the Ten Commandments as a solution to their self-inflicted problems and deplorable nature.

Carry on, clingers. So far as your bigotry, superstition, ignorance, and backwardness could carry anyone in modern America, that is.

[Jerry B.]

Does that include the 34% who are Black?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Any of you clingers still confused about how former professor Volokh blogged his way off the UCLA campus?

[Frank Drackman]

Telling the truth?

[Tempe Jeff]

In other words, your statistics are weighted toward non-acheiving people with a large percentage of black folks in the mix. How many states are high achievement with a higher percentage of black folks living there?

[Frank Drackman]

You ever heard a black from Louisiana talk? Fill you mouth with Texas Pete Hot Sauce and say “Nome Sane Nigga” over and over

[Josh R]

Stone relied on Lemon which was discarded in Bremerton. The new standard is "historical practices and understandings." There are likely 3 votes to uphold the display (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch) and three to strike it down (Kagan, Jackson, Sotomayor). The Chief, Kavanaugh and Barrett will decide the case.

[David Nieporent]

Before you count merits votes, you should count cert votes. Unless the Fifth Circuit does something wacky even by Fifth Circuit standards, this law gets struck down based on directly-on-point precedent. There are probably two votes for cert. Not sure about Gorsuch. But even if so, who’s the fourth?

[not guilty]

"Stone relied on Lemon which was discarded in Bremerton."

Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist., 597 U.S. 507 (2022), was primarily a free exercise decision. It did not discuss Stone v. Graham, let alone abrogate it. Stone did indeed apply Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-613 (1971), but a state's obligation to avoid endorsement of religion predates Lemon.

"Neither a State nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another." Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 106 (1968), quoting Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15 (1947). See also Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962); Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963).

[Josh R]

Last time I checked, you don't have a seat on SCOTUS and there might be five votes to fully dismiss endorsement. If there are, then it will not be a problem to grant cert.

[not guilty]

The clowns of SCOTUS will do what they choose. In the meantime, all inferior federal courts are bound by Stone v. Graham, which is on all fours and barking up a storm regarding the invalidity of the Louisiana act.

FWIW, the Fifth Circuit has applied the "endorsement" test, prohibits the government from conveying or attempting to convey a message that religion is preferred over non-religion, as being separate and distinct from the tripartite analysis of Lemon v. Kurtzman. See Doe v. Beaumont Independent School Dist., 240 F.3d 462, 468 (5th Cir. 2001) (en banc).

[Kazinski]

"Neither a State nor the Federal Government can pass laws which ... aid all religions"

I think the RFRA did exactly that and the Supreme Court has submitted to Congress' will.

[Sarcastr0]

Check out City of Boerne v. Flores. It's like the only Kennedy opinion I like.

It's rather the opposite of the Court submitting to Congress' will on RFRA, albeit not on establishment clause grounds.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, I have a different question. The Lemon test(s?) were done away with. What happens to any SCOTUS decision that ever relied on any part of the Lemon test(s)? There have to be a bunch of them, no?

[David Nieporent]

Nothing happens to them. SCOTUS has very clearly said that only SCOTUS can overrule its own rulings; even if the logic of a previous case is undermined by a new decision, the previous case's rule remains in effect until SCOTUS says otherwise.

[not guilty]

"NG, I have a different question. The Lemon test(s?) were done away with. What happens to any SCOTUS decision that ever relied on any part of the Lemon test(s)? There have to be a bunch of them, no?"

SCOTUS decisions remain binding unless and until they are overruled by SCOTUS. A litigant is free to argue that the abrogation of Lemon v. Kurtzman should call into question subsequent decisions that relied upon Lemon analysis, but the burden would remain on the party challenging the continued validity of such decisions.

[John F. Carr]

Reading the text of the law, I see that the expenditure of public funds on Ten Commandments posters is prohibited. Schools may accept donations. This rule seeks the benefit of Pleasant Grove City v. Summum which allowed privately funded commandments on public lands. That decision was unanimous.

[Martinned2]

Oh, that's the one I was thinking of, rather than Van Orden.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Aren't the Ten Commandments chiseled into one of the walls of the Supreme Court building?

How's that different?

[bernard11]

Are students required to sit and look at them all day?

[David Nieporent]

Well, not exactly, no.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/northandsouthwalls.pdf

[Estragon]

“If you want to respect the rule of law,” Landry said, “you’ve got to start from the original law giver, which was Moses.”

-Gov. Jeff Landry

It’s a curious conception of the rule of law. And perhaps my memory is fuzzy, but did Moses really “give” the law? I thought he just brought the tablets down from the mountain?

It’s a useful lesson in hypocrisy for the young people, though. They will learn that God hates stealing, coveting thy neighbor’s wife, coveting thy neighbors goods, adultery and bearing false witness… and then they will see their parents turn around and vote for Trump.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I am thankful my children and grandchildren will get to compete economically with the products of Louisiana schools.

(That line works with just about every state that votes Republican.)

[Frank Drackman]

More like the product of Salvadoran Schools, you seen these Wetback Barristas? They bubble a mean Cappochino, and don’t have the attitude of your Special Ed offspring, and they don’t give a fuck bout no Juneteenth(Ironic that a holiday for Slaves is as illiterate as most of them were? It’s why it’s “Brer Rabbit” instead of “Brother Rabbit”

Frank”Pleeze Mista Merchan, don’t throw me in no Rikers!”

Frank

[bernard11]

a holiday for Slaves is as illiterate as most of them were?

Yeah. Illiterate fools. Wonder why they didn't just go to school and learn to read and write.

[Frank Drackman]

They had day jobs

[Martinned2]

This sounds like fun:

A transcript of a “secret” White House meeting in 2020 will provide evidence former US President Donald Trump helped facilitate the “world’s largest oil conspiracy,” according to a proposed class action price-fixing lawsuit seeking revival before a California appeals court.
(...)
The Ninth Circuit is weighing whether the federal judiciary has the power to preside over price-fixing claims linked to the Trump administration’s involvement in a deal with Russian and Saudi officials that preceded an historic global oil production reduction, surging oil prices and record profits for oil firms.
(...)
If the Ninth Circuit upholds a lower court’s dismissal of Alioto’s case on jurisdictional grounds, it would effectively overturn Supreme Court precedent requiring congressional sanction for price-fixing and create a loophole for companies to engage in price-fixing conspiracies using the cover of backing from the Executive Branch, he said.

“Once the government has decided, based on lobbying, that a particular course of official action is in the interest of the United States, the Sherman Act doesn't speak to that action,” oil company attorney Ginger Anders argued before the Ninth Circuit last week (see here).

“To the extent that the plaintiffs’ injuries arise from it, the government ought to be able to act in the public interest, even if that's anticompetitive,” she said.

Corporate profits from Trump’s self-described “big Oil Deal” are now being plowed into a series of anticompetitive acquisitions that will eliminate competition in the oil sector, according to Alioto.

[Krayt]

Wasn't anticompetitive behavior by politicians, in favor of cronies, once described in a judge's decision as "America's national pastime"?

This is your world, not mine.

[Martinned2]

American politicians and state entities get away with way too much as it is, as far as I'm concerned. For example, I see no reason to exempt the state of North Carolina from the Sherman Act: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/574/494/

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, if we didn't exempt state entities from general laws, government itself would be illegal. We've got a whole parallel vocabulary for the same acts by governments and non-government actors: Kidnapping vs arrest, robbery vs taxation, slavery vs conscription, it goes on and on.

[Bwaaah]

^^^Quite, quite true.

[Martinned2]

So why should the states be exempt from the Sherman Act specifically? If an exception is necessary in a particular case, Congress can write one, as it did for the NFL to allow it to do collective broadcasting deals.

Normal things the states do aren't "commerce" or "trade", and so by definition not covered by laws against restraints of trade in interstate commerce. But if a state wants to monopolise an industry, or set up a cartel, it should have to explain how that fits with the Sherman Act. Federal law trumps state law.

[Ridgeway]

You may want to take a look at how states regulate utilities and insurance. Landlords too, although that is usually more local govt than state.

[Brett Bellmore]

The question in this context is never, "Why should the state be exempt from the federal law?", it's always, "Why would the federal law ever apply to a state?" That's the threshold question you have to answer, in a country with the 10th amendment in it's Constitution.

Constitutionally, and depending on their own state constitutions, state governments can do basically ANYTHING they want, unless you can point to a federal Constitution basis for saying the contrary.

If the Sherman anti-trust act applied to state governments, you'd have a REALLY high constitutional hurdle to clear, to uphold it.

[Krayt]

Hence handing out anti-competitive favors for cronies is "America's national pastime", ergo, was perfectly fine in that case.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The argument would be that he was trying to keep North Dakota viable so that oil prices couldn’t be raised once ND was run out of the oil business.

In any case, wouldn't this come under "foreign policy"?

[Martinned2]

It may well do, which is exactly why I described this case as "fun". If it was easy, it wouldn't be fun now would it?

[Frank Drackman]

9th Circus?Flip Wilson’s “Court of What’s Happenin’ Now” had more Gravitas

[Martinned2]

This is an amusing story, but I don't think someone should have their law licence taken away for doing something that is completely unrelated to their practice of law, simply on the theory that behaving like an idiot undermines the public confidence in the legal profession.

https://www.legalcheek.com/2024/06/barrister-suspended-for-12-months-after-punching-theatre-goer-in-dispute-over-seat/

[ReaderY]

Disagree. It’s related. Attorneys are officers of the court sworn to uphold and apply the law. Crimes - and punching someone is a violent and serious crime - is definitely inconsistent with this duty.

[Martinned2]

Leave the punishing of crimes to the criminal courts. The bodies that regulate the legal profession should stick to stopping people from practicing who might cause damage to their clients (e.g. by being incompetent) or to the courts (e.g. by making fraudulent submissions). A felony conviction does not, as such, mean someone will do either.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Moral turpitude...

[Martinned2]

That's exactly the thing that I don't want the Bar to go around having opinions about. (Leaving to one side whether punching someone is a crime of moral turpitude.)

[ducksalad (5/30 bad, really!)]

A couple things here.

First, someone who deals with frustration by punching people in public places is going to be a problem in court. Because the judge, the opposing counsel, and witnesses are very likely to behave in ways he finds frustrating.

Second, it's common for probation conditions to include purely punitive restrictions unrelated to the crime. Around here an embezzler on probation will not be allowed to consume alcohol, enter a bar or cantina even if not drinking, associate with anyone else who is on probation, travel outside the county without permission, or refuse consent to any search by a law enforcement officer. Maybe it would be "cleaner" if the punishment was assigned directly by the criminal court but presumably the court knew what the tribunal was likely to do.

[Martinned2]

Second, it’s common for probation conditions to include purely punitive restrictions unrelated to the crime. Around here an embezzler on probation will not be allowed to consume alcohol, enter a bar or cantina even if not drinking, associate with anyone else who is on probation, travel outside the county without permission, or refuse consent to any search by a law enforcement officer.

That's the sort of American practice that I'd rather other countries not copy. The goal should be rehabilitation, not treating people like children.

Maybe it would be “cleaner” if the punishment was assigned directly by the criminal court but presumably the court knew what the tribunal was likely to do.

It almost certainly didn't enter into the court's consideration. And I don't want it to. Let the man earn a living. (Well, he wasn't practicing as a barrister already anyway, but let's ignore that aspect of the case.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

I know someone who lost his teaching license because he broke into his own house in a messy divorce situation. And he lost it for life.

[Martinned2]

Well, that's the US Old Testament approach to felons not called Trump: They are forever shunned from polite society, and condemned to working in Amazon fulfillment centres for the rest of their lives.

[David Nieporent]

This is an amusing story, but I don’t think someone should have their law licence taken away for doing something that is completely unrelated to their practice of law, simply on the theory that behaving like an idiot undermines the public confidence in the legal profession.

I agree with your statement with respect to licensed professions generally. If one's offense doesn't relate to the actual use of that license, it shouldn't be denied/stripped. (That applies to drivers' licenses, too!) But with respect to attorneys? No. Attorneys are imbued with great power and discretion and trust in the practice of their profession. Criminal attorneys are inherently incompatible with that. (I'm talking about significant crimes here.)

In NY, being convicted of a felony = automatic disbarment. By automatic, I mean that the bar doesn't even have to act; it just happens by operation of law.

[Martinned2]

Attorneys are imbued with great power and discretion and trust in the practice of their profession.

Really? Like what? Barristers speak in court on behalf of clients, and give clients opinions about what a court would be likely to say if it was asked. They don't even do conveyancing, that's the solicitors.

In NY, being convicted of a felony = automatic disbarment. By automatic, I mean that the bar doesn’t even have to act; it just happens by operation of law.

I know, and that's a terrible rule.

[John F. Carr]

Sally Jenkins at the Washington Post warns about turning college student-athletes into employees. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2024/06/16/college-sports-unionization-employees/?itid=ap_sallyjenkins

Picture a scenario in which 19-year-old Arch Manning has to abide by a labor agreement with the University of Texas that could limit his paid sick leave if he gets hurt, subject him to termination and arbitration clauses and classify his $90,000 scholarship as taxable work income even though it has no cash value.
[…]Let’s say Manning becomes a union-employee-athlete activist at Texas and fails an exam in world literature. He files an unfair labor practice charge claiming the grade was retaliation. Is the NLRB really the right body to decide whether Manning read his Cervantes?

The NLRB hypothetical is already close to reality. Harvard faces a complaint that disciplinary action against graduate student protesters was an unfair labor practice because loss of student status means loss of employment.
While some presidents would welcome the extra power, I think Congress should decree that academic discipline is never an unfair labor practice.

[Martinned2]

How about US universities just stop operating sports franchises? It's a crazy idea, but it just might work.

As for graduate students, when I was doing my PhD I was an employee of the university, with a pension plan and everything. That never stopped the university from (hypothetically) punishing me for plagiarism, etc.

[John F. Carr]

The legal situation is probably different in America. We have a strong dichotomy between union and non-union jobs and a federal agency whose job is to make sure unions always win.

[Martinned2]

That is indeed a broader conversation. The gist of it is that when employers go to war with unions 100% of the time, rather than seeking compromise solutions, they shouldn't be surprised if the unions don't trust them, and insist on overly rigid rules that aim to prevent employer bad faith.

[Don Nico]

Not happening. Too much money and alumni support are involved.

[Martinned2]

Separating health insurance from employment is also not happening, but that doesn't make employer health insurance anything other than profoundly dumb.

[Don Nico]

Why do you think that it is profoundly dumb. It has provided health insurance to blue collar workers for decades.

[ducksalad (5/30 bad, really!)]

It would be less paternalistic for employers to give employees the same value in cash and let them choose their own insurance, if any.

We got into this situation because of intrusive tax laws that incentivize giving employees in-kind benefits rather than cash. And because the definition of insurance has been corrupted from protection against rare future risks, into collectivization of quite predictable expenses. That in turn means insurance companies prefer a predefined, captive group of customers to avoid healthy people opting out.

[bernard11]

It would be less paternalistic for employers to give employees the same value in cash and let them choose their own insurance, if any.

It would be less paternalistic, true, but would create enormous problems. Individual policies are, in general, much more expensive than group plans, for one thing.

And how much are you going to give the employees in lieu of insurance? Do the healthy 25-year-old and the overweight 50-year-old get the same amount?

[Nige]

Paternalism would seem like something that should be way down the list of priorities when it comes to accessing health care.

[Martinned2]

Because it stops people changing jobs. From society's POV, that's a terrible outcome.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"The NLRB hypothetical is already close to reality. Harvard faces a complaint that disciplinary action against graduate student protesters was an unfair labor practice because loss of student status means loss of employment."

UMass Amherst is already there -- to the point where I am seriously considering arguing (through channels) that the grad school should be de-certified because being an employee in the barganing unit is necessary to have the benefits of being a graduate student.

" classify his $90,000 scholarship as taxable work income"
That's not going to happen because the IRS Code considers an employer-provided UNDERGRADUATE scholarship to be tax exempt.

However, employer funded GRADUATE tuition *is* taxable and the question I have is that now these unionized "employees" are receiving their tuition waivers as an *employment* benefit, why don't they also have to pay taxes on them?

[BrotherMovesOn]

Dr. Ed, could you show us on the doll where UMass touched you?
You have zero chance of affecting change (through your “channels”, LOL) at UMass, and even less at effecting change.
Go Don Quixote all you want.
You are a bitter old man, with apparently no qualms about posting your sick, violent fantasies online.
WaPo could do a “Lie Tracker’ on you. But why?
You’re just an irrelevant 50’s racist old crank.

[Magister]

I am seriously considering arguing (through channels) that the grad school should be de-certified because being an employee in the barganing unit is necessary to have the benefits of being a graduate student.

UMass would be a strange outlier if only employees could be graduate students. I was not employed by the university for almost half the time I was a graduate student, and it made no difference.

[Alan K. Henderson]

Wondering if someone here knows the answer to a question: on what date(s) did Alvin Brag reveal a) that §17-152 was the basis of the "second crime," and b) the three theories offered to justify conviction on those grounds. I'm curious to know the time gap between those events and the April 4 release of the subpoena and the Statement of Facts, and how much time defense had to prep for that.

I'm also curious about the dispute between prosecution and defense over the term "retainer agreement" which is critical to the records falsification charge. Prosecution says such agreements have to be in writing to exist, Bove argued otherwise.

7 You know, the Government cited the Rubinstein case.
8 I have a copy of that here as well.
9 I think when your Honor reads that case, what you
10 will see is that what it's really about is whether and to
11 what extent a retainer letter is necessary to permit an
12 attorney to recover fees from the client.
13 It's not about whether, as a matter of ethics rules
14 and attorney's ethical obligations, the Retainer Agreement
15 is necessary.
16 I have some cases as well that we hope your Honor
17 will look at before you rule on this.
18 One is Moran. And I'm going to hand this one to
19 Mr. Steinglass.

What are the odds that Trump was thinking along the lines of Bove and honestly assumed that "retainer" was an accurate term for his personal attorney's services?

[Armchair]

a) "On what date(s) did Alvin Brag reveal a) that §17-152 was the basis of the “second crime,”

I believe it was during his closing arguments. The defense did not have a chance to respond.

"b) the three theories offered to justify conviction on those grounds.

This is more of a grey area, but since one of the theories was "the lawless means" were the original supposed falsications (It's a circular crime, the misdemeanor is enhanced by the supposed election misconduct via lawless means and the lawless means are the original falsifications), and since §17-152 was only revealed during the closing arguments...the Defense did not even have a chance to respond, let alone time to prepare.

[Sarcastr0]

Armchair, did you think of looking it up at all? Because your entire argument is you crying foul based on your ignorance.

Closing arguments were May 28.

This, from April: The indictment, which was unveiled in April 2023, charges Trump with 34 counts under that provision but does not specify "another crime." A month later, Bragg's office suggested four possibilities
https://reason.com/2024/04/15/alvin-bragg-says-trump-tried-to-conceal-another-crime-what-crime/

[Armchair]

Suggesting a possibility is not confirming what the second crime was. That confirmation was only done during closing arguments.

[Sarcastr0]

Suggesting a possibility is not confirming what the second crime was.

Your whole argument is the defense could not prepare. Turns out they could. Now you're badly tapdancing.

[Armchair]

No, my "argument" is responding to the question posed, accurately.

On a more serious note, using multiple the "possibilities" of a charges (Rather than being upfront and saying what the actual charges and underlying crimes are) undermines a fair trial.
The defense in any given case has limited resources, and limited time to respond to the charges and underlying crimes. By presenting multiple "possibilities" of charges and underlying crimes (until the closing argument, and when the defense can't respond anymore), it forces the defense to spread their efforts and arguments wide, rather than responding to the actual charges.

To bring this concept to its logical extreme, a state could make "Breaking the law in the criminal code" a crime, and then charge the defendant with "breaking the law"...with the actual law being broken not being disclosed (until the closing arguments). And when asked, the prosecution can simply say "Well, it's one of the 2754 possibilities in the criminal code. It might be any of them". And then the defense needs to just guess. Which is unfair and unjust.

[Brett Bellmore]

What they actually did, as I understand it, was provide a choice of something like four possible predicate crimes, and not require the jury to agree on any one of them having happened. So you could have three jurors convicting on the basis of crime A, three on the basis of crime B, and so forth, without a majority, let alone unanimity, agreeing that any particular predicate crime was real.

[Commenter_XY]

DA Bragg disclosed 17-152 in his July 2023 filing. Team R should prepare for Pres Trump to be sentenced to prison.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I agree that they're absolutely going to go for a prison sentence. You can't insist somebody is ultra-Hitler, and then sentence them to probation. And this is the judge who tried to impose the corporate death sentence on Trump's NY holdings before the trial.

But I see no prospect at all of his actually seeing the inside of a jail prior to the election; The appeals courts aren't nuts.

[Nige]

You can make the prosecution of a mediocre white-collar criminal for a mediocre white-collar crime sound like something way more dramatic using terms like 'ultra-Hitler' and 'death sentence' but really, he's just a squalid crooked little sleazebag. You *wish* he was ultra-Hitler.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm saying Democrats have generally been portraying him as ultra-Hitler from the moment he announced for the Presidency, with ever more lurid claims about how American democracy is over if he were ever [re]elected. Given that, they can hardly justify going easy on him once they've convicted him of, well, basically ANYTHING.

Because that's not how you treat somebody who's going to end democracy in America if he ever gets [back] into the Oval office.

So, sure, convict him of ludicrously minor offenses, you're still going for the maximum possible sentence.

[Nige]

oh no, Democrats were mean to a Republcan politician, how unheard of!

‘they can hardly’

Who is ‘they’ here? If you were worried about his sentence you should probably wonder why he thinks it’s such a good idea to bluster, threaten, abuse and lie about the person responsible, and their family. He doesn’t have to be ultra-Hitler. He just has to be a massive idiotic arse.

[bernard11]

Nobody has been portraying him as "ultra-Hitler."

But when a Presidential candidate goes around calling certain groups "vermin," saying they "poison our blood," and promising to round them all up and put them in camps before deporting them en masse, it does call certain historical cases to mind.

[Sarcastr0]

Given that, they can hardly justify going easy on him once they’ve convicted him of, well, basically ANYTHING.

Brett continues to tell on himself with his take on professionalism. Of Dems, of course. He does not really analyze the right.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “… with ever more lurid claims about how American democracy is over if he were ever [re]elected.”

And that was before he tried to steal the election he lost. Seems like the warnings were pretty prescient, eh? Of course anyone could have predicted he’d lie about election results. After all, he did so during the GOP primaries back in ’16. He did so by claiming he won the majority vote against Clinton. But who could have foreseen Trump would relentlessly attack the very core principle of democracy itself? That he’d still be spreading his toxic lies years after the phony electors, wheedling calls to demand officials alter vote counts, pressure on Pence and mob violence when that pressure failed (which Trump watched like a sporting event, recording and rewinding the parts he liked).

That all seems pretty lurid, Brett. Seems like the warnings were right. And we haven’t gotten to his lifelong criminality; his sleaze trail of corruption; the attempt to trade U.S. government favor for private gain, and his neverending scams & lies. There’s a lot here you could face - honestly face - if you hadn’t already sold your soul to the cult.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, that may be a different judge. So much lawfare, I'm having trouble keeping track of which case is which.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What would happen legally if SCOTUS were to not only to rule in Trump's favor on the immunity case but to throw in *dictum* that the Bragg conviction is unmitigated bullshyte which SCOTUS will throw out when it gets to them.

Assume for the sake of argument that a majority opinion has that wording in it -- at least 5 justices agree to an opinion that explicitly states that they will throw out the Bragg charade when it gets to them.

We had 35 years of affirmative retribution in college admissions because of *one* judge's dictim in the Bakke case -- what would be the impact of SCOTUS saying "we're goinna toss Trump's conviction on the following grounds..."?

[David Nieporent]

What would happen legally if SCOTUS were to not only to rule in Trump’s favor on the immunity case but to throw in *dictum* that the Bragg conviction is unmitigated bullshyte which SCOTUS will throw out when it gets to them.

What would happen legally if the Proud Boys assassinated all the people in the Biden Administration at Trump’s command? As long as we’re making shit up that can’t happen.

We had 35 years of affirmative retribution in college admissions because of *one* judge’s dictim in the Bakke case

I don’t know what you think happened in 2012, but there was no “dicta” (sorry, "dictim") involved in Bakke. Five justices expressly held affirmative action to be permissible.

[Frank Drackman]

Team D should prepare for, wait why should I tell you?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, did you notice how NYC dropped it's congestion tax?

The trucking companies said "fine -- we'll just dump your stuff on the sidewalk at 51st street and let YOU come pick it up there..."

[Martinned2]

If that in fact happened, it would be yet another example of the US being broken, and hardly something to brag about.

[David Nieporent]

Well, did you notice how NYC dropped it’s congestion tax?

No. No such event happened. New York State, not New York City, blocked it from going into effect.

The trucking companies said “fine — we’ll just dump your stuff on the sidewalk at 51st street and let YOU come pick it up there…”

Weirdly, Mr. "I don't make things up" is making things up again.

[David Nieporent]

Team R should prepare for Pres Trump to be sentenced to prison.

Even if he is — and that seems exceedingly unlikely — it will be stayed pending appeal.

[not guilty]

"What they actually did, as I understand it, was provide a choice of something like four possible predicate crimes, and not require the jury to agree on any one of them having happened. So you could have three jurors convicting on the basis of crime A, three on the basis of crime B, and so forth, without a majority, let alone unanimity, agreeing that any particular predicate crime was real."

Your understanding is incorrect, Brett. Commission or concealment of a "predicate crime" is not an element of NY Penal Law § 175.10. As Justice Merchan correctly instructed the jury:

For the crime of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, the intent to defraud must include an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

Under our law, although the People must prove an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, they need not prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided, or concealed.

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf

The court instructed the jury on a single object offense, to-wit: a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152:

Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election.

The court instructed the jury further:

Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.

In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws.

[Krayt]

How about crying foul based on exatons from history of politicians using the power of government to facetiously attack an opponent, so pervasive and corrupting not doing that became a fundamental design principle of the US Constitution?

"He was corrupt!" lied a corruption standing atop a corruption heap larger than Mt. Everest.

[David Nieporent]

on what date(s) did Alvin Brag reveal a) that §17-152 was the basis of the “second crime,” and b) the three theories offered to justify conviction on those grounds.

May 16, 2023, when Bragg disclosed that in a court filing.

What are the odds that Trump was thinking along the lines of Bove and honestly assumed that “retainer” was an accurate term for his personal attorney’s services?

None. The testimony and documentary evidence clearly established that Trump knew that the payments were reimbursements for various monies Cohen borrowed to pay Trump's expenses, rather than payment for legal services, and that there therefore was no agreement, oral or written, for the latter.

[Armchair]

"The testimony"

Which testimony? Michael Cohen, serial perjurer's testimony?

[David Nieporent]

I mean, yes, Michael Cohen's testimony. Which you can choose not to believe (as you can for any witness, whether said witness has previously committed perjury or not), but the jury found credible, probably because it was corroborated by the testimony of David Pecker as well as documentary evidence.

[Sarcastr0]

Relitigating a conviction based on a partial and partisan filtered understanding of the evidence presented at trial is kind of a useless exercise.

[not guilty]

“Wondering if someone here knows the answer to a question: on what date(s) did Alvin Brag [sic] reveal a) that §17-152 was the basis of the “second crime,” and b) the three theories offered to justify conviction on those grounds. I’m curious to know the time gap between those events and the April 4 release of the subpoena and the Statement of Facts, and how much time defense had to prep for that.”

(a) Justice Merchan ruled in limine on March 18, 2024, among other things, "that New York Election Law § 17-152 applies to the charged conduct and is not preempted”. https://www.nycourts.gov/Reporter/3dseries/2024/2024_24121.htm

(b) Justice Merchan discussed four prosecution theories in some detail in an order filed February 15, 2024. The court permitted argument of three such theories to the jury and precluded argument as to the fourth. https://cases.justia.com/new-york/other-courts/2024-2024-ny-slip-op-30560-u.pdf?ts=1708987141

[Armchair]

I'm amused that not even ardent anti-Trumpers NG and Nieporent can seem to agree when on what date did Alvin Brag reveal that §17-152 was the basis of the “second crime.

Note "The second crime". Not "a possible option".

[not guilty]

I didn't bother with ferreting out the earliest date that Alvin Bragg referenced § 17-152 as the object offense intended to be committed or concealed. I accordingly made no contention as to when the prosecution first declared its intention.

Instead I referenced two judicial orders, each entered well in advance of trial, that put Team Trump on notice that they should be prepared to counter the prosecution's contentions during argument to the jury. These orders show conclusively that Armchair's assertion, "I believe it was during his closing arguments. The defense did not have a chance to respond" is an absolute lie.

[Commenter_XY]

I am pretty sure about the July 2023 date; it was in a filing (just one reference). I remember because I recall thinking to myself, “cute”.

It is the additional jury instruction that NG correctly cited that comes off badly, and makes it feel like a Chinese menu conviction; take one from column A, one from B, and one from C; and gee whiz, out pops 34 felony convictions….the product of an unbiased NYC judge and NYC jury for you.

loki13 cited an article that discussed the case in great detail. It helped me understand how the case fit together.

[Martinned2]

Also a Very British Story:

Tory director of campaigning takes ‘leave of absence’ as election betting scandal grows
(...)
Last week it was revealed that his closest parliamentary aide, Craig Williams, who was the prime minister’ parliamentary private secretary, was under investigation after “having a flutter” of £100 on the date of the election just three days before it was called by Mr Sunak.

Ms Saunders, like Mr Williams, is now under investigation by the Gambling Commission with one of his close protection police officers also facing inquiries over a bet they made on the election date.

[Krayt]

Because politicians would work to cheat the election to win a £100 bet, instead of work to cheat the election so they could continue the corruption gravy train?

[Martinned2]

The bets here were about the date of the election, not about who will win. (Where my bookie is currently giving 1/20 odds for a Labour win, and falling by the day.)

[Krayt]

Ohh right, parliamentary systems.

[Malika the Maiz]

Apart from the standing issue, do the Republican-friendly commenters here want to defend the substance of having every Louisiana public school student have to gaze upon:

I am the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; and showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.

Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is a sabbath unto the LORD thy God, in it thou shalt not do any manner of work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day; wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, you've got a point: The medical bills from their going blind from said gazing will be horrific. Oh, wait, no they won't, because seeing things you don't like is a normal part of life, it doesn't burn out retinas. So I'm not exactly horrified.

My son has had comparative religion in middle school social studies, so he's been exposed to lots of stuff like that from various religions. It doesn't seem to have scarred him.

That said, would I have advocated it myself? No. But on a scale from 1-10 of things government does that are abhorrent to the Constitution, this pegs the meter at, oh, about 0.03.

[Sarcastr0]

Disingenuous, Brett.
Same shit as statutes are our history.

The issue here is the symbolism, not the information.

[hobie]

The first four commandments basically tell non-Jewish children that their god is shit and that by worshiping their other-god they are fucking up big time.

[Martinned2]

To be fair, nowhere does it say in the ten commandments that there are no other gods. It just says that Jews are not supposed to worship them.

[Sarcastr0]

The Commandments only apply to Jews at least as related in Exodus.

[Martinned2]

Of course, that's the whole point. The Jews made a deal with the Sun God. Exclusive worship and offerings in return for special treatment from the god.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Sun God"?

[Krayt]

Yahweh was a mountain god.

[Martinned2]

Sorry, I was going from memory. I seem to have misremembered, or historical research has moved on. But he was definitely a sky god, far away from the underworld. (Hence the fuss about witches and other people who communed with the underworld.)

Quoting wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh#Early_Iron_Age_(1200%E2%80%931000_BCE)

In the earliest Biblical literature, Yahweh has characteristics of a storm god typical of ancient Near Eastern myths, marching out from Edom or the Sinai desert with the heavenly host of stars and planets that make up his army to do battle with the enemies of his people Israel.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Christians too, Gaslighto

[Frank Drackman]

Now you’re claiming to know what God thinks? Stick to the Stolen Valor, at least the sanctions aren’t eternal

[Ed Grinberg]

Have the various Christian denominations repudiated the Old Testament? I must've missed this development.

[Frank Drackman]

I think they still accept the 15 (crashing sound) I mean 10 Commandments

[Martinned2]

Of course. Isn't that the whole point of the new testament? (As I was just told this afternoon by the new Dutch minister for housing at her confirmation hearings.)

[Don Nico]

No, it isn't Martin

[Bob from Ohio]

Matthew 5:17-20
English Standard Version

"17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

[David Nieporent]

“…except all the rules we don’t like.”

[Martinned2]

I was going to say, not a lot of Christians keeping kosher these days. There was a big row about this in the 1st century, and St. Paul and his Roman-friendly faction won.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The US is a Christian Nation and the fuckup was not explicitly stating that in the Constitution. The religion clause in the 1st Amd was about denomination, not Christianity.

[Krayt]

Many are the Christian nations of Europe. Poor were their results.

Of course, poor were the results everywhere, but that just means Christianity was no savior.

[Martinned2]

Having an established church is great. It means that the state can tell the church what to do, including knocking it off with the homophobia, if necessary.

[M L]

Your insight about the establishment clause is accurate. It was designed to protect the church from the state and give the church/the people independence from the state and religious freedom. Setting aside whether that's a good or bad thing (bad in your view).

[David Nieporent]

The U.S. is not a Christian nation, and they explicitly said that.

[M L]

Without taking a position on whether "the US is a Christian nation" (not sure what that means), when they wrote the word "religion" in the first amendment, this probably reflected basically a Christian concept of what the word religion means.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

As opposed to what concept? That's an interesting assertion, but I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

[bernard11]

The issue here is the symbolism, not the information.

And the wielding of power by the religious right with no concern whatsoever about Constitutional niceties.

[hobie]

"Republican state Rep. Michael Bayham, one of the bill’s authors, argued Wednesday that the new law is not just about religion — nor are the Ten Commandments.

“It’s our foundational law. Our sense of right and wrong is based off of the Ten Commandments,” he told The Post"

So it is a legal document and the foundation of our laws, eh? Best take a looksee [reads all 10 commandments]...uh, no

[not guilty]

Only three of the prohibitions set forth in the Ten Commandments -- murder, theft and perjury -- are crimes in most states. Adultery is a crime in sixteen states.

[Krayt]

"Coveting your neighbor's stuff" is used as a memetic reason for ever manner of corruption crime, either as-is, or as jealousy rationale to get elected, so yoj can then be corrupt.

"Those guys are making your life horrible. Authorize me the power to crack their heads, and I'll make your life better!"

This is the main problem of human history.

[Nige]

Have none of these people heard of the Beatitudes?

[Josh R]

Geroge Carlin had it right when he distilled the 10 down to 2:

Thou shalt be faithful and honest
Thou shalt not murder

[Nige]

Has anyone thought of introducing Trump to the Ten Commandments?

[bernard11]

You know, that whole business about "the foundation of our laws" is annoying.

It's just a blatant lie.

Anyone ever go to jail for making a graven image?

[Frank Drackman]

Of $100 bills? I think so

[not guilty]

Actually, Malika the Maiz, the Louisiana act does not include the full quotation of texts from Exodus. It prescribes that the classroom display must include a truncated version of the Commandments. https://legiscan.com/LA/text/HB71/id/3004342/Louisiana-2024-HB71-Enrolled.pdf

[ThePublius]

It's preferable to the religion of LGBTQ+ being forced down our throats, requiring people change their language, use others' preferred pronouns, recognize trans belief, schools and government offices flying gay pride flags, and so forth; but even less so, as with the trans stuff, people are actually cancelled, fired, even prosecuted for not adhering to this b.s. No one is going to be canceled, fired, or prosecuted for not professing belief and/or adherence to the ten commandments.

[Martinned2]

NURSE!!

[ThePublius]

Meaning what?

[Nige]

LGTBQ people exsting is an affront to Publius.

'No one is going to be canceled, fired, or prosecuted for not professing belief and/or adherence to the ten commandments.'

Not until the Christian right are more ascendant, anyway.

[Malika the Maiz]

It’s interesting that so far none of our GOP-leaning commenters have offered a defense of this law. We’ve got “it ain’t that bad because it doesn’t physically harm anyone” (Brett), whataboutism (Publius), but no one seemingly saying “this is a good idea to have ‘You shall have no other Gods before Me’ and such posted prominently in every K-12 or college classroom.” It’s sad that this is such a polarized nation that these folks can’t just say “it’s a dumb and/or unwarranted thing for the Louisiana government to do.”

[Ed Grinberg]

– I would shut down all public schools.
– Until such time as they are shut down, who gets to decide how public schools are run? I say: the people who foot the bill, i.e., the taxpayers (through their elected representatives). If the people of Louisiana (through their elected representatives) have chosen to do this — more power to them. (You & your ilk trying to prevent them from doing it is a perfect example of why we’re “such a polarized nation.”)

[Nige]

You should probably involve some experts in education somewhere along the line.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Now do guns!

[Bwaaah]

“It’s interesting that so far none of our GOP-leaning commenters have offered a defense of this law.”

That’s because even though the underlying message of the Commandments isn’t problematic, its display as presented in the law is in contention with some fairly well established Constitutional principles.

Your surprise is probably steeped in an underlying belief that all GOP-leaning commenters are faux constitutionalists. (Democrats tend to be much less troubled by constitutional principles, like equal protection under the law.)

[Martinned2]

Given what the Trumpists have said about this law in this thread, that seems like a reasonable starting point.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You, sir, are a conservative in good standing; the target audience of a white, male, shit-rate blog; and a worthless, ignorant bigot.

I shall celebrate your replacement, which will be your lone contribution to America's great liberal-libertarian progress.

[Drewski]

That isnt quite right: The statute specifies the text to be used. Or, to phrase it differently, Louisiana has issued its own official version of a religious text.

[Martinned2]

Of course, in for a penny... If the state is going to endorse the 10 commandments, it makes sense that it would also decide authoritatively which version of the 10 commandments is the correct version.

[hobie]

Paraphrasing a Nobel Laureate in Physics from 2007:

"Humanity must awaken from the long, slow nightmare of religion"

[Frank Drackman]

Paraphrasing a German Patent Clerk who improved on Newton, you have to pretty fucking smart to improve on old Isaac
“God doesn’t play dice with the Universe”
I’d tell you his name but then I’d have to kill you, (that’s a joke “Top Gun” reference, and am I the only one who noticed the best pilot in the Original, “Ice Man” is a pathetic Invalid in the remake, and the chosen pilots in the remake are as “Inclusive” as you can get, still took a White Boy to do the job

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Sadly Kilmer and not just his character is a sad invalid.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Doesn't the King James Bible have an actual LIST?

[Krayt]

Isn't the King James bible the bible of a church created so Henry VIII could get a divorce? How would that give you any confidence it wasn't a devil-infused distortion?

Assuming the devil and God exist.

[M L]

My position is that if the people of Louisiana, or better yet the people of a particular school district, want to do that, then they can.

[bernard11]

And if those people want segregated schools, or Christian theology taught, or restricting science education to boys, that's OK too?

You're a moron.

[M L]

Bernard, I don’t think racially segregated schools are OK. But the question isn’t “what is OK.” The question is who decides.

Since you ask, I live in the US, and I’m comfortable with forcing a “no racially segregated schools” rule on a federal level across all of the states. I don’t supporting going and enforcing that rule in Afghanistan, though, and within the US I generally don’t support forcing things on the federal level, instead leaving decisions to state and local communities. The content of schools certainly falls under that. Moreover, the federal Department of Education is a spectacular failure and should be abolished.

[bernard11]

My position is that if the people of Louisiana, or better yet the people of a particular school district, want to do that, then they can./i>

First Amendment be damned. Is that it?

You claim to be a lawyer, yet it seems to have escaped your notice that there are certain things governments in the US (at whatever level) can't do, even if the voters want them to.

So "who decides" about segregated schools is not, in fact, the voters.

Are you really that stupid, or are you just trolling, or are you just letting your neo-Confederate flag fly?

[Mr. Bumble]

Any guesses on what decisions the SC will release today and tomorrow?
Will the Trump immunity decision be one?

[David Nieporent]

Well, not today. In fact, none of the big ones today. We’ll see what tomorrow brings in about 21.5 hours.

[Mr. Bumble]

Curious as to the immunity decision: before or after the debate?

[David Nieporent]

Since I'm not Josh Blackman, I won't try to read tea leaves. It's plausible that they would time it to be the last decision of the term, because it has the potential to overshadow anything that comes after, but I have no actual idea if that's true just because it's plausible.

[Mr. Bumble]

Just curious as to your opinion. Nobody can predict the future.

[Sarcastr0]

And a lot of pros don’t try.

[Moderation4ever]

It is the political season, and the advertisements are ramping up on TV, radio and internet sites. I have noticed that one of the old tropes is being hauled out. The "my opponent is professional politician". What amuses me about this is the candidate using it will likely become a professional politician. In my lifetime I remember one Congress person, Scott Klug, who said he would serve no more than 12 years and who stuck to that promise. I also think of Wisconsin's current senior Senator who said he would serve no more than 12 years but decided he needed to run again after serving 12. So, the "professional politician" label means little to me as I assume the candidate has little else to tell me and they will likely just become what they rail against.

[Krayt]

That’s a normal complaint. Last elecion, they ran TV ads with a black screen with “32 million unemployed”, and low frequency scary music, the result of bipartisan recommendations and efforts to get people to stay at home because of covid. Probably the most cynical, indeed insidious, thing I’ve ever seen.

Your complaint is a fresh walk in the park.

[ducksalad (5/30 bad, really!)]

You’re focused on the hypocrisy. To me, the problem is the uselessness: if “professional politician” was an effective criticism, we wouldn’t have professional politicians, incumbency would be a serious negative and they’d generally get voted out. But they don't.

It boils down to the usual problem with democracy: those other voters that vote for the wrong people.

[Moderation4ever]

I do think there is hypocrisy, I would also suggest that the candidate using it has little else to say.

[bernard11]

Of course it's a stupid criticism. The relevant question is what the candidate has accomplished, what positions he has taken during his political career, and what positions he takes now.

Same as if he were a professional something else.

[Mr. Bumble]

An omen that Trump will win in November?

White buffalo born in Yellowstone.

"According to the Lakota tribe, the birth of the white bison signifies a time of prosperity is near."

[hobie]

We're already experiencing prosperity. But I suppose more couldn't hurt

[ThePublius]

Oh, so the economy is a "cheap fake," too?

"More companies announce bankruptcies and closures, citing inflation as almost 3,200 stores face shuttering in 2024: poll"

https://nypost.com/2024/06/18/us-news/more-companies-announce-bankruptcies-and-closures-citing-inflation-as-almost-3200-stores-face-shuttering-in-2024-poll/

You repeat all of the democratic party narratives, including the fiction that the economy is fine, or even great, Bidenomics, and all of that B.S. The economy sucks since he took office. Inflation is real, it's not transitory, and even as inflation cools, prices are never coming back down, except perhaps gas at the pump. Interest rates are way up. Wages and SOcial Security haven't kept up. And on and on.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Credit card and auto loan late payments are up -- always an early warning sign of trouble.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Did you get your economics degree from the same store that sold a law degree to you?

[Frank Drackman]

Better than your Count Chocklula Cereal box one

[Martinned2]

Particularly for the Lakota. Then again, I'm not sure if the second coming of Andrew Jackson is quite what they had in mind.

[Moderation4ever]

Did I miss something? The last Trump administration ended in a recession. Is there any reason a second Trump administration will end differently?

[Jerry B.]

There's a chance that Covid might have had something to do with that.

[Moderation4ever]

Yes, but there are always problems that come up in a President's term. The lesson from the Covid Pandemic is that Donald Trump doesn't have the talent or skill set to handle a crisis,

[ThePublius]

That's baloney. He got the vaccines developed in record time.

[Moderation4ever]

The fact is that in almost every way imaginable the former President failed during the pandemic. The success of the vaccine does not offset the failures. No one knows the next crisis, but he will undoubtably fail that also.

[Krayt]

The crisis in Ukraine, where a dictator's tanks are rolling through Europe, we already know a changeover will be full of fail. No need to speculate.

[Nige]

It does shine out as an amazing acheivement, and makes everything else look so much worse. He had to *work* to fuck shit up, but he thought a vaccine before the election would get him re-elected, and who knows, it might have. His anti-vaxx base do not care about contradictons when it comes to Trump and everyone else might have felt they had to give him credit, however grudgingly.

[Martinned2]

It helps when the whole rest of the world is doing most of the work.

[bernard11]

Sweated away in the lab day and night, did he?

[bernard11]

Fortunately, aggressive fiscal policy helped avoid that.

[Frank Drackman]

Only a historic Pandemic

[Martinned2]

I'm going to break my usual policy against starting threads about Trump. Fox News has Biden ahead 50/48 in its latest poll. That's the first time they've had Biden ahead since October.

https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/fox-news-poll-three-point-shift-biden-trump-matchup-since-may

[ThePublius]

"Trump was ahead by 1 point last month, while Biden is up by 2 points today: 50%-48%. That’s well within the margin of error."

Within the margin of error means it's indeterminate. So, no one's ahead.

[bernard11]

Within the margin of error means it’s indeterminate. So, no one’s ahead.

No. It doesn’t mean that, no matter what all the news reports say.

It means Biden is ahead, but not by much today, or rather at the time the poll was conducted.

It doesn’t say a lot about the election, though, because sentiment can shift a good bit between now and November.

[Bob from Ohio]

A national poll says little since we have 50 elections.

[Frank Drackman]

Quiet! Love how whenever. Repubiclown wins it’s like none ever heard of the Electical College

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Is this significant (if in fact it is) because it shows Biden ahead or because it is a Fox News poll?

[Martinned2]

Both. Biden has been consistently behind, and Fox isn't the news outlet that you'd expect to have a pro-Biden bias in its polling.

[Brett Bellmore]

"and Fox isn’t the news outlet that you’d expect to have a pro-Biden bias in its polling."

Well, not unless you'd been paying attention, anyway. Fox isn't so much a conservative outlet, as it is a not relentlessly liberal one.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Fox isn’t so much a conservative outlet....."

LOL.

[Bwaaah]

Smell me. I'm snarky. Tee-hee.

[Estragon]

“Nobody can ever trust Fox News, and I am one of them”

[Sarcastr0]

Unless something has changed in the past few years, Fox employs high quality nonpartisan pollsters.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Would Chris Stirewalt endorse that assertion?

Fox also hires downscale, disingenuous partisans to convey polling information.

[Longtobefree]

Are those the same polls that had Hillary waltzing into the White House?

People lie to pollsters, if they even talk to them at all.

[Martinned2]

If only pollsters were aware of that!

[Moderation4ever]

Or the same polls that had Trump getting 30% of the black vote?

[Bob from Ohio]

The Fox poll our Dutch friend cited has Trump getting 27% of the black vote.

[Krayt]

It's the same pollsters who had Romney winning in 2012, so shockingly off Rove sat there on election night denying the impending loss, so west coast people wouldn't be disheartened and stay home, causing downstream failures in other races.

[David Nieporent]

Are those the same polls that had Hillary waltzing into the White House?

I mean, no, obviously not; these polls don't even mention Hillary.

[Josh R]

There has been a small movement towards Biden recently. If the election were today, Biden would still be an underdog, likely about where Trump was the day before the election in 2016.

[Bob from Ohio]

Here is a poll from 2 days ago showing Trump movement:

"The 2024 Presidential Contest
Source: NPR/PBS News/Marist Poll Registered Voters. Interviews conducted June 10th through June 12th, 2024, n=1,184 MOE +/- 3.8 percentage points. Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Biden (49%) and Trump (49%) are tied among registered voters nationally. In late May, Biden (50%) was +2 percentage points against Trump (48%). Among those who say they definitely plan to vote in November, Trump now receives 50% to 49% for Biden."

From lefty media too.

[Estragon]

Seems indisputable that Trump’s support has at least softened since the voters were treated to “guilty” 34 times over.

After having been subjected to months of think pieces by pundits (and comments in this very space) talking about a brokered convention, Biden (zero felonies) dropping out in favor of Johnny Unbeatable “for the good of the party” etc etc… I am wondering where the similar pieces about Trump are?

Substitute a generic, non-felonious MAGA for Don and one has to think GOP rolls to victory this fall… right?

Anyone have any theories?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Seems indisputable that Trump’s support has at least softened "

I just cited a poll to the contrary. so its nor "indisputable" at all.

[Estragon]

No theories, then.

[Bob from Ohio]

Never heard me saying Biden would not be the candidate.

It is a fantasy to think that a sitting president would not be re-nominated if he choose to run. Its not the 19th century any more.

[ducksalad (5/30 bad, really!)]

I don’t think Trump supporters are leaving due to the felonies he’s been convicted of, which after all are very minor crimes (if crimes at all) that wouldn’t even get a backpage story in a local newspaper story if it was an ordinary person.

I think they (and it's not many) are leaving because they want to vote for a strong winner and allowing Democrats to convict him was a weak loser thing. Most of his appeal is that he thwarts and frustrates Democrats, and he failed.

[Estragon]

“allowing Democrats to convict him”

I’m not sure what to make of this. What was the alternative? Flee the jurisdiction?

[Bob from Ohio]

[moved]

[Noscitur a sociis]

After having been subjected to months of think pieces by pundits (and comments in this very space) talking about a brokered convention, Biden (zero felonies) dropping out in favor of Johnny Unbeatable “for the good of the party” etc etc… I am wondering where the similar pieces about Trump are?

We tried that a few months ago, and it didn't seem like the voters were very interested!

[ThePublius]

"Massachusetts Spends $1 Million of Taxpayer Money on Ad Campaign Against Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers"

How is this even legal?

https://amgreatness.com/2024/06/19/massachusetts-spends-1-million-of-taxpayer-money-on-ad-campaign-against-pro-life-pregnancy-centers/

[Martinned2]

Because pregnancy centres mislead people about the nature of the services they offer, and so it makes sense that the government should find some way to avoid consumers being misled. Normally you'd do that by shutting these places down, or at least fining them for violating whatever consumer protection or fraud statute fits best, but when it comes to abortion that makes people upset. So instead the State is forced to spend taxpayer money to counter lies with the truth.

[ThePublius]

They are not misleading or lying, any more than abortion mills are lying and misleading, e.g., than abortion is "health care."

[Sarcastr0]

‘It’s okay for my guys to lie because I am convinced the other side lies’ is nothing more than justifying lack of principles.

Would you trust me to decide when conservative dishonesty justifies liberal lying?

You shouldn’t only carry about the truth sometimes, when it’s not inconvenient to your desired outcome.

[ThePublius]

Two things:

1. I don't think they are lying;
2. I don't think the government should take a position on this, nor should they spend taxpayer dollars promoting one side or the other.

[Martinned2]

Then feel free to vote for a politician that agrees with that view, the next time there's an election in Massachusetts. Or run for office yourself, even.

[Nige]

If they weren't lying, this wouldn't be necessary.

[M L]

The only liars here are the people running those ads. So it’s the ones who love killing that are lying. Unsurprisingly.

[Nige]

What are they lying about?

[M L]

Just for example.

"these facilities...pose a significant risk to the health and well-being of those seeking help"

She also accuses them of "deception and misrepresentation" and "shameful practices and blatant misinformation.”

All lies. Premised on an underlying lie that killing unborn babies is "health care."

[Nige]

How do you know they're lies? These seem like serious problems.

[Sarcastr0]

ThePublius, you did accuse the other side of lying:
"abortion is “health care.”"

What do those scare quotes mean other than that it's a lie to call abortion health care?

So when you say that crisis pregnancy centers meet the low bar of *ahem* "abortion mills" you do seem to be admitting some lying is going on.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"They are not misleading or lying, any more than abortion mills are lying and misleading, e.g., than abortion is “health care.” "

You are an especially stupid and antisocial clinger, ThePublius. Your replacement will be a blessing upon America.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Because pregnancy centres [sic] mislead people about the nature of the services they offer, "

In fact they don't. You are parroting pro-abortion propaganda.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How many times have you sought counseling from the GED holder wearing fake scrubs at a "crisis pregnancy center" operated by disingenuous, superstition-addled clingers?

[M L]

No, they don't.

They offer lots of valuable services and goods for free or little cost, including through private charity, with the aim of supporting mothers and children. They oppose killing the unborn (imagine that) and they are up front about that.

[Bob from Ohio]

He's Dutch, they don't care about life, they just allowed a 29 year old to be "assisted" to kill herself.

[Nige]

The US has been "assisting" the killing of tens of thousands since October.

[Sarcastr0]

They project vastly more services and goods than they actually have because their purpose is not to provide such services.
They pretend to be honest brokers and medical experts when they are not.

So when they say stuff like 'if you get an abortion you will never be able to have children again' they're laypeople basically making up a risk based on vibes.

They're legal, but they do not use ethical methods..

Here's a general lay of the land
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/why-crisis-pregnancy-centers-are-legal-unethical/2018-03

[M L]

No, they are generally very honest, accurate, and forthright. And extremely valuable and helpful to mothers and children in need.

Abortion providers on the other hand are more than unethical, they are monstrous. So are the people lying about pregnancy centers because they love abortion, like you.

[Sarcastr0]

Meeting a source with ipse dixit seems a bad strategy to me.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

They are not "up front" about anything. They are lying assholes.

[mulched]

Claimed, as they say, without evidence.

[apedad]

As Prof. Volokh has mentioned before, the govt can decide what its speech is.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was wondering about that myself.

I don't think it is legal...

[David Nieporent]

Dr Ed has opinions.

[Sarcastr0]

Does he really though?

[Noscitur a sociis]

What do you think is illegal about it?

[David Nieporent]

How is this even legal?

What law do you think it would violate?

[apedad]

Colorado Club Q gunman who killed 5 at nightclub to plead guilty to federal hate crimes

Anderson Lee Aldrich, who is serving a life sentence for shooting five dead and injuring 19 others at an LGBTQ+ club in Colorado Springs in 2022, pleaded guilty Tuesday to additional (federal) hate crime and gun charges following new evidence of anti-gay slurs and weapon purchases.

Now U.S. District Judge Charlotte Sweeney, the first openly gay federal judge in Colorado, will decide whether to accept the sentencing deal.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/colorado-nonbinary-gunman-who-killed-5-nightclub-plead-guilty-federal-hate-crimes

We all good from a LEGAL point of view with the gay judge making a sentencing decision in this case?

One on hand the key issue was the crime was specifically against gay people.

On the other hand, we wouldn't/shouldn't worry if a Jewish judge was deciding sentencing against a convict who killed Jewish people.

And we certainly don't worry if a black judge is sentencing a white person for violence against a black person.

[not guilty]

Well, straight judges routinely sentence defendants for crimes committed against straight people.

[hobie]

I guess why not. We let Catholic judges rule on religion and abortion

[Mr. Bumble]

"We let"?

[hobie]

You know, 'we' as a nation tolerate judges who are professed antiabortionists ruling on abortion cases

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, and most Judges who rule on murder cases are antimurder, now I'm not sure if your even a High Screw-el Grad-jew-ate, well Pubic HS maybe.

[Martinned2]

And in my nation no important case is ever decided by a single judge, exactly for this reason.

[Mr. Bumble]

Which nation is that, or is it both?

[Martinned2]

It's the Netherlands. In the UK a fair few cases are decided by a single High Court judge, although important cases often end up in the Divisional Court in the High Court, which sits in panels of two.

For example, yesterday I was reading R. (National Council for Civil Liberties) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2024), which raised some tricky questions of constitutional law, such as whether the government can do by Statutory Instrument something that Parliament has just refused to do by statute. It was decided by the Divisional Court, consisting of Green LJ (a judge of the Court of Appeal) and Mr. Justice Kerr. I always think it's odd to have an even number of judges, but it seems to work fine in the UK.

[Frank Drackman]

Iran has appeals courts too, Jeezus, did you never take debate class? Logic? PE? Oh, the class where they had to wear the special shoes and they put barriers around the uneven bars? Explains alot

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't think this was anti gay.

Wasn't he a Muslim and targeted the gay nightclub because it was a softer target than the Synagogue?

Although were I the gay judge, I'd try to get a hetero one to do the sentencing because (a) the sentence is moot, and (b) the impact would be greater if a hetero judge did it because it makes it clear that EVERYONE opposes what he did.

[David Nieporent]

I don’t think this was anti gay.

Yes, but you're sort of incapable of taking in facts and understanding them.

Wasn’t he a Muslim and targeted the gay nightclub because it was a softer target than the Synagogue?

No. I would say that you're confusing him with the Pulse nightclub shooter in Orlando — who was Muslim — except even there you've made up facts, as there's nothing about a "synagogue" in that incident either.

[Bob from Ohio]

Who cares. He has already been convicted of murder and sentenced to [unfortunately] life.

The fed case is just a waste of time.

[hobie]

Although most everyone says the Boeing capsule is fine and will return safely to earth, IF Elon has to send up a SpaceX rescue mission, I think this will be the final straw and Boeing is going to collapse as a company

[Brett Bellmore]

Eh, I think Boeing is protected by "too big to fail". It's the only reason that capsule ever got launched in the first place.

[Dr. Ed 2]

More too valuable as a DOD contractor.

[ThePublius]

Boeing's only path to recovery is to return the management of the company to the engineers instead of the financiers. This most recent CEO appointment portends the end.

[Moderation4ever]

I have to agree here. There are limits to cost cutting and I think that Boeing as exceeded those limits. Time to go back to good engineering to make a profit.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem is that almost all the large companies out there are run by bean counters who graduated from the same business schools, that teach that there isn't actually a limit to cost cutting.

If you have competitors, they're doing the same cost cutting, and while the whole edifice is tottering they might bankrupt you before they fall over, if you don't cost cut, too. So who dares be first to go back to good engineering?

Though aerospace might be the one sector where you could feasibly beat back the bean counters, the implications of cutting too many corners being so deadly.

[Moderation4ever]

In the early days of talk radio, before politics took over, I would listen to a guy Bruce Williams. Bruce talked a business and economics. What I will never forget is that when anyone called and told him they had an idea to do or make something cheaper he would say "you can't do it or make it cheaper, because if it could be done cheaper then it already would be done that way." There are finite limits to cost cutting. Health care is another area where companies are beginning to hit a wall.

[hobie]

Lol! Bruce was such a grouch. As he always prefaced his shows, 'Tell me your hopes and your dreams'. And people would and he'd proceed to smash them dreams to pieces

[Moderation4ever]

I don't think he was so much a grouch as honest. Sometimes dreamers need to be brought down to real life.

[bernard11]

bean counters who graduated from the same business schools, that teach that there isn’t actually a limit to cost cutting.

Your source for this information as to what B-schools teach is what, exactly?

Because it's nonsense. Even worse for you, it's sort of left-wing nonsense.

[Frank Drackman]

So now you're an Aeronautical Engineer? I know those Poindexters look like wimps (well except for my Aeronautical Engineer Daughters), but don't say I didn't tell you so when you get a Circular Slide Rule crammed up your Rectum, and some of them have the sharp metal protractor thingie for plotting wind directions

Frank "Wrecked em? Damn near Killed em"

[Frank Drackman]

OK, #1 Daughter (Drackman family joke, we were living in a heavily Asian neighborhood and everyone would talk about their #1 Son, #2 Son, and we did the same, and it stuck) flies 737’s for a major Airline, won’t say which one, but it rhymes with Schmelta. No, not the max, the 737-900. Flies FA-18’s in the reserves, now Military pilots used to love the Boeings, no Airbus Nanny Flight Control Computer limiting your G’s, angle of attack, pitch angle, angle of bank, angle of the dangle, you want to do an Aileron Roll in a B-52? go for it! And the "bitching Betty' (met the actual 'betty" who was the last voice many unlucky military pilots heard, her name's actually Veronica) On Airbuses was this annoying European Douche voice, not the attractive one on Amurican Jets (they use a woman's voice, because research found it got Men's attention faster, and then they would ignore the repeated warnings as they worked the emergency)
But now she has to admit she’s hoping to “Transition” (not that kind) to either the A321Neo or A330, no annoying Yoke to get in the way of your inflight meal (with Schmelta, that’s a feature) and the ”joystick” requires delicate manipulation, which females smaller hands are much better suited to than the Hamhooks most Male Airline Pilots have (why do most senior Captains look like Jimmy Johnson?)
Yes it’s made in France, so is Armagnac (like any of you Rubes will get that reference, Yeah, I’m talkin’ to you Revolting)

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

60 years ago Shemlta was known for good food. Nice to see it still is.

[MoreCurious]

Here's something to think about. The next time you fly Delta, someone with Drackman's genes might be flying the plane. Of course there's no more reason to believe this story than there is to believe that somewhere there's a medical school that allowed Drackman to matriculate. It's much easier to believe that Drackman is the guy cleaning the operating room after an operation.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and what should we believe about you?

[Frank Drackman]

Desflurane Blood:Gas partition coefficient 0.46, it’s a measure of how soluble an Anesthetic gas is in blood, not inherently obvious ( to me anyway, it’s why I pass gas for a living) that the less soluble an anesthetic is in blood, the more rapid the onset of Anesthesia ( and waking up) it requires a heated pressurized Vaporizer, actually warm enough to loosen up your fingers when the Sturgeons turn the OR temp to Siberia, of course I could have just got that from “Scrubs”(good series just for bringing back “the Safety Dance”)

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Are you serious? I was one of the more “normal” med students. It’s only because I’m left handed I’m protecting patients during surgery rather than inflicting it on them

Frank

[ThePublius]

So, how's that humanitarian pier thing going?

Another unmitigated disaster on the part of Biden and his administration. It's been in operation only 10 days during this entire debacle, and the Pentagon estimates that little, if "any of the 569 metric tons worth of aid delivered to Gaza across the pier in its early days had made it into the hands of the enclave's residents for whom it was intended."

Biden would have been better off just dumping $300 mil in currency into the ocean than doing this.

[hobie]

Gloating is always a good thing when humanitarian aid fails

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, I'm unusual in enjoying when Terrorists starve.

[Martinned2]

Biden would have been better off just dumping $300 mil in currency into the ocean than doing this.

Sure, unless you're worried about people starving.

[Moderation4ever]

The general rule is that we try to help. Many times things work sometimes they don't. You don't give up on helping people when you have failures, you keep trying.

[Mr. Bumble]

No one is starving but if by chance someone is short of food it is because Hamas stole it.

[Frank Drackman]

Terrorists starving? only thing is it takes so long

[John F. Carr]

The very expensive pier is not doing a good job preventing people from starving.

[Martinned2]

Indeed, but as long as it does better than no job at all, it's still worth trying.

[Bwaaah]

If one more meal is delivered, then it’s worth many millions of dollars in cost. Alternative uses of capital don’t matter, because something is inherently better than nothing, in this case.

I won’t be hoping for you to be on my budgeting committee.

[Martinned2]

How did you get there from Publius's "let's just drop the money in the ocean"?

[Bwaaah]

You wrote: "as long as it does better than no job at all, it’s still worth trying"

I disagree. A job that's expected to cost too much to accomplish too little isn't worth trying.

[Mr. Bumble]

Easy for you to say, you're not paying for it.

[Martinned2]

The stuff I'm paying for keeps getting destroyed by the Israelis. Here's an article from 2012:

Israel has destroyed development projects in Palestine worth €49.2 million over the past decade, of which €29.4m were funded by the European Union or its member states, according to the European Commission.

The list is the most detailed information provided by the Commission to date on damage by Israeli attacks.

The figures were provided by Štefan Füle, the European commissioner for enlargement and neighbourhood policy, in response to a question from Chris Davies, a British Liberal MEP. Füle also provided a list of 82 projects damaged in Israeli attacks against the Gaza strip and the West Bank, of which the largest is Gaza airport, built with €9.5m in funding from Germany, Spain and Sweden, and destroyed in 2001-02.

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-funded-projects-in-palestine-destroyed-by-israel/

[Mr. Bumble]

Slightly disingenuous on your part since this thread was about Biden's Fun Pier to nowhere. All US funded and at much greater cost than anything you mentioned.
As for EU funded projects damaged or destroyed by Israel, that's what happens when you use infrastructure to hide terrorists.

[Martinned2]

Yes, all those schools, wells, airports that were built with European tax money were definitely infrastructure for hiding terrorists. That's 100% a sane way to describe the situation.

Meanwhile: https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/20/idf-transfers-powers-in-occupied-west-bank-to-pro-settler-civil-servants

[Mr. Bumble]

Stop channeling SarcastroO and Nige; I didn’t say the infrastructure was built for hiding terrorist but that that is what happened and why those facilities became legitimate targets.
How much did the Gaza subway system cost and who paid for it?

[Martinned2]

That is not at all what happened to that infrastructure. We're talking about things that were destroyed by the IDF using bulldozers, not bombs. This was during peace time.

[Mr. Bumble]

Neither linked article says that. The Politico piece is short, 12 years old and covers a period from 2001 to 2012; hardly current events and Israel didn't leave Gaza to the terrorists until 2005.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You really need to do a better job of connecting the dots in your rants, presuming that you're actually capable of doing so.

[ThePublius]

All predictable responses from the leftist, Democratic-supporting, Hamas-sympathizing contingent here.

First, I did not advocate starving people. But we - many people - knew that the aid delivered would be diverted or stolen by Hamas with the help of the UNRWA, and would further enrich Hamas and prolong the war.

Second, if you really want to deliver aid, there are many more practical, less expensive ways to do so that don't endanger U.S. troops.

The "trick" would be to get aid to Gazans who aren't supporting Hamas - all three of them.

Did we ship food and medicine to German during WWII? Think about it. Making life miserable for the enemy population at large is a fact of war, and, in my opinion, a legitimate warfare tactic. A siege, a blockade. Make the population rise up against its government and army.

[Nige]

'First, I did not advocate starving people.'

Of course you do.

'Making life miserable for the enemy population at large is a fact of war'

That's advocating starving people.

[ThePublius]

Do you want Hamas to prevail? Do you support "from the river to the sea?" Want to see Israel erased, and all the Jews killed?

[Nige]

Wow, sounds like the consequences of not starving children to death could be pretty bad.

[Ed Grinberg]

I've seen nothing from him that suggested anything to the contrary.

[John F. Carr]

The way to get aid in is to create a new border crossing or take control of an existing one and drive trucks through it. That means armed soldiers guarding the crossing point and a credible threat from Biden to Netanyahu about the consequences for interference.

[ThePublius]

Wow, Biden should threaten Netanyahu? Do you really want the U.S. to engage in this war on the side of Hamas?

[Nige]

Oh no, poor Netanyahu, don't be mean to Netanyahu!

[Ed Grinberg]

"Do you really want the U.S. to engage in this war on the side of Hamas?"
Par for the course for Democrats.
compare (from Wikipedia):
In a September 2009 interview..., [Zbigniew] Brzezinski replied to a question about how aggressive President Obama should be in insisting Israel not conduct an air strike on Iran, saying: "We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?" This was interpreted by some supporters of Israel as supporting the downing of Israeli jets by the United States in order to prevent an attack on Iran.

[Martinned2]

Yes, and when Iran attacked Israel in April countries like Saudi and Jordan took the same approach, intercepting whatever they could get their hands on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Iranian_strikes_against_Israel#Defense_provided_by_other_countries

Say it with me: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"there are many more practical, less expensive ways to do so"

Bingo!

The United States should inform Israel that unless it ceases interference with aid shipments within 24 hours, the United States will stop supporting Israel's war-crimey campaigns in Gaza and the West Bank. No more intelligence, no more interception of projectiles, no more weaponry, etc.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Guys like ThePublius are going to make that celebratory menu -- bacon cheeseburgers, shrimp cocktail, crabmeat Hoelzel, and Alton's Brown's candied bacon -- all the more sumptuous.

One less superstition-driven, violent, bigoted right-wing government in the world will always be desirable.

Is it too much to hope that America ditches Saudi Arabia and Israel simultaneously?

[Bored Lawyer]

Ah yes, the anti-semite with genocide envy. Why don't you go volunteer for Hamas and put your money where you mouth is?

Of, I forgot, an atheist like you is subject to death over there. Without even getting into your personal habits.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is the Med in June -- I'm questioning the competence of the US Military here -- how the bleep do you spend all this money on a portable pier that can't be used in the Med in June?

What if we ever needed it for actual military purposes, which is why we have it, and somewhere that there is slightly nastier weather?

I look at that beach and say that there is no way they get rough weather there because the whole beach would wash away.

[Frank Drackman]

OK “Dr” Ed, (you should get with Jill Biden and see who’s the less not-real-doctor) Because I’m a Navy guy, ( and I’ve watched “20000 leagues beneath the Sea” OK, for Barbara Eden) there is this thing in the Navy we call
“Currents” and “Tides” supposedly caused by the sun and moon, affects when and where you can put those floaty thingies

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Yesterday was also “National Martini Day” like they say, Jay-Hey doesn’t joke, but he comes close.
and did you know the name “Martini” comes from the town of Martinez CA, where it was invented?
Had to be changed, because “I’ll have a Martinez” could be taken so wrong……
as the late great Johnny Carson would say,
“I did not know that”

Frank “Hey-Yooooooooooooooooooooooo!”

[Ska]

My preference was last Friday, National Bourbon Day. But I do have a lunch for a retiring colleague today...

[ThePublius]

Speaking of which...

Is there any significant, palpable resistance effort on the part of Palestinian Gazans against Hamas? That's a good barometer.

Note the resistance efforts on the part of the French and Spanish during WWII, against their German occupiers.

The U.S. and allies should be supplying the resistance fighters as we did in WWII - at the time, SW radios, small firearms (the Liberator pistol), etc., dropped by parachute; and the coordination infrastructure we provided.

The lack of any significant resistance effort in Gaza means there are few who resist Hamas, ergo....

[Nige]

...they can all be killed!

[ThePublius]

French and Spanish resistance fighters risked death, too.

[Nige]

Every single person in Gaza is risking death, you're justifying killing them all.

[ThePublius]

No I'm not.

[Nige]

Well, thanks goodness for moderation, at last!

[ThePublius]

BTW, my point was that there isn't a significant resistance effort because the vast majority of Gazans - some estimate 70%+ - support Hamas and the erasure of Israel and annihilation of the Jews.

[Nige]

I’ll bet when the Israelis started killing their families by the thousand, Hamas got a pretty big surge in membership and support. To, y’know, fight and oppose the people killing their families by the thousand. It’s a side-effect of this sort of extremist military action, and of course it’s disastrous, but it means there’s more to kill, right?

[ThePublius]

What the hell are you talking about? It's not Israel who teaches their children in school that Israel isn't on the map, Jews should be eliminated, and so forth. In Israel, Palestinians can be citizens, can vote, can hold public office, and so forth. In Gaza, a Palestinian can suffer the death penalty for selling real estate to a Jew. A bit different, eh?

Are you referring to the Israeli response to Oct. 7? What do you think Israel should have done? Shrugged it off? Let's hear your view.

[Nige]

'A bit different, eh?'

And all those alleged differences are justification for the killing of civilians.

'Let’s hear your view.'

Are you seriously suggesting killing tens of thousands of people was literally the only response, as opposed to Netanyahu opportunistically escalating the conflict even further to remain in power as long as possble?

[Z Crazy]

Look at what the Red Army did in response to Operation barbarossa.

Of course, Operation Barbarossa was fought using weapons supplied by the Soviets THEMSELVES. That's another way Operation Barbarossa and its blowback is like the war in Gaza.

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/

[Nige]

You only have to look at 9/11 and what followed to see how utterly counterproductive this is.

[Bob from Ohio]

No mass casualty terrorist attacks on US soil?

Killing Bin Laden and destroying his outfit?

[Nige]

Bush got that barn door shut good, and then brought about two decades of peace in the Middle East!

[Martinned2]

Even if a very large majority of Gazans did support, that still wouldn't justify indiscriminately killing them. You also have stupid opinions, but we don't go around shooting you because of them.

[ThePublius]

No one is indiscriminately killing them. They are casualties of war, unfortunately. Israel has done more to minimize civilian casualties than any country in history.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Shacking up politically with right-wing assholes like ThePublius will be the death of Israel.

Which is great!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nuke Gaza.

[Commenter_XY]

There is not a general resistance, and that is because the palestinians, by and large, are A-Ok with Hamas and their Judeocidal goals.

[Frank Drackman]

So I'm a numbers guy, always have been, I was that kid who could tell you how many "Taters" Bill Buckner hit in 1973 (8, how do I still remember that? it's a "Gift", like people who can blow smoke out of their ears)
So wonder how many Colored Peoples were murdered yesterday in NYC, District of Colored Peoples, Filthydelphia, Chi-town, D-troit, Atlanta, LA? jeez, sounds like a Huey Lewis song
I'm thinking umm, 20-30, low I know, it was a "Holiday" after all

and 2: How many were killed with guns fitted with "Bump Stocks" (have you seen my new invention? the "Bump Finger"

I know the answer to the Second one

Frank

[ThePublius]

People rail against bump stocks, but the are silent on the Glock switches the "youth" of Chicago and other hell-holes fit to their illegally obtained pistols.

Oh, yea, Glock switches are already illegal. That should put an end to that, eh?

https://youtu.be/093VcGf3Gz8?si=-DCzD3OH-FNd9A9Z&t=219

[Nige]

Isn't it weird how making thing a crime doesn't mean that that the thing instantly stops happening?

[Mr. Bumble]

...ever stops happening.

[Nige]

For example, I bet Trump wouldn't hesitate to commit some white collar crime again, despite it being illegal.

[Z Crazy]

Is paying off some 'ho a crime?

[Mr. Bumble]

Is paying for one?

[Nige]

It is the way he did it. Also, remember, he's a Christian paragon.

[Z Crazy]

It makes it easier to put away the crook and the mugger and the carjacker and the gang member.

Can't figure out if a gang member gunned down some kids for wearing the wrong colors? Bust him for having a bump stock or a gluck switch.

It's as simple as that.

[Frank Drackman]

and Glocks aren't cheap, a far cry from the "Saturday Night Specials" of the 60's. Ironic that JFK was killed with a Bolt Action Military Rifle, MLK Jr, with a Pump Action Hunting Rifle, Malcolm the Xth with a Sawed off Shotgun (shouldn't those be illegal? or at least require, I don't know, some kind of ATF Registration form?) and RFK with a 22 cal Revolver.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

...and don't forget Squeaky Fromme who used a Colt M1911 in an attempt to assassinate Gerald Ford.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The two things I noticed -- other than the horrific lack of gun safety is (a) these are American children, educated in American schools, and they aren't speaking English.

(B) They are not only waving their guns around openly, in broad daylight, but putting it on the internet. They may be using Obama phones and hence tracing the IP addresses of this stuff may be a bit more difficult, but the US Government can't figure out how to do that if it wanted to?

If this is characteristic of what is going on in our urban cities, we need to use the Insurrection Act (or something) to put an end to it.

If a half dozen WHITE 12-year-olds went around my neighborhood waving Glocks in broad daylight, there'd be so many cops down here that it wouldn't be funny. Black neighborhoods don't deserve the same?

And fully auto glocks? WHY?!?

[Bwaaah]

For those who may not know how to create a hyperlinked phrase in your comment, here is how you type it in your comment:

  <a href=”https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_a.asp”>my hyperlinked phrase</a>

That ends up looking like this:

  my hyperlinked phrase

[hobie]

Dude. I tried using HTML tags to italicize or bold letters here (ie . But it doesn't work. Do you know the secret?

[Bwaaah]

This will be <i>italicized</i> and this will be <b>bold</b>.

This will be italicized and this will be bold.

[hobie]

bold ital

Suddenly the tags work. Thanks, bro!

[Frank Drackman]

“Bro”? Without ever seeing you I know 1: you’ve got some lame Tat somewhere, probably “Tribal figures signifying “Douchebag” 2: You’ve never been in a Street Fight (and I’m not talking High School, 2020, Newark airport, kicked the shit out of some homeless fuck who put his hands on me when I ignored him, like you’re supposed to do, HT Florsheim Wingtips)
3: you’re a homo, no real Dude thanks another guy for a computer tip

Frank “Hey Bro? Could you massage the cramp in my BIOS?”

[Bwaaah]

Remember the 60s and 70s (and even after), when it was common for "black" people to call each other "brother [this]" and "brother [that]"?

Slowly, almost all of them stopped calling each other "brother" because there was nothing brotherly about the people who spoke that way. (Give me your goodwill...I'm about to take it.) As its use waned, the remaining users of that expression were the bullshittiest of the bullshitters.

"Bro...spot me a cigarette." (fuckin' bums would gladly take your last one)

[Z Crazy]

Many have compared the October 7th attack to the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.

I think a more accurate comparison is Operation Barbarossa.

Both involved horrific war crimes against civilians.

Germany suffered huge blowback from the Red Army, just as Gaza is suffering huge blowback from the IDF.

And one more thing.

The Soviets were arming the Germans prior to Operation Barbarossa; the last shipment of weapons was delivered the morning the attack was launched.

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/

[Frank Drackman]

So the "Easy Jean" Carol rape case didn't work, the Fanny Wooly Bush case collapsed, and now the 34 convictions for what even Larry Member of the Tribe says are Bull shit didn't work,
But sentencing "45" to Rikers? That'll do it!!!
Seriously, the other side isn't just too stupid to be trusted to run the country, they couldn't run a Circle Jerk, or at least, they're not running this one very competently. I was in the Military, if there's one thing they do well, it's Circle Jerks.

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"I was in the Military"

That would explain the 75 years without winning a war.

[hobie]

Actual military doesn't crow about their service as a means for self-aggrandizement. We keep quiet in that regard.

[Frank Drackman]

How the fuck would you know? I see an awful lot of Vets wearing those “Vietnam Veteran” hats (or more sadly the “Vietnam Era Veteran” ones “I was in the Military for at least 1 day between 1959 and 1975!) I was a fucking doctor (albeit with a Marine Infantry unit that went (with me kicking and screaming) across the mine fields into Kuwait, I only bring my service up when pertinent, like my experience with Military Circle Jerks

Frank

[grb]

Does anyone remember a movie called "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension"? The title character was a physicist, neurosurgeon, test pilot, and rock star. Even though the film was a farce comedy, it strangely comes to mind whenever Frank starts on about all his careers, accomplishments, and travel to worldwide hotspots.

[Frank Drackman]

Saw it summer of 1985, taking one of my summer med school make up classes, on a double bill with “Rambo” 2? 3?, the one in Afghanistan, wow, POWs left in Afghanistan by a pussified Military, Sly was a regular Strato-Nostril-Damos!
Sorry to break it to you, some of us have led interesting lives

Frank

[John F. Carr]

A federal judge is being asked this morning to decide whether crew members of the Dali, the ship that knocked down a bridge in Baltimore, should be allowed to go home. Plaintiffs' lawyers are afraid to let the cook slip away because he might be coaxed into incriminating the owner of the ship. In the ordinary course of events the owners of ships are not liable unless their fault can be proved. (This is the opposite of the rule for motor vehicles in America. You can be held liable for your car's accidents without any fault on your part.) So if there's a 1% chance that somebody on board heard the villain discussing his evil plans while petting his cat, the lawyers are going to hold the crew prisoner as long as it takes. That's the difference between a $100 million settlement and a $3 billion settlement.

Crew members, being low status people, have been treated badly. Early on the FBI came in and took away all their electronic devices. They got to stay on board while explosives were set off on the bow.

[Frank Drackman]

They should have just strolled across the border like all the CCP, Ham-Ass, MS-13 dudes do it, they'd have Osama Phones, Osama Care, and even a free bus ride to Martha's Vineyard

[Jerry B.]

Of course, if they’re released, they’ll disappear the moment they get to their home countries, and never be seen again if their testimony is needed.

[M L]

What sort of insurance does the shipping company carry? What requirements exist pertaining to the types and amounts of insurance they must carry?

When you say "owner" do you mean the LLC or legal entity, the company that owns the ship? Or do you mean the individual(s) behind those entities, referring to a veil-piercing argument? I can't fathom why the company would not be liable, that can't be right.

What's this about explosives being set off?

[Dr. Ed 2]

They used explosives to cut the bridge parts that were across the bow of the boat. Lot safer than individual torch cuts.

[M L]

I see.

[John F. Carr]

It is a longstanding rule of maritime law that the liability of the owner of a ship is limited to the value of the ship. In America the relevant law is the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851, 46 USC 30523. The owner is whatever legal entity owns the ship. To make the owner responsible beyond that limit you need to prove "privity or knowledge".

The insurance limit is about $3 billion. There is a primary policy worth much less and an industry-wide (more or less) pool providing excess coverage.

[M L]

I assume a cargo carrier would be owned in a single purpose LLC that owns nothing other than the ship anyway. So I guess that makes sense and doesn't make any difference in the particular aspect I'm thinking about.

But surely this principle doesn't limit the insurance claim, does it? What's the sense in a $3 billion insurance policy that actually has a much lower limit in practice and doesn't cover this damage? When you said "the difference between a $100 million settlement and a $3 billion settlement" are you referring to additional liability of the owner beyond insurance proceeds, or are you saying the insurance may only cover that smaller amount?

[John F. Carr]

Without the limitation of liability every ship would be a single purpose LLC. Such business entities are a modern invention. When this bit of maritime law developed people could not unilaterally create business entities to shield themselves from liability. A partnership required at least one general partner who was personally liable. A corporation required a charter to be granted by special act of the government.

A federal judge will decide of the limitation of liability applies. If liability is limited, insurance will put ≈$100 million into a pot and the claimants will fight over it. Otherwise insurance will negotiate a settlement with an extra digit.

I am assuming the owner will be found liable, up to whatever limit applies, on the grounds that a mechanical failure is the responsibility of the owner. I do not know whether that land-based rule has made its way to the sea.

[M L]

The liability of the owner, and any limitation thereon, is a separate issue from the liability of the insurance carrier to pay a claim.

What is the point of requiring an insurance policy with a $3 billion dollar limit, if the policy is actually limited to the value of the ship ($100M?) unless the owner is at fault? That seems incredibly stupid.

[John F. Carr]

The $3 billion limit is for the uncommon case where owners are on the hook. In the case of the Dali, conceivably the owners knew that the ship was subject to power failures.

[apedad]

Scottie Scheffler Gives Kentucky High Court Something to Ponder

Scottie Scheffler, the world’s highest ranked pro golfer, chose not to pursue a civil lawsuit against Louisville police after they dropped felony charges against him.

“I did not want to have to pursue legal action against Louisville because at the end of the day the people of Louisville are then going to have to pay for the mistakes of their police department,” Scheffler said. “And that just doesn’t seem right.”

The Louisville government is making a similar argument to Kentucky’s Supreme Court.

It just doesn’t seem right, the city argues, that taxpayers are left holding the bag for the mistakes of Kentucky’s justice system because insurers elude paying the fair amount to compensate victims.

The city is backing an appeal of a 2022 court ruling that limits how much insurance companies must pay to those victims.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/scottie-scheffler-gives-kentucky-high-court-something-to-ponder

Yesterday's blog about sidewalks had some comments about distrust in lawyers; the same can be said about insurance companies.

[Martinned2]

Diaz v. United States, just decided by the Supreme Court, is an interesting one. The majority is plainly right that testimony about "most members" of the group to which the defendant belongs is not testimony about the defendant specifically. And yet, there's a reason why the US has such Byzantine laws of evidence. Usually we don't trust juries to parse things so carefully.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-14_d1o2.pdf

[M L]

DOJ Indicts Doctor Who Exposed the Barbarism of “Gender-Affirming Care”

Eithan Haim blew the whistle on Texas Children’s Hospital’s illegal child sex-change program. Now he’s being prosecuted.

...The Department of Justice has not shied from targeting political opponents of the Biden administration: former President Trump; conservative school board protesters; persons praying outside of abortion clinics; and now, doctors who dissent from transgender ideology....

https://www.city-journal.org/article/doj-indicts-doctor-who-exposed-the-barbarism-of-gender-affirming-care

[Nige]

Oh, is that the guy who stole and released confidential medical records?

[M L]

No.

"Contrary to many public reports, DOJ does not allege that Dr. Haim disclosed any patient’s private medical records—what HIPAA calls “individually identifiable health information.” It alleges instead that he unlawfully “obtained” such information...

DOJ seems happy, however, to propagate the false, but politically more appealing, notion that Dr. Haim disclosed private patient information. .... the facts show that Dr. Haim carefully redacted the information in the records that might identify the patients."

DOJ’s Outrageous Political Prosecution of Whistleblower Dr. Eithan Haim

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/dojs-outrageous-political-prosecution-of-whistleblower-dr-eithan-haim/

[Nige]

So he DID steal and release the records?

[M L]

No, he didn't release any confidential records or personal information. He obtained and released general information as a whistleblower showing that the hospital was engaged in illegal activity, in order to expose illegal activity and protect innocent people from harm, a moral and courageous act.

But please continue, let's hear from the "rape your daughters in the public school bathroom and then prosecute you for mentioning it at a school board meeting" side for their thoughts.

[Nige]

You're just saying he stole and released the records using different words.

“rape your daughters in the public school bathroom and then prosecute you for mentioning it at a school board meeting”

I wonder what entirely different thing these words are referring to.

[Noscitur a sociis]

This, I’d imagine:

https://apnews.com/article/virginia-sexual-assault-c0e5184629edc0573c62a0c695aec2c6

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Man, the bathroom gender outrage crowd cling hard to that story. It's about all they've got, so I can understand.

[not guilty]

According to the indictment, https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24765370/haim-eithan-24-cr-298-indictment.pdf , the accused obtained individually identifiable health information under false pretenses and contacted a media contact identified as "Person 1." Person 1 then published HIPAA protected information obtained by HAIM via X (formerly known as Twitter) and other online media outlets.

[David Nieporent]

“Contrary to many public reports, DOJ does not allege that Dr. Haim disclosed any patient’s private medical records—what HIPAA calls “individually identifiable health information.” It alleges instead that he unlawfully “obtained” such information…

I wonder why National Review felt the need to lie in this fashion.

The indictment is here…

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24765370/haim-eithan-24-cr-298-indictment.pdf

…and in fact it does allege what National Review claims it does not allege. Counts 2-4 of the indictment:

From on or about September 2022 to on or about February 2024, in the Southern District of Texas, the defendant, EITHAN DAVID HAIM, knowingly and without authorization, and for a reason other than those permitted by Title 42, United States Code, Chapter 7, Subchapter XL, Part C (provisions of HIPAA), did obtain and/or wrongfully disclose individually identifiable health information with the intent to cause malicious harm to TCH’s physicians and patients.

(Emphasis addded.)

Oh, and from the initial facts:

The HIPAA protected information [that he divulged to Person1] had partially redacted out name of the pediatric patients but kept the dates of service, diagnosis, procedure codes and physician names visible.

(Again, emphasis added.)

[M L]

“did obtain and/or wrongfully disclose”

1. “And/or” should generally not be used in legal writing, imo.

2. You have utterly failed to prove your claim. It says he obtained OR disclosed individually identifiable health information – which (rather conspicuously!) fails to specifically allege the very thing you are claiming that it alleges.

I wonder why YOU feel the need to lie in this fashion?

3. The advanced level class is that and/or might be employed to a certain effect, such as to obfuscate.

[Nige]

But he DID abtain and release it. What are you actually trying to argue, other than that people shouldn't believe their lying eyes?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What kind of dumbass gets his medical training from a concordance?

A Texas dumbass, apparently.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

For a more informative, and less partisan take:

https://apnews.com/article/texas-doctor-transgender-care-indicted-80f26e760bdf857c4728bd39e2fddc50

Haim, a Dallas surgeon, previously had done some work at Texas Children’s Hospital as part of his residency. The indictment against Haim alleges that in 2023, he asked to reactivate his login there to access information on pediatric patients not under his care, including names, attending physicians and treatment codes, then turned over the information to a media contact.

Haim has publicly identified himself as the person who gave the information about patients at Texas Children’s to a conservative activist, who published a story that the hospital was providing transgender care for minors in secret.

Typical ML bullshit.

[M L]

Do you generally support prosecuting whistleblowers for exposing illegal activity, or just in this case?

[apedad]

He's not a whistleblower if he released the info to unauthorized people.

There are whistleblower procedures - AND PROTECTIONS - as long as they follow procedure.

Do you generally support people who are engaged in criminal activity?

[M L]

Incorrect. You are referring vaguely to some specific provision of federal law, it appears, which pertains to whistleblower protections. That specific provision of federal law does not have a monopoly on the term whistleblower, nor is it the only law pertaining to whistleblowers or implicated in this case.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

He's being prosecuted for "exposing illegal activity?"

No, he is not. You can return to the back of the line and go fuck yourself until you're both capable and willing to tell the truth.

[M L]

Of course he is.

As with David Daleiden and countless others, Democrats always go straight to lawfare and locking up their political opponents whenever someone pokes their sacred cows a little too much. In other words, they are thugs, using violence as a means to their ends.

As the NR article put it, "If a whistleblower did what Dr. Haim is alleged to have done to expose, say, that a hospital had committed racial discrimination or Medicaid fraud, it is unfathomable that DOJ would threaten the whistleblower with a life-destroying criminal prosecution. The only reason that Dr. Haim is being targeted is that he has run afoul of the transgender ideology that dominates the Biden administration...
Every day that passes before Garland orders the indictment to be withdrawn is an outrage."

You and everyone else knows that's true. Nobody buys the shit you're shoveling.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/06/20/thursday-open-thread-196/?comments=true#comment-10610743

He violated HIPAA. It's pretty fucking simple to everyone who doesn't get their news from their own echo chambers.

When people who actually know the law tell you that you're full of shit and wrong, you should listen to them. You're too arrogant and stupid to do so.

To the surprise of absolutely nobody.

[Nige]

‘The only reason that Dr. Haim is being targeted is that he has run afoul of the transgender ideology that dominates the Biden administration…’

Ie he’s a transphobe who did this because politically the right are targeting trans people’s access to health care. It's pretty clear Texas law enforcement are very much on his side, so if he thought there was actual illegal activity going on, approaching them would have been straighforward.

[David Nieporent]

What is it with the right wingers suddenly using the word "whistleblower" for anyone who badmouths a liberal? He didn't blow any whistles. If he thought there was actual illegal activity, he could've reported it to (a) the appropriate people at the hospital; or (b) law enforcement. He didn't. He unlawfully — belying his professed concerns about illegality — accessed private info without any basis at all and gave that information to some random right-wing kook website.

[Brett Bellmore]

"who published a story that the hospital was providing transgender care for minors in secret."

In 22 the Texas AG issued an opinion that said treatments were, legally, child abuse.

A month later the hospital publicly announced that they were ceasing the treatments. Haim exposed that they'd lied, and had continued, and even escalated the numbers.

As he redacted the records, nobody's medical records got exposed. All that was exposed was, as ML says, that the hospital had lied, and was continuing the illegal treatments.

[Nige]

'In 22 the Texas AG issued an opinion that said treatments were, legally, child abuse.'

That's completely deranged.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's pretty obvious the hospital didn't think what they were doing was publicly defensible, or else they wouldn't have publicly announced they were putting a stop to it, and then secretly ramped it up.

[Nige]

Or maybe they kept getting lots of bomb threats from all those nice people who claim they want to protect children.

[M L]

Radical Gender Activists Only

The NIH announces a symposium on sex and gender—and invites only one side of the debate to take part.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/nih-hosts-radical-gender-activist-summit

....Numerous national and international sports organizations have begun to ban males from competing in female sports, and many Western nations have started to restrict “gender-affirming care,” especially in the wake of the U.K.’s recent Cass Review. This review, based on the findings of seven new systematic evidence reviews, found “remarkably weak evidence” supporting these procedures.

The United States, however, still lags far behind the rest of the world in addressing these issues, with U.S. medical institutions either ignoring the Cass Review or actively condemning it without substantive critique.

This ideological monoculture cannot be allowed to stand in the U.S. Progress on issues of sex and gender require facilitating meaningful discourse between multiple viewpoints so that policymakers, scientists, medical professionals, and the public are adequately informed. This approach helps prevent the unchecked spread of ideologically motivated ideas, ensuring that medical guidelines are based on the best available evidence.

This, however, is currently the opposite approach being taken by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), a subsidiary of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).....

[Nige]

'One side of the debate'

It's like demanding that the NAACP invite racists to their events.

[M L]

https://www.memedroid.com/memes/detail/3998229/Help

[Nige]

Oh, all the memes they'll be deprived of.

[M L]

Derp.

[Nige]

Seriously, how could they exclude such an important and valuable point of view? 'Derp.' Well said, sir.

[M L]

And yet you’re still getting better than what you give. Answer a fool according to his folly and all that.

[Nige]

Couldn't have put it better myself.

[Bwaaah]

"It’s like demanding that the NAACP invite racists to their events."

No. It's like the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission having a symposium on race, and only inviting white people.

Take a look at the presenters' biographies here at this pseudo-scientific symposium, under the sciency guise of "genomics," entitled, "Exploring the many dimensions of sex and gender in the genomics era."

The symposium should be called "Transgender Advocacy: a practical example of government sponsored political bias in the life sciences."

[Sarcastr0]

Seems like we should invite an expert like you.

[Bwaaah]

The symposium is supposed to be about genomics. There's no benefit in adding an ignoramus to a bunch of axe-grinders.

[Nige]

Surely you can manage both?

[Brett Bellmore]

Some of them certainly sound like they have relevant expertise, and would contribute to a good scientific conference. But, yeah, the list does seem really heavy on transgenderism advocates, and even science censors.

[Nige]

Oh no, they don't have enough people who hate trans people.

[Nige]

I don't know, I wouldn't equate white people with all the cranks and weirdos not getting invoted to the symposium, but you do you.

'The symposium should be called'

So, yes, we're back to the NAACP not inviting racists.

[loki13]

Fearless prediction-

As we get closer to the election, the threads here will get more unhinged and angry.

Other than that, it's MANGO SEASON! If you can get good, fresh mangoes, you should.

[Brett Bellmore]

Now, I have to say, that aside from the scuba, and hanging out with the inlaws, probably the nicest thing about being in the Philippines was fresh mangoes, and bananas, picked right off the tree. What you can get in the stores doesn't even begin to compare to tree ripened.

[Mr. Bumble]

Never did and never will!

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "....that aside from the scuba...."

Reefs, wrecks or both? My personal thing is shipwrecks, and I've done a slew of'em off Jeresy, North Carolina, Florida, and the Keys.

[Mr. Bumble]

No bugs?

[grb]

True. Bugs, scallops, mussels, and spearfishing are a whole other thing. Not for me though. I tend to just go down & look around. Pilfering one of my hosts for food seems rude.

[Sarcastr0]

Sour cherries
Sweet cherries
Passion fruit
Raspberries
Mangoes
Apples
Bananas
Very high quality strawberries.

Everything else.

[Commenter_XY]

Aren't you the guy with the mango tree? How is the crop this year?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY
RACIAL SLUR SCOREBOARD

This white, male, conservative blog
with a thin, misappropriated academic
veneer — dedicated to creating and
preserving safe spaces for America’s
vestigial right-wing bigots — has
operated for no more than

THREE (3)

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

TWENTY-NINE (29)

occasions (so far) during 2024
(that’s at least 29 exchanges
that have included a racial slur,
not just 29 racial slurs; many
Volokh Conspiracy discussions
feature multiple racial slurs.)

This blog is outrunning its
remarkable pace of 2023,
when the Volokh Conspiracy
published racial slurs in at least

FORTY-FOUR (44)

different discussions.

These numbers likely miss
some of the racial slurs this
blog regularly publishes; it
would be unreasonable to expect
anyone to catch all of them.

This assessment does not address
the broader, everyday stream of
antisemitic, gay-bashing, misogynistic,
immigrant-hating, Palestinian-hating,
transphobic, Islamophobic, racist,
and other bigoted content published
at this faux libertarian blog, which
is presented from the disaffected,
receding right-wing fringe of
American legal thought by members
of the Federalist Society
for Law and Public Policy Studies.

Amid this blog's stale and ugly thinking, here is something good. A member of the second induction class at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, he died at 21.

This one, from another member of that induction class, is good, too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones moments:

This one might be familiar.

This one might be familiar, too.

[Nige]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/18/hundreds-of-hajj-pilgrims-die-in-mecca-from-heat-related-illness

[loki13]

Wait, Saudi Arabia is hot during the summer?

The disadvantages of a lunar calendar.

[Nige]

This is what happens when hot places get hotter.

[Frank Drackman]

I’ve heard this crazy conspiracy theory that the Earths tilted on its Axis!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Choose reason. Every time.

[Nige]

Not the point.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The point seemed to be superstition-addled dumbasses arranging pointless, self-inflicted calamity, requiring others to try to rescue the puerile losers. Was there another point?

[Nige]

Yes.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A secondary point, at most.

[Nige]

Not even remotely. Once upon a time you were better than this.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Choosing reason is the first point. Always. Fuck up that one and you are worthless at best.

[Nige]

Missing out on the bigger picture isn’t reason, it's tunnel vision.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Jennings' tenure ended today.

He was part of the finest achievement in American cinema.

[Moderation4ever]

I do hope Donald Sutherland is remembered for more than Animal House. I do admit that may not be the case.

[Brett Bellmore]

Was he in Animal House? I thought of Kentucky Fried Movie.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes, a professor who slept with Karen Allen.

[Frank Drackman]

He wasn’t joking, that was his job!

[Ska]

I went with Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and my colleague quickly responded with MASH.

[Zarniwoop]

M*A*S*H is my first association with Mr. Sutherland

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I liked the movie…I was thinking about the TV show because of the documentary Brats about the Brat Pack. So TV ratings peaked in the early 1980s when boomers were watching boring TV shows like Dallas and MASH and teenagers were going to malls and watching movies featuring the Brat Pack. Can you imagine sitting through an entire episode of MASH?? I think I would rather do homework. 😉

[Frank Drackman]

The uncut version is so great, especially that OR scene, where Hawkeye just nonchalantly pulls out the bone saw, tried to be him all through med school, I even still pronounce it “Tracheo-Esoph-A-Geal-Fist-U-La” I even once used the “Get this dirty old man out of this Operating Room” bit, on an old fuck Surgeon with a taste for the Candy Stripers(he was younger than I am now, sadly)

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

He licked the Candy Stripers?

[Frank Drackman]

Licked the stripes right off of them, to be honest I used to hit on them too, (in my early 20’s)

[Bob from Ohio]

Dirty Dozen and Kelly's Heroes

[Moderation4ever]

Definitely a character in that movie. I am assuming he was projecting a beatnik, but I think that was after World War II.

[Frank Drackman]

Again with the Negative Waves!

[Mr. Bumble]

He had a long career so depending upon your age he will probably be remembered by different people for different parts.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Backdraft?

[Nige]

What was it, 300 films? Klute, Don’t Look Now, Day Of the Locust, Casanova. Heck, he was in JFK and Hunger Games. Every time he turned up a film got 50% better. He’ll be remembered for a LOT.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Yep. He was fantastic in The Dirty Dozen. He was even great in his tiny role as the arsonist in Backdraft.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It is said that Sutherland was essential to the funding of Animal House -- although that film launched a number of strong careers, Sutherland was the only bankable name attached during production, which occurred because John Landis had been Kiefer Sutherland's babysitter -- and that Sutherland consequently was offered a choice: (1) a relatively small cash sum (maybe $50,000) or (2) a small percentage of the movie's revenues (or profits).

Sutherland took the cash, then watched Animal House become a legendary hit (some have said the greatest return on investment for a comedy), which would have made his percentage stake worth millions (Landis said it would have been $20 million, which seems steep).

[Moderation4ever]

I loved hearing Donald Sutherland tell that story.

[Moderation4ever]

For the record, I think Donald Sutherland did well in the movie Klute as the title character. The character use of Jane Fonda as bait to find out what happened to his friend. Good twist in the end.

[Gernonen]

https://www.cnn.com/world/americas/turks-and-caicos-ammunition-arrests/index.html

Possessing a firearm and ammunition is a human right. The U.S. should not tolerate other nations that don't respect that right, including our so called "allies" like Great Britain and Australia.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

” Possessing a firearm and ammunition is a human right. ”

Did Dear Lord Sweet Tiny Infant Eight Pound Six Ounce Newborn Baby Jesus whisper that one directly into your ear?

[grb]

A website I visit frequently posts what Trump was doing & saying exactly four years ago. Today we had this corker from a DJT speech:

“Here’s the bad part: When you do testing to that extent, you’re gonna find more people, you’re gonna find more cases. So I said to my people, ‘slow the testing down please!’”

Now, Trump had terrible economic numbers by the end of his term. But even though I’m a leftie who loathes him with a fiery hot passion, I freely admit that was due to the pandemic. I’d expect righties to concede the same about inflation, but honest conservatives are pretty thin on the ground these day. On the whole, they’re addicted to lies with a crackhead’s sweaty desperation. But even though Covid was a disaster for the Trump presidency, it doesn’t hurt to recall he was the same clusterf**k calamity and braindead imbecile on the pandemic as everything else.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trump’s first 3 years was just a continuation of the Obama economy averaging 2.5% GDP growth starting in 2014. One thing that throws people off was there was a mini economy slump in 2016…but it had to do with low energy prices which is a great “problem” to have. So gasoline prices increased under Trump which was good for the American economy. Now Trump supporters mix and match economic data like taking gasoline prices from the lockdowns and economic growth from 2018 in order to obfuscate the economy issue.

And I agree that Trump gets credit for the strong rebound in 2021…but that was due to liberal policies crafted by Mnuchin and Kushner and Pelosi who are all liberals. The persistent inflation is from the Trump Tax Cuts and lockdowns that greatly benefited the Zoom class and resulted in asset price inflation.

[Bwaaah]

The speed of development and deployment of widespread testing in the U.S. was, unsurprisingly, extraordinary in comparison to other countries in the world. The same can be said of vaccination.

What Donald Trump says, what Donald Trump does, and what the U.S. does are three very different things.

MAGA MAGA MAGA (TDS).

[Nige]

'Stuff doesn't go completely to hell despite Trump, except when it does' is such a great slogan.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

It’s crazy that Republicans have been so successful in making people blame Covid on Biden and not Trump!?! If you go with Biden’s approval rating then the two events that led to Biden’s approval decline are Delta and Afghanistan. Trump is the one that surrendered to the Taliban and it was the right call and DeSantis and other Republican governors are the ones that attacked public health officials which why we had a Delta death surge which was obviously the wrong call.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I know right, in the future they should outlaw criticisms of bureaucrats. People’s lives are at risk when bureaucrats get criticized.

And I agree about the withdrawal. In fact, it's well known that when Presidential offices change hands, they take the entirety of the Pentagon with them! Trumps Pentagon created the future mess and Bidens Pentagon had literally nothing to do with it. They didn't make a single decision.

That's the cool thing about our system of government, it gets torn down amd completely replaced, every single job and policy and rule and program, every time the President changes hands. That all failures of government can be assigned exclusively to the single person at the top!

I bet you turned down offers from elites places like Stanford or Harvard with that brilliant noodle of yours!

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Afghanistan withdrawal was orchestrated by Trump’s special envoy and he is satisfied with the outcome. But surrendering to the Taliban was Trump’s call and he made the right decision.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I know right! Biden got rid of all the Trump people and EOs on day 1, but left a lone Trumper in charge of the details of the withdrawal 180 days layer of which he planned and managed the withdrawal of the US armed forces with all by himself in complete secrecy. I heard he was even in Bagram directing traffic and personally ordering the troops to leave pallets of cash and 80B in weaponry behind! He then beat them to that airport and personally ordered the deaths of those 13 marines!!

That’s so true and exactly how it happened! Good call I had forgotten about the 1 Trumper left in charge of the entire military!

Harvard lost a bright one with you, that’s for sure!!

If only Trump had kept the troops in Afghanistan for another 5 or 6 decades then maybe the military would've won!

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trump bombed our munitions prior to withdrawing from Syria…and then a suicide bomber killed 4 soldiers that could have used those munitions. Duuuuuuuuuuh

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I know right! Trump personally flew the bomb against the advice of the Noble and Sacred Civil Servants! He devised the strategy, fueled up and armed the bomber BY HIMSELF, then flew over there again BY HIMSELF, no radar, no comms just him and the stars for guidance.

The Pentagon was completely in the dark! Had they known, well, what could they do? They are pure innocents with hearts of gold.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Are the people at the CDC or HHS in any way culpable for the "pandemic disaster"? Or just Trump?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Republican governors like DeSantis are the people that screwed up by taking the off-ramp prior to the Delta death surge….oops.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Right so the pandemic failures were caused solely by about 17 people, all Republican governors and a President.

They ignored all the brilliant and effective advice of their bureaucracies (which government agencies are known for!) And those men alone planned and made decisions starting from zero.

I don't think a person can be very smart and believe what you believe.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trump promoted the vaccines and boosters and his supporters didn’t get them…DeSantis went with the flow of the right wing echo chamber much like George W Bush after 9/11…and like Bush he exhibited poor judgment which should end DeSantis’ chances of being president. Bush got lucky in that the problems in Texas didn’t start happening until he was president and so his record was superficially good but for the fact it was short.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I know right! If only we could be governed amazing awesome bureaucrats with no elections! It would be a utopia! They are so perfect and good, and historically speaking have literally never implemented a bad policy or failed in anyway since all government failures are solely caused by the current president if he's a Republican and the previous Republican president if they are not!

You're so smart on this politics stuff!

[Bwaaah]

I know right! All it takes is like one psycho Republican in the wrong place and it totally disrupts the execution of government. Like how all the Republicans didn't get vaccinated because Trump told them not to and that's why they all died in Florida and Texas. And then Biden fixed that when he came into office and now you're trying to undo that ammiright?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trump stood up to the right wing echo chamber…DeSantis promoted ivermectin during the Delta death surge. Ivermectin didn’t work, btw. 😉

[Nige]

'All it takes is like one psycho Republican in the wrong place and it totally disrupts the execution of government'

If at first you don't succeed (completely.)

[Bwaaah]

I know, and that's when he dismantled our democracy and the system collapsed and then Biden put it back together and we're going to destroy it again amiright?

MAGA MAGA MAGA (TDS)

[Nige]

I know that must be when he dismantled your brain and your dignity and reduced you to a babbling idiot. For him, of all people.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Cannon fodder.

Carry on, clingers. Including you, Aileen.

(More Cannon fodder.)

[Frank Drackman]

She’s got more character and honor in one of her labia than dreamt of in your Revolting Philosophy, Revolting

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

paywalled

[John F. Carr]

The Florida Supreme Court has interpreted the state's new anti-riot statute not to criminalize mere presence at a riot. The law, as construed, merely codifies the Florida common law definition of riot. This is being spun as a victory for DeSantis and a loss for the group challenging the law. If the challengers lost it is only because of the same sort of perverse incentive that made Texas doctors want to face the threat of discipline for performing abortions.

The Eleventh Circuit had asked for a ruling after a District Court judge saw the ambiguity the challengers wanted. Six judges ruled the statute was not ambiguous. One judge found it ambiguous and followed the rule of lenity to the same conclusion.

https://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/content/download/2436202/opinion/Opinion_SC2023-0053.pdf

Some history from the decision: "The Riot Act of 1549 made it high treason for twelve or more people, '[with] force of [arms],' to assemble to change the laws of the kingdom." By that standard the major January 6 defendants got off easy.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Is there a bigger disappointment than DeSantis?? He’s super creepy.

[Bwaaah]

Yeah and like the whole travel warning thing amiright?

[not guilty]

The New York Times reports that two of Judge Loose Cannon's colleagues in the Southern District of Florida — including the chief judge, Cecilia M. Altonaga —asked Cannon to consider whether it would be better if she were to decline the prosecution of Donald Trump, allowing it to go to another judge. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/20/us/politics/aileen-cannon-trump-classified-documents.html

[Mr. Bumble]

...and the source was? Anon?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

My favorite source they used during Trump I 's term was "people familiar with his thinking".

Which of course could be any old Lefty they want it to be.

[David Nieporent]

Judge Loose Cannon’s

While that may be a valid characterization of her performance on the bench, I really wish you wouldn't do this. It's juvenile and detracts from the substantive criticisms, and just plays into Trump's hands by delegitimizing the judiciary.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Doesn’t meet the standards of a white, male, bigot-hugging, disaffected, wingnut blog?

[Mr. Bumble]

...and this is being "reported" now because...?

[Frank Drackman]

Have to admit Parkinsonian Joes handlers are Top Notch! Top notch! (HT E Smayles) all Sleepy has to do is not shit himself and he’s “exceeded expectations” in Parkinson’s constipation is the more common problem, but what goes in has to come out

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Probably give him a colonoscopy cleansing prior to the debate.
Probably double the sheep testicle shots and blood dope him.

[David Nieporent]

I love how wacko MAGA conspiracy theorists have invented Joe Biden's dementia and then also invented a medical treatment for dementia.

[Frank Drackman]

I’m not that good, I just know what the saps who treat Dementia prescribe, lots of Amphetamines and Testosterone, normal 81 year olds don’t brag about how many push-ups they can do (45 should come out beginning of the debate and crank out 20 Marine Corpse pushups, you think Sleepy could do 2?) “45” is actually a little humble about how much bigger and stronger his SS(irony intended) Agents are

Frank

[Bwaaah]

MAGA MAGA MAGA (TDS)

[Nige]

Have you got to the point where you think the last election was stolen, or have you still a ways to go?

[Bwaaah]

I saw no compelling evidence that the last election was stolen. That's a *you* thing, Nige. (And a *them* thing.) Try to keep up with what I'm actually saying, you thick-headed drone.

MAGA MAGA MAGA (TDS)

[Nige]

Then maybe there’s hope for you yet. But you're voting for the guy who claimed there was an tried to fraudulently overturn the election. What exactly are you actually saying? It’s mostly just personal abuse and your favourite slogan at this point.

[Bwaaah]

I’m just trying to stay on topic with you, Nige. You never go off topic, Nige. You’re always on topic, Nige. What I believe is irrelevant to you, Nige.

I’m just facetiously echoing your beliefs, Nige. I’m your MAGA Moron, Nige.

MAGA MAGA MAGA (TDS) (this is for you, Nige, and TDS sufferers like you)

[Nige]

You certainly have the 'MAGA moron' thing down pat, including the belaboured facetiousness - which you feel obliged to explain - as a substitute for actually saying anything.

[Bwaaah]

Is there something you'd like to know about me, Nige?

[Nige]

If you're more than that, that's up to you to demonstrate, or not.

[Bwaaah]

Whenever you want to have a serious conversation, you let me know.

[Nige]

If you're capable of one, you hardly need my approval.

[Bwaaah]

I am. And like I said, whenever (or if ever) you want to have a serious conversation with me, you let me know. I do need to know that you are willing to engage me, seriously, sincerely, based on what I say, and that you won't be just doing your Battle Against the MAGA Moron trope with me. (As you intimate here, MAGA Moron is incapable of having a serious conversation.)

You would have to converse with me, and not the MAGA Moron in your head. Let me know if you're interested.

[Nige]

I won’t let you know anything. Either respond to comments childishly or seriously, it’s entirely up to you. Your hang-ups about people referring to Trump voters as MAGA is more about your own insecurities and self-image than anything else. MAGA was Trump's campaign slogan. Trump voters self-identify as MAGA. You're voting for Trump. If you want to distinguish yourself from Trump voters who self-identify as MAGA, you probably shouldn't keep chanting MAGA MAGA MAGA.

[Bwaaah]

My use of the “MAGA MAGA MAGA (TDS)” refrain *is* childish. It’s an obnoxious chide. It’s inspired by people like you, Nige, who treat people not as they are, but as the group identities with which you associate them.

You don’t argue with me, Nige. When I say something, you argue back at a MAGA Moron and what you think it believes. What I actually say is of little relevance to you. It only provides a hint at theme. And for pretty much every political theme, you have a well-established answer to the MAGA Moron. And Nieporent does too. And so does NOVA. And so does Sarcastr0.

That’s what so-called “Trump Derangement Syndrome” is: the sense that all political issues of the day are best framed as being a battle between the mind of Trump (“MAGA Moron”) and those who see the mind of Trump as being the lowest of the low; the worst of the worst; the most harmful of the harmful; the singular most relevant force to be opposed in our world today.

If you want to see the archetype of the speaker I am describing, look at Reverend Arthur. His rhetoric, now usually content-less vitriol, predates the ascendance of Trump. But compare what he says in response to what’s been said. His responses are almost pure boiler plate that don’t even contain content related to the particulars of the discussion. He has reduced all right-leaning opinions to one material fact: the voice of the right-winger (the MAGA Moron). What you say no longer matters. Who you are is all that matters, and that is that you, all right-wingers, are just MAGA Morons (“clingers, […]”).

Who am I, Nige? What do I believe? What beliefs do I have that comport with those of a MAGA Moron? What beliefs do I have that comport with your own beliefs? Is what you write, in response to my remarks, an argument with me, or an argument with the MAGA Moron in your head? Does it matter to you whether you are responsive to my remarks? Does it matter to you what I say, or what I believe?

Please try to address, seriously, the essence of these questions I ask.

[Nige]

Loki's prediction above getting some early confirmation.

[Bwaaah]

OMG! It's happening already! Is Nige the canary in the coal mine, or a half-witted catastrophist on just another day?

Loki is a credible commenter. I know you have to slither about, Nige, but please try not to stain.

MAGA MAGA MAGA (TDS)

[Nige]

You AND Mr Bumble qualify to write some of Trump's debate speeches. Don't forget to work in the sheep testicle shots.

[David Nieporent]

"They" — probably the Jews, because you know how we are with money — even rig coin tosses.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/20/politics/cnn-debate-closing-statements-podiums/index.html

Former President Donald Trump will get the final word when he debates President Joe Biden on CNN next week, after a coin flip to determine podium placement and the order of closing statements.

The coin landed on the Biden campaign’s pick — tails — which meant his campaign got to choose whether it wanted to select the president’s podium position or the order of closing statements.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

"because you know how we are with money"

Knew it.

[grb]

Ya know, it's become a left-wing cliche to call random internet trolls Russian bots. I never found it a creditable accusation because MAGA has many more mentally-deficient clowns than secret agents. You go with the numbers, as William of Ockham suggests.

But if this forum did have a Russian bot, I'd pick the Nazi child. We have our cranks like Bob & Ed, but squint a little and they're still recognizably human. Even Frank looks vaguely anthropod as he frantically posts from his mommie's basement.

But there's no trace of human in the Nazi child. It's like a machine was programed to produce Stupid. And it's a machine of crude wooden gears hewn with a very dull axe.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Go comment on Substack! That’s a steaming pile of manure full of Russian trolls. And Taibbi is their biggest author and what’s funny is I have conservative Republican friends that believe he is a truth teller.

[Bwaaah]

Dude...that's really funny! You crush Taibbi...totally crush him. You should make your own blog. You could pick a really stupid name and still CRUSH IT on your dumb MAGA friends!!!

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Okay, getting tiresome.

[Bwaaah]

Nige used the expression "tone police" here somewhere. I think he was accusing me of that. It wasn't immediately clear to me what he talking about. I think you just captured it.

I have a niece who does that.

[Nige]

Does what? Chant MAGA MAGA MAGA all the time, but *ironically,* but also votes for Trump.

[Bwaaah]

Is chanting "MAGA MAGA MAGA (TDS)" an example of "tone policing"? If so, please explain.

[Nige]

No, it’s just like something a child would do.

[David Nieporent]

But if this forum did have a Russian bot, I’d pick the Nazi child.

I still think Riva is more likely. The Nazi troll is a Nazi troll, but you can kind of hear a 12-year old's giggling as he posts these things. Riva simply generates the same talking points, over and over again, using the same language, never actually responding to the merits of anything.

[Nige]

He’s an example of a particular way of thinking and arguing that is shared by a few others here to some degree, and probably indicative of what it means intellectualy and ethically to be on the right today, it’s just that it’s ALL he does.

[M L]

There's been a lot of chatter about ChatGPT and other "AI" tools being used in legal practice and getting stuff terribly wrong.

But is anyone here using Westlaw's AI tools? They have LLMs and such now that do research and drafting. Are they any good? Worth the cost?

[David Nieporent]

By the way, today is the day that Josh Blackman gets to argue his case before Judge Cannon on behalf of Trump that Smith is ineligible to prosecute Trump.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Biden State Department official confirms that the goal of open borders is replacing America's demographics.

"Latin Americans are all leftists"

https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1803913387216097595

Democrats are fucking monsters. Sick sick sick.

[Sarcastr0]

Have...you seen the polling of Latin Americans?

Ah well, white supremecists gonna white supremecist, and I guess that includes Project Veritas.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Did you listen to the words coming out of your peer’s mouth?

You are unbelievable. One of your peers says something awful, and you fucking call me a white supremacist and a racist for having the audacity to hear them.

That is sick, vile, and twisted.

[ThePublius]

How do you get "white supremecist" out of that? Why do you find it necessary to play the race card? That's so typical a leftist response when you don't like someone else's view. JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes said nothing about race, ethnicity, color, etc. YOU introduced that, to counter what he said, which is quite legit, in my view. Why do you assume all Latin Americans are not white? That's quite racist on your part. For example, there's a huge community of Germans in Brazil. And many Latin Americans identify as white.

[David Nieporent]

Shorter ThePublius: Why do people keep calling KKKHeilHitler1488 racist?

[Sarcastr0]

Replacing America’s demographics.

You think that’s not racial, ThePublius?

[Paladin_44]

"For example, there’s a huge community of Germans in Brazil."
Generated quite a few hot supermodels over the years. Gisele Bündchen, for example...

[ThePublius]

Anyone still here? I hope those in the path of this heat wave in the U.S. are managing O.K. Where I am, on the South Coast of Massachusetts it's not so bad. It's 84º now, but that should be the peak today. The ocean breeze in New Bedford is really nice.

Going to go "downtown," about two miles away, to Pier 3, and have an outside lunch at the Whale's Tail, a clam shack, and adjunct to the Black Whale, one of our best restaurants. And then, right next door, the Acushnet Creamery ice cream shack. Fabulous ice cream that amazingly doesn't excite my lactose intolerance. Kind of pricey, but worth it. (Plus, they have doggie dishes, if you have a dog with you.). Busiest seafood port in North America, mostly scallops, but fabulous fresh seafood just about anywhere down here. Plus, since it's Friday, it assuages my Catholic guilt. 🙂

Cheers, everyone, I hope you all have a nice day and a nice weekend.

[Martinned2]

Yeah, they're forecasting a possible heat wave here in the South East of England as well: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news-and-media/media-centre/weather-and-climate-news/2024/warming-up-next-week

[Nige]

https://apnews.com/article/counting-extreme-heat-deaths-7125ad9a5289625bd9ca312945996399

[Bwaaah]

I've been watching the daily climate report, and it's freaking me out. We never had these "heatwaves" when I was growing up. Pretty soon, the shrubs are gonna catch fire amiright?

[Nige]

No. There will be wildfires, though, drought, damaged infrastructure, heat deaths. Then torrential downpours and floods. Try your efforts at withering sarcasm on those, see how it works.

[Bwaaah]

Paging Doctor Thunberg! Paging Doctor Thunberg! Emergency! Emergency!

The Liberal Patriot: From Environmentalism to Climate Catastrophism: A Democratic Story (by Ruy Teixeira)

[Nige]

Or tone policing, I guess that might work just as well.

[ThePublius]

Yea, that’s funny that the U.K. thinks 81º F is a heat wave! Ha, ha.

It's 82º here now, and it's very pleasant.

[Martinned2]

Ahem

What is a heatwave?
A heatwave is an extended period of hot weather relative to the expected conditions of the area at that time of year, which may be accompanied by high humidity.

[Bwaaah]

I hang out down by the river (*not* in a van) and the prevailing westerly breeze made it pleasant at 89° yesterday. Is it me, or does beer taste better and better with rising outdoor temperature? Along the Hudson River in lower Manhattan, they have free kayaking for any would-be fun-seeker of that persuasion at the Downtown Boathouse. The riverside promenade is beautiful to stroll, stretching now from Battery Park at the south end of Manhattan and miles of walkways, parks and pedestrian piers all the way up north to Riverside Park and beyond. For all you New Jersey haters, I'm here to say that it has grown an impressive skyline to be enjoyed from the New York side of the river. In fact, Hoboken and Jersey City have beautiful riverside walks and recreation too, and the bar tabs on that side will be a few dollars less than on this side. The PATH train makes it quick, easy and inexpensive to traverse the river for fun (and for work).

The decades have been good to urban life in the New York metropolitan area. If you haven't been here recently, and you can afford the stay, it's a feast of all kinds of peoples, all kinds of foods, and all kinds of great urban spaces. We're blessed with the services and developments of a relatively competent city government. Our parks and playgrounds are not just in good shape, but are more lively and used than I've seen anyplace else. New York is, and has always been, a city in which people live.

Happy summer days. Happy Friday. Happy weekend. (Make the best of it that you can.)

[Frank Drackman]

The predominantly White areas of any state tend to be pleasant.

[Bwaaah]

A lot of the racially mixed areas around NYC are very pleasant too. (Don't knock my Jamaican, Dominican and Haitian friends...they exhibit a good-spirited gentility that puts Frank Drackman to shame.)

Most New Yorkers of all persuasions seem to be unsympathetic to assholes, on the streets or anywhere else. The pitying intellectual class has had trouble taking hold around here. Forgiveness for criminality is hard to come by, except in the prosecutors' offices and in state criminal lawmakers. All that malignant, pity-based tolerance that trashes urban life on the west coast is far away from the way it plays around here. NYPD is a big, capable police force that has asserted a competent upper hand, against criminals, for decades now. Philadelphia, Baltimore and D.C., like many other big cities around the country, are shithole criminal justice jurisdictions compared to NYC, and their scale of criminality reflects a very different perspective of "who we are" when compared to New York.

I walked around Jackson Heights, Queens this past Sunday with my son. (He didn't know it was Father's Day.) Looking at people around there, in language and costume and skin tone, you know you don't know where they're from or what their story. But most notable to me was the presence and vitality of families, of relatives, of people sharing the challenges of life with likeminded others. There are a lot of immigrants all around NYC, white and otherwise. Though the weakness of family life is a home grown American domestic problem, fortunately, that problem is hard to import from other countries. Immigrants still have it together when it comes to keeping family life, and it shows around here in NYC. Except in some of the shitty indigenous ingrown sub-cultures in NYC, pride is pervasive regardless of class, and poor doesn't mean ugly (i.e. showing little personal pride) like it does in too many places, especially in the U.S.

I don't think you'd need any more than a few "white" people around here to find it pleasant. Well-behaved people, in any state, are pleasant enough. (Come on, Frank. Let that kinder, gentler you admit you can enjoy them just about as much as anybody else.)

[Don Nico]

I urge everyone to read the extensive opinion piece in today's NYT.
"https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/20/opinion/nuclear-weapons-testing.html"
It is one in series of pieces by W. J. Hennigan.
I would hope that both Biden and Trump will vow that the U.S. will not conduct nuclear testing under their presidency.
I don't expect that to happen even though there is no compelling reason for renewed nuclear testing and it is moral cowardice to leave open the possibility of resuming nuclear testing.
The meaning of "nuclear testing" is very clear under US law and regulations and is understood by Russia and China.

[grb]

Don Nico : “I don’t expect that to happen even though there is no compelling reason for renewed nuclear testing and it is moral cowardice to leave open the possibility of resuming nuclear testing”

1. The last U.S. nuclear test was over thirty years ago. No new nuclear tests are planned nor – as you point out – are there any reasons to do so. Of course “subcritical nuclear tests” aren’t nuclear tests by a large margin.

2. The U.S. signed the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and has followed it, but the Senate failed to ratify the treaty by a 51-48 vote in 1999. All no votes came from Republicans with the exception of Bob Smith, I (NH).

3. A quarter-century later, Putin withdrew Russian ratification of the CTBT, supposedly because of that Senate vote. Of course it was really just more theatrics from the tinhorn little thug. But Russia also follows the treaty regardless, and there are no signs they plan to resume testing either.

4. Of course Trump’s top national security advisor, Robert O’Brien, is on public record advising him to resume testing. Given it would be an awesome publicity stunt and MAGA-types would certainly cheer & cheer, there’s every chance a Trump presidency would result in this pointless act.

5. And Iran will probably test soon due to a previous bit of Trumpian cartoon theater: Pulling out of a JCPOA pact his own administration certified was working. That was a colossal bungling Fail that accomplished nothing but to accelerate Iran’s entry into the circle of nuclear powers. But MAGA-types still cheer that imbecility to this day, finding it a really “tough” appearing stunt, super-cool soundbite, and excellent viewing entertainment on Fox News. Thus MAGA-types.

[Don Nico]

"there are no signs they plan to resume testing either."
That is highly unclear with respect to Russia and China. The NYT has published several such articles
As you say, The sub-critical experiments planned for Nevada are certainly NOT nuclear tests.
"No new nuclear tests are planned" - but there are continuing pressures to do so. It would be gratifying if Biden and Trump would rule them out.

[grb]

1. I guess Russia & China are possibilities, irrespective of actual need. The former more than the latter, given China has real geopoltical aspirations and prospects. In contrast, Russia is a nowhere country mired in a nowhere war for nowhere reasons. Putin might do a “BOOM” just to accompany more empty nuclear-war saber-rattling. On the other hand, he was just scrapping for respectability and stature during a trip to North Korea and Vietnam. A new nuclear test probably wouldn’t play well with the BRICS crowd he’s courting.

2. Of course all bets-off if the U.S. tests first.

3. Which would mean a Trump presidency. However, high political season means a race to the bottom where lowest-denominator reasoning holds. Thus, there may be zero chance Biden will test, but it’s equally unlikely he’ll go on the record saying so.