Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma has rules in Drummond ex rel. State of Oklahoma v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, et al, https://law.justia.com/cases/oklahoma/supreme-court/2024/121694.html , that the charter school board’s contract with Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, a religious charter school, violated two provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution, the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act and the Establishment Clause of the federal First Amendment. It remains to be seen whether SCOTUS will weigh in.

The decision recites (¶38) that its finding of violations of the state constitution affords bona fide, separate, adequate, and independent grounds upon which the opinion is rested. Under Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1041 (1983), that should foreclose review by SCOTUS. I would not be terribly surprised, however, to see this Supreme Court “cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil”, Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts, in order to eviscerate the Establishment Clause.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You need to mention the next line — what tree will I hide behind if the Devil turns on me?

As an aside, I’m actually surprised to see you quoting this.

The question is if this is a Blaine Amendment because SCOTUS has ruled that those are unconstitutional -- yes, the state constitution can violate the Federal one, there are religious clauses in the Massachusetts one that almost certainly do, it's just that no one has enforced them in well over a century.

[David Nieporent]

You need to mention the next line — what tree will I hide behind if the Devil turns on me?

That is not, of course, the next line. It's an actual piece of literature. You could quote it rather than just vaguely alluding to it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If Dr. Ed actually looked things up, the middle might cease to hold.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"That's what everybody forgets ..."

[Riva]

Not really pertinent to the present discussion chain, but just wanted to stop by quickly to insert a gloat about creepy Biden’s self-destruction yesterday. Ok, I’m good now.

[Martinned2]

Presumably the Supreme Court is avoiding cases whenever possible, because they're already stretched to the very limit with the enormous case load they already have?

[Kazinski]

Must be a summer rerun, I think I've seen that one before, or its a remake:

"The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that Maine violated the Constitution when it refused to make public funding available for students to attend schools that provide religious instruction. The opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts was a broad ruling, making clear that when state and local governments choose to subsidize private schools, they must allow families to use taxpayer funds to pay for religious schools.

The decision was the latest in a series of cases in recent years in which the court has sided with parents and religious institutions challenging state policies that barred them from receiving education-related funds that were available for secular, but not religious, recipients."

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/court-strikes-down-maines-ban-on-using-public-funds-at-religious-schools/

[not guilty]

Article 2, § 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution states:

No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.

Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767 (2022), and Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 591 U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 2246 (2020), each involved tuition assistance programs that provided public funds to allow students to attend private schools. The programs excluded sectarian schools from eligibility. The individual receiving the tuition assistance determined its allocation, not the state. SCOTUS determined that the exclusion of sectarian private schools from participation violated the students/parents' rights under the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment.

The contract invalidated in Drummond was very different. As the Oklahoma Supreme Court opined at ¶ 45:

Under Oklahoma law, a charter school is a public school. As such, a charter school must be nonsectarian. However, St. Isidore will evangelize the Catholic faith as part of its school curriculum while sponsored by the State. This State's establishment of a religious charter school violates Oklahoma statutes, the Oklahoma Constitution, and the Establishment Clause. St. Isidore cannot justify its creation by invoking Free Exercise rights as a religious entity. St. Isidore came into existence through its charter with the State and will function as a component of the State's public school system. This case turns on the State's contracted-for religious teachings and activities through a new public charter school, not the State's exclusion of a religious entity. The Court grants the extraordinary and declaratory relief sought by the State. The St. Isidore Contract violates state and federal law and is unconstitutional. By writ of mandamus, we direct the Charter School Board to rescind its contract with St. Isidore.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that IS a Blaine amendment. What's more, it's a Blaine amendment Oklahoma was forced by Congress to include in their constitution in order to get statehood.

[not guilty]

A referendum to remove Article 2, § 5 was defeated in November of 2016 by a significant margin. https://ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_Public_Money_for_Religious_Purposes,_State_Question_790_(2016)

[Brett Bellmore]

That just makes it a popular Blaine amendment.

I think the amendment in question crosses the line from neutrality towards religion, to outright hostility, by prohibiting religious institutions from getting any state money under circumstances where a secular institution would.

But I think a state absolutely could uniformly prohibit state support for private schools. Prohibiting support for them only if they're religious? That I have trouble with.

But, in this case? It's a charter school, which is to say a government school. And, yeah, there would be significant establishment clause problems with having a sectarian government school, that aren't present when the state is just providing a voucher which the recipient may or may not decide to use at a religious school.

[Kazinski]

Maine had a Blaine amendment too, in fact Blaine was from Maine.

It’s unconstitutional when it excludes religious schools from funding or contracts available to other private schools.

So says the Supreme Court.

There were a lot of states who's constitutions banned same sex marriage too, but now they all have SSM, because the Supreme Court said so.

[not guilty]

A so-called Blaine Amendment is “unconstitutional when it excludes religious schools from funding or contracts available to other private schools.”

That gets us nowhere in resolving the Oklahoma case. Under state law, a charter school in Oklahoma is a public school, not a private school. That distinction is important in regard to Article 2, § 5.

In Oliver v. Hofmeister, 2016 OK 15, 368 P.3d 1270 (Okla. 2016), the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of a scholarship program for disabled students because it was “completely neutral with regard to religion and that any funds deposited to a sectarian school occur as the sole result of the parent’s independent decision completely free from state influence. . . . The parent, not the State, determined where the scholarship funds will be applied.” 368 P.3d at 1277 (italics in original). As the Drummond, Court observed at ¶ 18:

Under the legislation at issue [in Oliver,] the State would offset tuition at participating private schools through scholarships to eligible students. The State paid the scholarship funds directly to the parent and participation was purely voluntary. Any private school–sectarian or non-sectarian–was eligible to participate in the program. The Court held the scholarship program did not “directly fund religious activities” in violation of Article 2, Section 5. Id. ¶ 21, 368 P.3d at 1276. The program did not disperse funds directly to any private sectarian school until a parent of an eligible student made a private, independent selection. Any benefit to a participating sectarian school arose solely from the choice of the parent, not from any decree from the State.

Establishment of a public charter school under the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act is a very different matter:

The Act expressly states that a “charter school” means a “public school” established by contract with a school district or other governmental entity. See 70 O.S. Supp. 2022, § 3-132(D). The Oklahoma School Code defines “public school” as “all free schools supported by public taxation.” 70 O.S.2021, § 1-106.9 Charter schools must “be equally free and open to all students as traditional public schools.” Id. § 3-135(A)(9). They must not “charge tuition or fees.” Id. § 3-136(A)(10). Oklahoma charter schools fall within the definition of a public school.

Drummond, at ¶ 21. The Court elaborated at ¶ 26:

The Legislature created Oklahoma charter schools, and Oklahoma law treats them as public schools and governmental bodies. They have many of the same privileges, responsibilities, and legal requirements that govern traditional public schools. They are creatures of state law and may only operate under the authority granted to them by their charters with the State. St. Isidore will be acting as a surrogate of the State in providing free public education as any other state-sponsored charter school. Therefore, St. Isidore, a public charter school, is a governmental entity and state actor. [Footnote omitted.]

[Frank Drackman]

Thanks Mr Hand but would you mind discussing this on YOUR time?

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Blaine was from Maine, but Maine never had a Blaine amendment. It was a Maine DoE policy, and one that had changed from earlier (1950s) when religious schools were allowed.

[Estragon]

“Blaine was from Maine”

How did I know this was going to be inaccurate?

[David Nieporent]

I'm all for attacking Dr. Ed every chance one gets, but Blaine represented Maine in the senate. He wasn't born in Maine, but I don't think that makes Dr. Ed's comment wrong. Imprecise, but not wrong.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Imprecise,"

You guys must have enjoyed stuffing kids into lockers.

You better call Gov. Pritzer. Those license plates need fixing because Mr. Lincoln was not born there. Cant be his land!

[Estragon]

That is fair. Allow me to respond in two parts.

1) it is inaccurate. I have lived in my adopted home now longer than I have lived anywhere else in my life. However, I still tell people I am from Brooklyn.

2) Do you think Ed was genuinely mistaken about Blaine’s birthplace, believing him to have been born and raised in Dover-Foxcroft or wherever?

I for one absolutely do not. Instead I would characterize this comment as I would so many of his comments: factual assertions made without regard to their truth or falsity. Trump having trials in majority black jurisdictions being only a more recent example in a body of “work” that stretches back years at this point.

In that sense I find him to be a really great example of a bullshitter, as described more fully in Harry Frankfurt’s classic essay, On Bullshit. It’s not lying exactly— it’s just a complete disregard and indifference to the accuracy of what he contributes here, day in, day out.

And it’s really pernicious. The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is exponentially larger than that needed to spew it. If the guy had an ounce of respect for this space, he would minimally fact check himself. And frankly, having been so insanely wrong so many times, if he had an ounce of shame he’d unplug his keyboard and slink back to whatever janitor’s closet he seeped out of.

But no. Instead we’re going to hear about how embassies are sovereign territory and cormorants eat 60lbs of fish a day for eternity.

[David Nieporent]

1) it is inaccurate. I have lived in my adopted home now longer than I have lived anywhere else in my life. However, I still tell people I am from Brooklyn.

That's fine for you, but that doesn't make it objective fact. It's perfectly reasonable to describe Joe Biden as being from Delaware or Barack Obama from Illinois.

[Estragon]

Joe from Scranton. Ever heard that before?

[David Nieporent]

Certainly. And Hillary claimed to be from NY. That doesn't mean anyone else has to agree.

[bernard11]

Blaine was from Maine.

Indeed.

"Blaine, Blaine, James G Blaine.
The continental liar from the state of Maine."

[Estragon]

Moved to maine in his 20s. Born in PA

[Bob from Ohio]

His entire public carer was in Maine. His birthplace is not nearly as important

"Blaine was from Maine" is accurate. You just like to pick on Ed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Even more important, that was a NATIONAL slogan in one of the nastiest (and closest) Presidential elections we have ever had -- he lost to "Ma, ma, where's my pa?" Grover Cleveland in 1884.

My grandmother mentioned hearing about Cleveland's people going through Maine cemeteries looking for a possible child of Blaine's that had died in infancy -- don't know the details on that beyond the fact the campaign was NASTY -- and this was when rural Maine were all Democorats.

Blaine's house became the Maine Governor's Mansion -- https://www.blainehouse.org/history Not mentioned is when Blaine put cannons on his front lawn, pointed at the state house across the street -- that was the year that the state had two different legislatures and nearly wound up with a shooting second civil war.

[Drewski]

In practical terms, the current Court will certainly rule that the state must pay religious schools, but you misrepresent the holding in Carson which was specific to Maine - note how the word "Maine" appears in the holding. Any variance in the many factors they considered would distinguish another case. Contrast with Obergefell, which had a holding applicable to "all states."

[Ed Grinberg]

.

The decision recites (¶38) that its finding of violations of the state constitution affords bona fide, separate, adequate, and independent grounds upon which the opinion is rested. Under Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1041 (1983), that should foreclose review by SCOTUS. I would not be terribly surprised, however, to see this Supreme Court “cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil”, Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts, in order to eviscerate the Establishment Clause.

Have you not heard of the incorporation doctrine?
from Wikipedia:

In United States constitutional law, incorporation is the doctrine by which portions of the Bill of Rights have been made applicable to the states.

If the practical outcome of a state supreme court's interpretation of its state constitution violates a provision of the Bill of Rights, the U.S. Supreme Court gets to intervene. A state supreme court cannot foreclose U.S. Supreme Court review of its decision simply by using the magical incantation: "The state constitution affords bona fide, separate, adequate, and independent grounds upon which [our] opinion is rested." It doesn't work that way.

[not guilty]

Ed Grinberg, have you read Justice O'Connor's opinion in Michigan v. Long? Yes or no?

The Oklahoma Supreme Court here did more than string together some magic words. The Court explained in detail how the challenged contract offends Article 2, § 5 of the state constitution. (As well as how it violates the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act.) Lest there remain any doubt, the Court in ¶ 38 put a bow on the package.

[Martinned2]

Yesterday, the ICC convicted Mr Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud of directly committing the crimes himself, contributing to them with others or aiding and abetting the commission of the crimes by others, in relation to:

i) the crimes against humanity of torture; and
ii) the war crimes of torture and outrages upon personal dignity;

and of contributing to the crimes perpetrated by other members of Ansar Dine/AQIM, in relation to:

i) the war crimes of mutilation, cruel treatment and passing sentences without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable; and
ii) the crimes against humanity of persecution and other inhumane acts.

The Chamber found that certain crimes of sexual violence had taken place in Timbuktu during the material time. However, Mr Al Hassan was not found to bear responsibility for those crimes and was consequently acquitted of the following charges:

i) the war crimes of rape and sexual slavery;
ii) the crimes against humanity of rape, sexual slavery and other inhumane acts in the form of forced marriage.

Mr Al Hassan was also acquitted of the war crime of attacking protected objects.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-mali-mr-al-hassan-convicted-war-crimes-and-crimes-against-humanity-committed

[Martinned2]

Kevin John Heller has already written a thoughtful blog post about the role of gender persecution in the judgment, which is indeed the confusing bit.

https://opiniojuris.org/2024/06/27/the-role-of-gender-persecution-in-the-al-hassan-judgment/

[Dr. Ed 2]

had taken place in Timbuktu

I hadn't even heard of problems there.

[Martinned2]

Which is why I share such updates, to allow my American friends to get acquainted with the goings on in the rest of the world.

[John F. Carr]

Western Africa is a mess these past few years. There are coups and armed uprisings all over. The French are getting kicked out for decades-old sins and the U.S. may follow to be possibly replaced by Russia.

[Stephen Lathrop]

If as you assert Western Africa is a mess, then perhaps the best outcome would be to get the U.S. out, and encourage Russia to get in. Skilled foreign policy includes avoidance of competitions for booby prizes. Note also, Afghanistan.

[John F. Carr]

Compared to Afghanistan, Western Africa has more exports that governments want. Boko Haram is more of a threat than the Taliban.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Afghanistan has a geo-strategic position Russia has coveted for centuries, compared to Western Africa, where Russia's historical interests have been near-zero. If Boko Haram is more of a threat than the Taliban, then by all means let Boko Haram threaten Russia.

You don't seem to be grasping the point. Should the U.S. be competing with Russia to see which can better piss off Boko Haram?

[not me]

Russia is in Western Africa. Previously by proxy as the Wagner group, but now the Russian government has taken over Wagner. They're backing up the military governments in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger.

[Martinned2]

On Tuesday the European Court for Human Rights gave judgment in Ukraine v. Russia. There’s a lot going on there, but basically Ukraine won almost all of its claims.

It seems like this platform won't let me link to the judgment directly (the ECtHR website is weird), but here is an EJIL Talk blog post with a link: https://www.ejiltalk.org/ukraine-v-russia-re-crimea-the-european-court-of-human-rights-goes-all-in/

[Martinned2]

Marko Milanovic, the 'big honcho' of EJIL Talk, has now added some thoughts of his own: https://www.ejiltalk.org/some-additional-comments-on-the-ecthr-crimea-judgment-occupation-sovereignty-and-law/

He particularly takes issue with the idea that Russian law is not "law" for the purposes of deciding whether something is "prescribed by law", which is a critical element of deciding whether a given interference with a right is permissible.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Ukraine won almost all of its claims."

Hoorah!

Has the Russian withdrawal started yet?

[Martinned2]

Just because you don't believe in the rule of law, doesn't mean the rest of us should be equally nihilistic.

[Bob from Ohio]

Law requires a sovereign which can effectively enforce the judgments.

Is the European Court for Human Rights sending the European Court for Human Rights' police to get Russia out?

Its just a debating society. Not law.

[Martinned2]

Law requires a sovereign which can effectively enforce the judgments.

Does it? Says who?

Is the European Court for Human Rights sending the European Court for Human Rights’ police to get Russia out?

Basically. What do you think this is? https://x.com/vonderleyen/status/1806318712716140583

[Bob from Ohio]

"Basically. What do you think this is? "

A coincidence.

EU is not enforcing the "court" judgment. Its been sending arms for a while of course.

If the "court" had ruled in favor of Russia, would the EU have not signed that agreement?

[Martinned2]

If the “court” had ruled in favor of Russia, would the EU have not signed that agreement?

That assumes a counterfactual that is in many important ways different from our reality. Basically, it assumes a world where Russia didn't invade Ukraine and/or didn't violate the human rights of the Ukrainians. So no, in that counterfactual there wouldn't have been a war, and no reason to send weapons.

[Noscitur a sociis]

So it sounds like the nations of Europe didn't actually need this "judgment" to tell them what to do after all!

[Martinned2]

The judgment is only telling Russia what to do.

[Noscitur a sociis]

And when do you expect them to start complying?

[Martinned2]

When they restore their country to rule of law and democracy.

[Ridgeway]

"Law requires a sovereign which can effectively enforce the judgments.

Does it? Says who?"

John Austin, among others. I know Hart and others criticize the "command backed by a sanction" definition as being too narrow to describe all laws, but I doubt he would deny its applicability to this sort of situation.

[Kazinski]

“It seems like this platform won’t let me link to the judgment directly”

Just hours after Murtha the censors have gotten to Reason.

I’ll check if my link to Silver’s site is why I had trouble posting earlier.

[Kazinski]

Silver’s election forecast site:

https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model

No that wasn't it.

[Kazinski]

Interesting I’ve had 2 comments eaten on the open thread, but didn’t have a problem posting on the second amendment thread.

But this one worked.

I was going to say that Nate Silver has his election forecast out, and he has Trump at a 65% chance of winning.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/06/26/nate-silver-election-prediction-2024/74221921007/

[Martinned2]

I thought it was 68%? Anyway, while that seems right, I wonder how that information affects anyone's real-world actions.

[Kazinski]

I don't know, but they certainly do spend a lot of money on polling to get the information, that nobody will use.

Speaking of elections, in 3 or 4 days Europe will completely collapse, at least according to this piece from Politico:

"The upcoming parliamentary election in France could be the most destructive since the war — not only for France, but also for the European Union, the Atlantic alliance and what remains of the post-war liberal world order."

https://www.politico.eu/article/france-election-national-rally-marine-le-pen-jordan-bardella-far-right-emmanuel-macron/

[Martinned2]

Politico is not above a bit of shameless clickbait, particularly when someone else wrote the article so they have plausible deniability. In any case, you've got the date wrong. The second round of the French election isn't until July 7 (as the article explains).

[Kazinski]

Actually the collapse started with the EU election, the 30th will be the first aftershock, the 7th will complete the collapse.

[Martinned2]

We had an election, and the EU is still here. Yesterday the Member States reached an agreement about the top posts. The Chair of the European Commission is going to stay in post, a the social-democratic prime minister of Portugal is going to be Chairman of the Council, and the liberal prime minister of Estonia is going to be the High Representative for Foreign Policy. It was already known that the Chair of the Parliament was going to stay in post as well.

So that makes two top posts for the centre-right, one for the centre-left, and one for the centrist liberals. Meloni is screaming bloody murder about how undemocratic this is, but I don't see her appointing ministers from the opposition either.

[The Angry Hippopotamus]

Politico earlier this week reported Biden down by 2 points to Biden up by 9 points with independents in a recent poll was a 7 point swing (instead of the correct 11 point swing) so I don't put a lot of stock in it's reporting.

[Dr. Ed 2]

68% when you include the inevitable dem fraud means that it is a 50-50 race.

[Martinned2]

I'm sorry, for a moment there I thought we might end up having a serious conversation.

[NvEric]

Serious is never your style. Bad mouthing is your main contribution along with the other nodes of negativity.

Serious ? Show us anything you type as anywhere close to serious. The B.S. abounds with your ilk driving a downward vortex.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Don't forget bootlicking. He loves bootlicking the State

[Ed Grinberg]

Only when Democrats are in charge. They can do no wrong. And vice versa when Republicans take over.
(This goes for the rest of the leftist brigade here. And the "mainstream" media.)

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

yawn

[SRG2]

Funny how none of the accusations of fraud in 2020 stood up to judicial scrutiny and sundry GOP-favouring audits, yet the cretinous and gullible still believe the election was determined by fraud

[Dr. Ed 2]

Name one case decided on merits and not standing, etc.

[SRG2]

A few here – not an exhaustive list:

https://campaignlegal.org/results-lawsuits-regarding-2020-elections

It should be presumed that you believed the number to be zero, and that therefore you are ignorant.

[SRG2]

IIRC on occasion judges considered the merits nonetheless having concluded that the conspiracy wackjobs plaintiffs lacked standing.

[not guilty]

“Name one case decided on merits and not standing, etc.”

In Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., et al. v. Kathy Boockvar, et al., https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20413941-rudy-can-fail , a Trump appointed district judge, Matthew W. Brann, ruled on November 21, 2020 that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to litigate their claims, but went on to discuss the merits of whether the complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. Discussion of the merits begins at page 23 of the slip opinion. The Court found on the merits that the first amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismissed the action with prejudice.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on November 27, 2020. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20417627-third-circuit-ruling-on-giulianis-lawsuit

[Estragon]

Is there a republican running for federal office this cycle who has publicly accepted the 2020 results?

[Josh R]

Maryland governor Larry Hogan, running for Senate.

[Estragon]

Ah yes how could I forget Larry!

[Josh R]

Perhaps David Valadao from CA-22 (voted to impeach Trump).

[Frank Drackman]

He’s very forgettable

[Krayt]

I have to wonder the external polling vs. internal. How did external miss such a result last time (or did they?)

This casts doubt on this prognosticated result. Is the get out the vote/aid early and mail voting effort abandoned? Repubs finally doing what they always do, getting burned then playing catch up on techniques?

Or is there a real shift?

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz: Polls are trash, this far out. They are a mood indicator, much like the mood rings of old (I had one of those, LOL).

Modeling is only as good as the assumptions, and the data used.

The election is POTUS Biden's to lose, IMO. Perhaps he will do that this evening. 😉

[Martinned2]

It's certainly possible to say more than that. And it hasn't been Biden's election to lose for quite some time. The bookies have Trump on 4/5 and Biden on 15/8, implying a 56% and 35% probability of winning, respectively.

https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics

[Josh R]

When do they become not trash? What makes you think they will change towards Biden?

[Commenter_XY]

That is a good question, Josh R. Three part answer.

Labor Day is the start point to pay attention. Conventions are over, and early voting is at hand. It is a snapshot. By Columbus Day, the jell has started to set. And by Halloween, absent a last minute story (always happens), you will know.

[Kazinski]

What will the voters pay attention to then that they don't already know now?

Biden knows it's late and getting later, that's why he wanted the debate in June.

If you look at the states where Trump is 4 points or more ahead now (according to both RCP and 538) then he has 268 EV. Sure 4 points is barely MOE, but that's a lot polling.

That leaves 6 states where the race is <= 3, and Biden has to win every single one, and NE's 2nd district.

VA
ME
MN
PA
MI
WI

It's late and it's getting later, but it's not over.

[Josh R]

The reported margin of error is based on sample size. If you combine 4 polls, the MOE is reduced by half. But, the limtied-sample-szie MOE is not the primary source of polling errors. It's instead a combination of not reaching a random sample, faulty screening on who the likely voters are, and people not being honest in their answers.

[Stephen Lathrop]

That's before you get to the more-adventuresome aspects of election-place buccaneering, and after-election upheavals, state and national.

[DJK]

The MOE is just basic counting statistics, no? If so, it wouldn't account for systematic errors likely non-random sample, people not being honest, etc.

[Josh R]

Yiou didn’t answer what makes you think the polls will change towards Biden.

[DJK]

Copium.

[Commenter_XY]

You caught that... 🙂 Very well.

What changes the polls toward Biden? For starters, the election is POTUS Biden's to lose. He is the favorite, by virtue of incumbency, and a superior extended Team D support network.

Here is one. Continued downward movement in inflation; to me, if inflation is not sub-3% by mid-Oct (implying Sept inflation <3%), then inflation will be a net negative. This is a tremendous issue for suburban Moms; economizing in a higher cost economy. Listen to the Mom's in your workplace talk, the talk is how to save money while doing recreational activity X (could be after school stuff for child). And if gasoline is well above $3 (it is, nationally), inflation is a strongly negative drag.

If gasoline is <$3, and inflation <3% by September; then I think you see a change (at least stopping the bleeding).

If there is a major move diplomatically, like making peace between Israel and Iran (which would end the war in gaza, and potentially Lebanon); or, getting UKR/RUS to reach a settlement in their war. This moves the polls in POTUS Biden's direction.

Those are examples of what moves the polls, Josh R. It will take a lot to reverse the trend. Hope this makes sense.

One other note: Team R's convention is July and Team D's convention is August. A lot can happen in a month, or just three weeks.

[Kazinski]

I'm not saying a lot couldn't happen before November, but that its unlikely anything will.

Even Biden being replaced is unlikely to swing the election back by 4 points in the swing states that have put Trump in an commanding lead.

As for inflation, prices are high and they are staying high. The Suburban Mom that complains about the price of milk, eggs, gas, and especially takeout food isn't going to stop complaining because the price increases have stopped or moderated, she is unhappy about the current level of prices, and its going to take a while to see them as not a continuing problem.

[Commenter_XY]

After last evening....LOL, Team D has some soul searching to do.

It is a different election now.

[Josh R]

.

What changes the polls toward Biden? For starters, the election is POTUS Biden’s to lose. He is the favorite, by virtue of incumbency, and a superior extended Team D support network.

Why aren't these factors already reflected in the polls? If moving the polls depends on inflation coming down, then no way is the election Biden's to lose.

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R....POTUS Biden's disastrous debate performance last evening cost him the election. POTUS Biden will not recover from that.

[Brett Bellmore]

When it gets close enough to the election that a major disconnect between the polls and the outcome would be hard to hand wave away...

Seriously, at this point they're mostly using the cheaper "registered voter" polls. Closer to the election they'll be primarily running "likely voter" polls, which have a better track record for accuracy in predicting election outcomes.

Trump seems to be doing better in the likely voter polls than the registered voter polls, so based on that you'd expect him to widen his lead in the polls as the election approaches. But it really is too early to tell.

[Kazinski]

It's about 50-50 LV vs RV in the battleground state polling now, over the last 2 months.

[Josh R]

Biden is about one typical polling error (3-4 %-points) behind Trump. A typical polling error happens about 50% of the time, and half of those would be in Biden's direction. Hence without hand waving, Biden would likely have a 25% chance of winning if the polls remain unchanged.

[John F. Carr]

If the error follows a normal distribution and a polling error is one sigma, there's a one third chance that Biden is one polling error better than the polls say.

[Josh R]

I think Silver defines a polling error to be the 50% point, not the one sigma (68%) point.

[Frank Drackman]

And Silver got 2016 wrong and I got it right but nobody asks my predictions (“45” 316Electrical Votes) you read it here first!

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure how Silver got 2016 wrong. He thought just before the election that she had about a 70% chance of winning, with 48.5% of the vote. She lost, sure, but with 48% of the vote.

If I say there's a 2/3rds chance of something happening, and it doesn't happen, was I wrong? Unless you can rerun the event repeatedly you can't say that.

[Frank Drackman]

You’ve obviously never had a Bookie(remember Bookies? Are they still a thing?) Like I was gonna get 90% of my bet back because Atlanta led most of Super Bowl LI. It’s a binary event, someone wins someone loses, I got it right, he got it wrong

Frank

[Josh R]

Yes, it is a binary event. But, there hundreds of them. In the long run, if Silver's model gets elections correct 70% of the time he says someone has a 70% chance of winning, his model is good. If he gets it right 100% of the time when he says they have a 70% chance of winning, his model is crap.

[Kazinski]

Its because it doesn't take a lot of voters in medium size swing states like PA, MI, WI to change an election. So national polls won't catch it.

150,000 is 0.1% of the national electorate, and it was less than 100,000 votes in three states that gave Trump the win, if you aren't polling with the right granularity in the right states it wouldn't be hard to miss. Especially if you already think you have them in the bag, which is also a warning for Trump.

[Bwaaah]

For what it's worth, here is Silver's discussion of his methodology. One of the things he points out is that, in determining the outcome of the contest, there are varied weights applied to polls and other "fundamental" factors (i.e. the economy, incumbency). The polls account for 70% of the forecast weight now while the fundamentals account for 30%. As election day approaches, the weight given to the polls increases to 100%.

I give him credit for having a legitimate methodology, and for exposing it. He also indicates his own strong anti-Trump sentiment, which is a rare example of exposing personal bias while seeming to carry on business with personal bias in check. He no longer works for a major media outlet, so he has chosen to speak in a voice that seems pleasantly straightforward and honest.

[Brett Bellmore]

The truth is, he didn't really fit in at 538 after Trump was elected, they were left-wing to begin with, but at that point they turned hard left, and purged everybody who had any nuance left.

Leah Libresco, for instance. Nobody would have mistaken her for a conservative, but, like Silver, she responded to evidence, and they couldn't tolerate that.

I no longer bother with the site these days, now that Silver is gone, but that's mostly because of their hard turn to video instead of text...

[Sarcastr0]

If you have an issue with methodology, you should probably make that argument.

[Bwaaah]

I think he’s referring to the culture of most major news organizations of restricting or getting rid of voices in their organizations that don’t support their partisan lean. The effects of such cultures is to warp election analysis.

Fivethirtyeight, for example, went from being analysis by leftists to left-leaning analysis.

Gaslight0’s Rules of Argumentation say one should avoid expressing such opinions?

You’re such a reactive hodge-podge of ad hoc reasoning.

[Sarcastr0]

This isn't a news organization, it's a polling aggregation site.

If he wants to argue they're getting rid of voices, he should point to some polls they're excluding.

Instead he basically does an ad hominem - calling someone biased and discarding everything the site says.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It’s a polling aggregation site that’s been owned by the New York Times and various Disney media properties since 2010.

I also read Brett Bellmore as saying he thinks Silver is worth listening to notwithstanding his bias.

[Sarcastr0]

I read it as that Nate is legit, and no one else in 538 is.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Do you disagree with that? Silver took his models when he left, so now it's a pretty empty brand, from everything I've seen.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s still a pretty legit poll aggregator site.

I’m not a polliwonk myself, but I have a couple of friends who are and it’s their go-to, at least for Internet discussions.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I read it as that Nate is legit, and no one else in 538 is."

Nate isn't with 538 anymore, so where are you getting that "no one else"?

While he was running the joint, they had at least a bit of balance. You could tell they had their loyalties, but they weren't total maniacs about it. Since he's left, so has the balance.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I also read Brett Bellmore as saying he thinks Silver is worth listening to notwithstanding his bias."

I think Silver is worth listening to notwithstanding his ideology. Mainly because I didn't notice any particular bias.

[Commenter_XY]

Bwaaah....See, that is where I part ways with Silver, when he applies arbitrary factors to adjust weighting (for respondents, and separately for the sample pool of what his polling universe includes for his modeling). Legitimate? Sure. The adjustment to weighting in his methodology is as legitimate as the selection biases Silver has.

Silver differs because he forthrightly said (after 2016): I got it wrong. Aside from this (admitting he got it wrong in 2016), there is nothing special (in a mathematical sense) to what Silver does, as opposed to anyone else. He is making a great living doing what he does in a capitalistic society; more power to him.

The other way I bet you have heard this said (in NYC), "An opinion is like an asshole, everyone has one".

[Noscitur a sociis]

Silver differs because he forthrightly said (after 2016): I got it wrong.

He didn't say that, and he shouldn't have said it, because he didn't get it wrong. He got it right, and right-er than just about anyone else.

[not guilty]

"The other way I bet you have heard this said (in NYC), 'An opinion is like an asshole, everyone has one'."

And I would add, neither one's opinion nor one's asshole should be offered casually.

[Kazinski]

Yet here you are.

[Commenter_XY]

ROTFLMAO....nice one, ng. Made me laugh.

[Bwaaah]

I’m going to assume that you thought at least twice before clicking Submit on that one, and yet still caved to a moment of gratuitous weakness. Either that or Mr. Casual rides again! (Wait...what's that I see in the saddle?)

[DJK]

Pollsters disagree.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, it is Friday morning after the debate. POTUS Biden lost. BIGLY!

[Dr. Ed 2]

1: A couple of weeks back, conservative media was abuzz about riot fencing being installed around the SCOTUS building -- the "bike rack" style and not the tall black stuff although in a more innocent age (a decade ago) the bike racks was all you would see for riot fencing.

I pointed out that it appeared to be placed there in anticipation of future need -- that the logistics of getting it there on site would be significant, moving it out to block the sidewalk and entrances would be relatively quick/easy to do.

2: We now have a SECOND leaked opinion? It's about time they tightened up security there.

3: Is the level of turmoil in the building more than is apparent?

[NvEric]

To no. 1,
The increase in violence by Leftists demands such; sad is this state of public devolution.

[SRG2]

Yes. I recall all those Leftist rioters on Jan 6. Is that what you were referring to?

[Frank Drackman]

Leftist trouble makers tend to be loners, see Oswald, Lee Harvey

[DJK]

He was probably referring to all the Leftist rioters who burned down American cities in the "Summer of Love" and who tried to assassinate a sitting SCOTUS Justice.

[SRG2]

He singled out leftist violence and ignored right-wing violence,

And "Burning down American cities" seems something of an exaggeration.

[Michael Ejercito]

Which right-wing violence was that?

[Estragon]

Yeah whatever happened with that Dobbs leak inquiry? Are we still pretending that it wasn’t Alito?

[David Nieporent]

2: We now have a SECOND leaked opinion? It’s about time they tightened up security there.

No, we do not have a second leaked opinion. Why do you keep saying this? Besides the fact that you're Dr. Ed, I mean.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Murthy v. Missouri was a bad decision that will come back to bite.

If the Brandon Admin can do what it did with impunity, then the Trump II Admin can do likewise. Imagine the media being ordered not to report on anti-Trump protests? It's the same "public good" argument -- it's actually the same "public safety" argument.

What people don't understand is that you need to look at the government not being run by your friends but by your worst enemy.

[Martinned2]

Hence the problem with this (h/t captcrisis yesterday):

Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667 (decided June 26, 2018): deferring to executive branch discretion in upholding restrictions imposed by Trump on travel from North Korea, Syria, Iran, Chad, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia; only text of executive order is analyzed, President’s public declarations that it was based on race and religion disregarded

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

"President’s public declarations that it was based on race and religion disregarded"

Fevered dreams of deranged lunatics. President Trump said no such thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

That represents a fundamental mistake about what was going on.

The media are not responsive to the "government", as such. They're responsive to "Democrats". Particularly Democrats IN government, sure, but Republicans don't have a lot of pull with the media.

So, no, Trump won't be able to do the same, impunity or none.

[Martinned2]

You mean, other than the media outlets who just let Trump dial in and word-vomit to his heart's content? They don't count for some reason?

https://x.com/BidenHQ/status/1806025396007449040

[Brett Bellmore]

You see how you've built an expectation of political censorship in, and only consider it odd if there ISN'T censorship?

[Martinned2]

You're the one who built in an expectation of censorship:

Republicans don’t have a lot of pull with the media

[Sarcastr0]

You mix up journalism and pushing back on bullshit for censorship.

Like the social media lawsuit, you demand not only that your side not be sanctioned for its speech, but that everyone listen to it quietly.

No less an authoritarian view, just on the listener's side.

[Brett Bellmore]

FB isn't "journalism". It's a platform for people to interact, and telling people they can't interact to advance certain views is absolutely censorship, even if private censorship doesn't violate the 1st amendment.

When FB did most of its growth, it didn't pull this crap. I know, I was using it at the time. The censorship crap set in AFTER they had achieved market power, and could afford to piss off users.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think this was about facebook: " media outlets who just let Trump dial in and word-vomit to his heart’s content?"

[bernard11]

The censorship crap set in AFTER they had achieved market power, and could afford to piss off users.

Huh? That makes no sense. Why would they piss off users?

I know. You think the company is run as a subsidiary of the DNC but that's just your regular paranoid conspiracy theory. You're getting worse, BTW, and really should get help. I'm serious.

[Brett Bellmore]

Pissing off users wasn't a goal, it was just an acceptable byproduct of warping our national discourse.

[Sarcastr0]

Your proof of this being just your crazy paranoid brain.

[Sarcastr0]

An incomplete list of institutions Brett thinks have been taken over by partisan leftists who will lie and cheat and give up profits to do leftism:
-The media
-Big business
-Big tech
-Every administrative agency
-Economic statistical agencies
-Schools
-Hollywood
-Judges, except Thomas
-The GOP
-Members of Trump’s old administration

[Bwaaah]

Yes, to understand Brett, understand him through the Lens of Gaslight0. It's like viewing all images through a kaleidoscope that only produces faceted shades of brown.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett's welcome to push back on this, but my list comes from his comments.

You are welcome to reflexively say something is wrong just because I say it, but that kind of disengaged hating in lieu of analysis says a lot more about the commenter than anything else.

[bernard11]

My impression of Brett at this point pretty much matches Sarcastro's description. I really do think he's off the deep end on his conspiracy theories.

[Kazinski]

The NFL,MLB,NBA too, don't forget those.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its like you don't think Brett knows about the long march through the institutions.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes lets name it something and then it's not fucking bugnuts.

See also: The Great Replacement.

[Martinned2]

I've just been assured by a long list of soon-to-be Dutch cabinet ministers that the Great Replacement Theory isn't racist at all, but simply refers to a troubling demographic phenomenon.

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: “See also: The Great Replacement.”

That’s the name of a Democrat-sponsored conspiracy theory. It takes the Democrat expectation that most illegal immigrants will become Democratic voters, and attempts to divert attention from their lawless border policy by recasting it as an affront to right-wing belief in Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Thanks, Mr. Democrat, for reminding everybody of your dumbass theory. You guys never give up.

[Sarcastr0]

Illegal immigrants can't vote.

[Bwaaah]

“Illegal immigrants can’t vote.”

Democrat policies: 1) Let in illegal immigrants. 2) Make their presence legal. 3) Look for ways to transition them to be citizens. 4) Pass laws that make it legal for non-citizens to vote, and try to defend them.

Did I miss something?

[Sarcastr0]

You missed evidence any of that is true.

Congrats on your conspiracy theory.

It’s basically the famous white supremacist one, but you made it nativist and even dumber because it’s not just a made up plot, it’s a made up plot that will never come to pass.

A glance at the American polity will tell you that illegal aliens are never going to vote in federal elections in any kind of number that will move the needle, nor will the path to citizenship be quick and wide enough for illegals to count on that front either.

It's pure paranoia based on fear and loathing of an outgroup. How very MAGA-esque of you!

[Bwaaah]

"You missed evidence any of that is true."

You offer no evidence that you are Sarcastr0.

[Nige]

He's an illegal immigrant pretending to be Sarcastro.

[Harvey Mosley]

https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_permitting_noncitizens_to_vote_in_the_United_States

Evidence.

[Sarcastr0]

A glance at the American polity will tell you that illegal aliens are never going to vote in federal elections in any kind of number that will move the needle,

Your evidence is explicitly out of scope.

[Bwaaah]

"Your evidence is explicitly out of scope."

Since you narrowed the scope to federal elections, pretending that's what was being disputed.

Elmer J Fudd, disputing *not* the fact, like nobody sees his games.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Illegal immigrants can’t vote." Legally, that doesn't preclude that some have.

[Michael Ejercito]

Legally, illegal aliens could not kill AJ Wise or Laken Riley.

[Frank Drackman]

And they can’t work either, because you need a Visa, or work permit, are you allowed around sharp utensils?

[Nige]

'That’s the name of a Democrat-sponsored conspiracy theory.'

The Democrats sponsor all the right-wing conpiracy theories. They generate them to smear Republicans. It's not Republican's fault they believe these things, it's the fault of the Democrats.

[Kazinski]

Well there were the antitrust threats against Facebook, Trump could make those too but less credibly.

[Martinned2]

Why would such threats be less credible coming from Trump? He already went after Amazon because he didn't like the Washington Post's reporting of his administration.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/11/trump-amazon-bezos-defense-cloud-washington-post-pentagon-scandal.html

[Brett Bellmore]

"There is not yet any smoking gun proof that Trump interfered improperly. It is possible, however unlikely, that the Pentagon acted completely at arm’s length from any political consideration, and the result just happened to comport with Trump’s desire to punish Jeff Bezos."

IOW, they can't actually prove it was Trump going after Amazon.

The idea of the military using cloud computing was pretty stupid to begin with, if you ask me. Never forget that "the cloud" is just somebody else's computer, and if you're doing stuff that needs to be secure, why would you go out of your way to do it on somebody else's computer?

[Dr. Ed 2]

i suspect Trump will use the FCC.

[Riva]

Given that the Trump administration did not do this, has been the victim of politically mandated prosecutions, and has very rarely been treated fairly by the courts, such a ridiculous comparison only makes obvious your own biases against President Trump.

[Martinned2]

Did not do what?

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/11/trump-amazon-bezos-defense-cloud-washington-post-pentagon-scandal.html

[Riva]

After your TDS medication kicks in, you may realize that there is a difference between a voluminous factual record demonstrating the Biden regime’s coercion of social media on a massive scale and a years old NY rag story whining about mean tweets.

[Estragon]

“Trump II Admin can do likewise”

Trump Admin I already did! Or are we all forgetting what happened after Fox News called Arizona? It’s all there in the Dominion lawsuit discovery

[David Nieporent]

If the Brandon Admin can do what it did with impunity, then the Trump II Admin can do likewise. Imagine the media being ordered not to report on anti-Trump protests? It’s the same “public good” argument — it’s actually the same “public safety” argument.

What the fuck are you talking about? The administration — you misspelled "Biden," by the way — did not order anyone to do anything.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What the bleep is going on in Kenya? That used to be a fairly stable, fairly sane (not overly prosperous) democracy in a part of the world where there aren't many.

[Martinned2]

It's all relative, I guess.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/kenya

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The same old usual radical suspects are trotting out the old "Medicare for All" scam.

What would a system like that look like in the real world of government incompetence, inefficiency, waste, and fraud mixed with climate change, DIE, and "domestic terrorism" dogma infused?

Would it be worse than the Holodomor (is it still legal to mention that since it's so anti-semetic to do so?)? Would it be worse than the cultural revolution in China?

Bureaucrat bootlickers like Sacraptastico has said on this board how it would be for "Equity", which means people like him will be deciding which White people die and which ones don't by withholding and denying care.

[Longtobefree]

Just for the record, Medicare is terrible insurance.
No coverage for drugs
No coverage for dental
No coverage for vision
Only 80% coverage for everything it does 'cover'
with deductibles
with NO annual out of pocket limit
with NO lifetime out of pocket limit
(and the "free" part costs $175/month per person, no family discount)

[DaveM]

I strongly disagree. I spent several months before I retired diving deeply into health insurance, and Medicare is the only insurer who will let you go to any doctor in the country, will tell you exactly what they will and will not cover, and for exactly how much. Medicare is a breath of honesty in a sea of overcharging, price fixing, and downright false advertising.

I want you to get out your latest medical invoice right now and look for a column labeled "adjustments". What are those? Adjusted by whom? Adjusted why? It won't say. It's just a negative number, reducing the price.

Here's what that number is: it's the difference between what the doctor charged and what the insurance company agreed to pay. Both sides play a game of stating entirely fictitious costs and then negotiating the real price on the side. The results of those negotiations are then "adjusted" on your invoice. And wow, what an adjustment! Reductions of 2, 3 or even 6 times the "price" are not unusual.

Well, Medicare doesn't play any of those games. There are no negotiated adjustments, just publicly-listed costs. Yes, you have a co-pay, but it's a a co-pay on the actual cost, not a co-pay of some made-up cost. If you don't like even that, you can buy a supplemental policy to cover your co-pays. That's what I do, but only for an extreme case where a co-pay might make a big financial dent.

Anyway, I could go on for quite some time on this, but if you think private insurance companies aren't going to bleed you dry on retirement health insurance, think again. I worked in insurance for 7 years. I don't know all their tricks, but I do know this: anyone who won't tell you what your coverage is in advance sees you as a profit center.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Note also, the price for private insurance would skyrocket if the insurers were not planning to terminate you before you get too old and risky. If they had to reckon every insured as a customer for life, they would be charging more than most folks could pay for most of their careers.

On that basis, it is easy to see that the private insurance industry has been free-riding and cherry picking at public expense for many decades. Single payer run by government is the only way to get honest accounting into health insurance.

[DaveM]

“Single payer run by government is the only way to get honest accounting into health insurance.”

I wonder. On its face, it seems logical: no profit motive = lower costs. But government usually costs way more than the private sector. The feds spent $43 Billion for rural Internet over the last two years — and hooked up exactly zero people. Starlink, in the meantime, added 800,000 *paying* rural customers.

So, is profit always bad? Is government always good?

There is a kind of private market already for pharmaceuticals. If you choose generics and go to Costco or Walmart, you can get extremely discounted prices for meds. But ONLY if you pay out of pocket.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Also look at the free-market miracle of LASIK. No insurance covered it, no government meddling, just pure free market healthcare at work. It started out as an expensive out of reach operation, to a streamlined and efficient thing that many can afford out of pocket.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Honest accounting like we get with the Defense budget?

[Josh R]

Yes, the coverage isn't complete. But, it strikes me as decent for the price. You can add extras by paying more (MediGap or Part C). How do those options compare to insurance outside of Medicare?

[bernard11]

What would you expect the average person age 65+ to pay for a policy without those flaws?

And note that you can eliminate most of them, include the lack of drug coverage, with a supplemental policy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Did you pull any fire alarms this week?"
"No."
"Did you try to pull any fire alarms this week?"
"Yes"
"Did you pull any fire alarms last week?"
"No."
"Did you try to pull any fire alarms last week?"
"Yes"

[bernard11]

Very good, TiP. The Inquisition gets most of the play, but the Roman segment is hilarious.

"Do I have any openings that this man might fill?"

[TwelveInchPianist]

From the NYT:

Biden Officials Pushed to Remove Age Limits for Trans Surgery, Documents Show

Newly released emails from an influential group issuing transgender medical guidelines indicate that U.S. health officials lobbied to remove age minimums for surgery in minors because of concerns over political fallout.

The draft guidelines, released in late 2021, recommended lowering the age minimums to 14 for hormonal treatments, 15 for mastectomies, 16 for breast augmentation or facial surgeries, and 17 for genital surgeries or hysterectomies.

The proposed age limits were eliminated in the final guidelines outlining standards of care, spurring concerns within the international group and with outside experts as to why the age proposals had vanished.

[Sarcastr0]

Draft guidance put out by a third party which never saw the light of day and pretending it's significant.

The NYT should know better.
You just want something to yell about.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Maybe I’ll yell about your inability to read. Try reading it again.

[Sarcastr0]

I did misread, though there's a bit more going on than one-way lobbying, given "concerns within the international group and with outside experts as to why the age proposals had vanished."

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The draft guidelines, released in late 2021, recommended lowering the age minimums to 14 for hormonal treatments, 15 for mastectomies, 16 for breast augmentation or facial surgeries, and 17 for genital surgeries or hysterectomies.

The proposed age limits were eliminated in the final guidelines outlining standards of care, spurring concerns within the international group and with outside experts as to why the age proposals had vanished."

Doctors were concerned about why the age limits were removed, allowing for extreme procedures on young children. How does that indicate more than one-way (successful) lobbying?

[Bwaaah]

Gaslight0, knowing nothing: "Nothing to see."

Biden admin lobbied WHO to get rid of all age minimums in transgender care guidelines.

Always pushing Dems to the "winning side," Gaslight0 simply chooses to deny that which he lacks the energy to defend.

[Sarcastr0]

Aren't you the one that says don't worry about Trump says only what he does?

Well the Admin didn't do anything - it's all insider churn. And yet here you are arguing it's important.

You have a problem with inconsistency in your standards.

[TwelveInchPianist]

What do you mean they didn't do anything? They got age limits for things like gender-affirming hysterectomies and castration removed from the standard of care, because they were worried that states would use the standard of care to ban these procedures for minors.

[David Nieporent]

What? The standard of care that you're advocating for allowed (well, that's not the right word because these aren't legal standards) those procedures for minors. They took out those recommendations. You nuts have read this completely backwards. The original document recommended lowering the age limits. The administration took that out.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. No.

SOC 7 said no genital surgery for minors.

The early drafts of SOC 8 lowered those limits, and put other limits for other interventions. The administration made them remove the limits. So per Biden, no age restrictions.

[TwelveInchPianist]

They successfully lobbied WPATH, who sets the most influential standard of care.

So now we get gender-affirming hysterectomies and castration for three year olds. Thanks Biden!

[NOVA Lawyer]

So now we get gender-affirming hysterectomies and castration for three year olds.

When you make up stupid hypotheticals, it's really scary! Just because the standards don't specify an age limit doesn't mean that any procedure can be done on anyone no matter the age. Also, good luck finding either a doctor or a parent who would do this and it requires both.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Then why object to having the guidelines prevent it?

[NOVA Lawyer]

You assume the guidelines prevent anything in any case or that the guidelines don't prevent (as you apparently construe that word) hysterectomies or castration of 3 year olds. The fact that these are "guidelines" may tip you off that they neither prohibit nor allow anything.

And on the substantive point, the push, if you have any reading comprehension, was to remove specific ages. It wasn't for the purpose of allowing various procedures at any age, it was to avoid, essentially, saying it's perfectly fine as long as the child is 15 or 17 or whatever. They knew people like you would misconstrue any specific age mentioned in precisely that way.

Nobody argued, "yeah, we need to get rid of the age limit saying no hysterectomies before 17 because parents should be able to get their 3-year olds hysterectomies."

Twelve. You used to have smart, if abrasive, comments. Something has happened to you if your interpretation of this story is that it is now perfectly legal and within the standard of care for 3-year olds to get hysterectomies for gender dysphoria. That, frankly, is a moronic take on this story.

For example, the American of Pediatrics was able to explain it's opposition:

He said the academy had sought to change the age limits in the guidelines because the group’s policies did not recommend restrictions based on age for surgeries.

You can make complaints about not including any specific ages in the guidelines, but the one you raise is not a sensible one. And you are smart enough to know that. If you don't, then you've leaned heavily into some ideological swamp that prevents you from using the intelligence you have exhibited in years past. If you do know better, then you've just devolved into a troll.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"And on the substantive point, the push, if you have any reading comprehension, was to remove specific ages. It wasn’t for the purpose of allowing various procedures at any age, it was to avoid, essentially, saying it’s perfectly fine as long as the child is 15 or 17 or whatever. They knew people like you would misconstrue any specific age mentioned in precisely that way."

What? No one thinks it's perfectly fine as long as the kid is a certain age, there are other criteria.

The purpose of removing specific ages remove specific ages, meaning no age limits. It really is that simple.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Doubling down on the stupid argument that now three year olds will get hysterectomies and be castrated. Pathetic, Twelve.

[Frank Drackman]

I know Doctors, I’ve served with Doctors, and you sir, are no Doctor!!
Doctors routinely kill unborn babies, like chopping off a 3 year olds Penis/Breasts is out of the question? Pete Booty-Judge and his Hisband Jizz probably have done it to “their” children already

Frank

[Krychek_2]

I am going to make a prediction that in five to ten years abortion rights will be protected at the national level again (either by statute or by overruling Dobbs) and Bruen will be severely walked back.

In the case of abortion, people have now had two years to see the raw cruelty of the theocrats and they don't like it. We've seen a ten year old rape victim have to leave Ohio, we've seen pregnant women having to carry dead fetuses to term, and we've seen Texas harass women whose physical health really was in jeopardy leave the state. Even if you believe the fetus is a full person, the theocrats have basically taken the position that the woman doesn't matter at all. They've overreached and it's going to come back to bite them.

In the case of Bruen, the logical consequences of where it will take us are simply nuts. It may not get overruled but it's a bridge too far even for conservatives.

[ThePublius]

I don't share your concern about Bruen. Didn't it just do for NY what had already been the case in most states?

[Brett Bellmore]

Both predictions seem unlikely, barring Court packing by Democrats.

On guns, you have to try to remember that the anti-gun jurisdictions are holdouts. Most states are pro-gun. Hawaii, California, a few others, that's about it. Everywhere else Bruen isn't even needed.

This means that Bruen, assuming the Court mostly follows it, is only forcing a few outlier states to do what most of the country is already doing. WITHOUT "blood in the streets".

You also have to remember how recent, historically, all this gun control you're defending really is. The law that bit Rahimi, for instance? 1994. Was the country a dystopian hellhole prior to 1994?

No, not really. So why would it become one if this law had been struck down? Maybe, absent that federal law, they'd have bothered to actually prosecute Rahimi for his many alleged crimes of violence?

On abortion, Dobbs returned abortion law to the legislative sphere. Give it another 5-10 years, and each state will reach some sort of democratic equilibrium, with its laws matching local public opinion, and the furor will die down.

Abortion being a national issue that people fought over? That's a highly unnatural state brought about by the Roe Court nationalizing a state level issue. Don't expect it to continue much longer, now that Roe is history.

[Sarcastr0]

Not saying Krychek_2's predictions will come to pass, but this is a comment from someone that has learned nothing from the gay marriage debate.

[ThePublius]

ad hominem

[Krychek_2]

No, that's not ad hominem. It may or may not be true, but it's not ad hominem.

[ThePublius]

Of course it is. Instead of responding to the matter at hand, he’s attacking the speaker.

ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adjective
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"vicious ad hominem attacks"
adverb
1. in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"these points come from some of our best information sources, who realize they'll be attacked ad hominem"
2. in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person.
"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

[Sarcastr0]

You're overtuned - The comment I replied to *itself* is analysis that has not taken into account the lessons of the gay marriage debate.

[Krychek_2]

He's saying the speaker has demonstrated in the past his inability to make arguments free of logical fallacies, so his current arguments should be given extra scrutiny. It doesn't mean his arguments are wrong because he's a bad person; it just means look at them more closely because of his past history of engaging logical fallacies. So it does go to his arguments rather than him personally. I know it's a fine line but it is a legitimate line.

[Bwaaah]

It's an ad hominem attack. That it can be justified in some measure doesn't change that fact, which is by definition.

Is this some kind of TDS-driven analysis? i.e.:

If Trump says it, it's wrong. This is an ad hominem attack, but it's justified. But ad hominem attacks are considered wrong, and this is right, so this isn't an ad hominem attack.

[Krychek_2]

But he didn't say, If Brett says it it's wrong. He said Brett has a history of making logical fallacies so take a second look at his argument here before you accept it at face value.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You guys don't understand what an ad hominem is. Saying Brett hasn't learned the lessons of the gay marriage debate is not, in this case, an irrelevant attack on Brett's character or him personally. It's obviously making the point that his analysis is flawed because it doesn't take into account the lessons of the gay marriage debate.

If you're going to learn some Latin phrases, learn to use them correctly, ThePublius and Bwaah. But just throwing them out at commenters you don't like to avoid debate is sad, and is just as fallacious as an ad hominem.

[hobie]

Ad hominem? Care to point out which part?

[Bwaaah]

The whole thing, in which he attacks not the argument, but the speaker. His attack of the speaker *is* his counter-argument. That's what is referred to as an "ad hominem" attack.

[SRG2]

The confusion arises because ad hominem doesn't necessarily imply a fallacy. An attack may be ad hominem without being a fallacy if the argument being attacked depends on the veracity of the arguer - in regards to assertion of facts, for example.

[Bwaaah]

The ad hominem fallacy is thusly: A is untrustworthy, and A said B, so B is false.

[Krychek_2]

Which does not necessarily follow. Even untrustworthy people occasionally tell the truth.

[Bwaaah]

And that's why it's called a "fallacy."

[SRG2]

Not quite. It is not a fallacy to doubt A's factual assertion in this case, assuming A is indeed untrustworthy.

The fallacy arises where a logical conclusion is rejected. For example. if someone say that the Senate is undemocratic because it overweights small states' voters over large states', and someone says, you're only saying that because you're a Democrat, that is ad hominem.

[bernard11]

I think it's more like, "A is stupid, so A's idea is a bad one."

If A is untrustworthy it is hardly a fallacy to suspect he may be lying, and given opposing evidence even to assume it as a matter of playing the odds.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslighto somehow thinks that the fight over the advancement of perversion is over -- gay "marriage" beget both tranny and polygamy issues, with both coming. Meanwhile 76% of Black babies are illegitimate.

No, the fight over gay "marriage" isn't over yet.

[SRG2]

No, the fight over gay “marriage” isn’t over yet.

But it should be. How does gay marriage infringe on your legitimate liberties? Why doesn't recognition of gay marriage advance the cause of marriage overall?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Because biologically intact natural families produce the best children, generally, and thus, natural marriage should be elevated and protected.

[SRG2]

That doesn't answer the question of how your rights are being infringed.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Article 16 Section 3.

The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

From the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It violates my universally recognized human right for the State to not protect the natural and fundamental group unit of society.

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

[SRG2]

But they are being protected. It's just that other people's rights are also being protected. It's not a zero-sum game.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

What data are you using to support your claim that natural families and natural marriages are being protected?

Is it the skyrocketing rates of single parent households? The near majority of marriages ending in divorce?

What rights of others are you saying are being protected? Can you articulate that right?

[SRG2]

Protected in the sense of rights being protected. No-one is having their right to marry infringed upon. If you're talking about marriage as an institution, rather than as a right, people take priority over conceptual institutions.

How is your right to marry infringed when a gay couple gets married? Or are you really bitching about your right to be a bigot being infringed?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I see you avoided the tough question and slipped into personal attacks.

That's not what smart people do, but you do you.

[SRG2]

Well, you ducked or deflected from my questions and appear to be a bigot. You're using standard dishonest debating tricks - so any presumption of good faith on your part has long since disappeared.

I did not use your likely bigotry as an argument against your position. I provided enough argument well before that, showing a most reasonable degree of patience. I don't know, though, why you should take umbrage at my suggesting that you're a bigot. You're obviously quite comfortable being one. Why don't you just reappropriate the term?

[not guilty]

"It violates my universally recognized human right for the State to not protect the natural and fundamental group unit of society."

Supporting facts?

How does the law protecting the right of same sex couples to form nuclear families diminish the rights of anyone else? As a preacher from my youth was wont to say, that doesn't make good sense -- indeed, it doesn't even make good nonsense.

Would you agree that children being reared by monogamous, male/female couples is preferable to children being reared by single parents or by nonmonogamous, male/female couples? Well, multitudes of gays and lesbians are parents. Why are their sons and daughters any less deserving of two parent homes than the offspring of male/female coupling?

Same sex couples marry for the same reasons that opposite sex couples marry. Love, companionship, shared child rearing, and a host of legal advantages vis-a-vis remaining single. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), was decided on June 26, 2015. Every person who was eligible to marry on June 25 remained eligible to marry on June 27. As SGR2 observes, it’s not a zero-sum game.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Why is the institution of marriage limited to exactly two people as your example of two parents?

Any idea why it's two and why you're so comfortable with this being restricted to exactly two?

[not guilty]

Uh, I expressed no opinion either for or against plural marriage. King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 side pieces. (I wonder. Was the kingdom's national anthem Help Me Make It Through the Night?) To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, that neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

Why are you suddenly eager to change the subject, JHBHBE?

[Krychek_2]

Which is akin to arguing that because the best education comes from Ivy Leagues, people who can't get into Ivy Leagues shouldn't be allowed to get an education anywhere else either.

Even if I agree with you that what you call natural families are the optimal choice, they don't work for a lot of people, as evidenced by the fact that fewer people are getting married and we still have a high rate of divorce. And that's before we even get to people who simply aren't attracted to the opposite sex. Aren't they entitled to find happiness where they can?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Listen, I think it’s in the State’s best interest to get homosexual into long-term, age appropriate monogamous relationships. In fact, for public health reasons, they should probably require it.

But that shouldn’t require underpinning the one thing that empirically builds the strongest foundation for a people.

The State can simultaneously encourage natural marriage and natural families, while also encouraging homosexuals into long-term, age appropriate, monogamous hetero-like relationships. Many states did this with civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Why can you only find happiness if you have to register with the state, pay a tax, and get the State’s permission to be committed to another? Why can you only find happiness if you appropriate hetero-culture?

[Krychek_2]

Because most gay people want the same things out of life that you do: Financial security, stable relationships, strong family ties, and being part of the life of the community (including religion if they're into that). It's not a matter of appropriating hetero culture; it's a matter of them wanting the same things that you do. So why would you deprive them of seeking to satisfy the same basic human needs that you have?

And the thing with marriage is that you get a whole lot of stability and security as part of it that you can only get, if at all, by going to a great deal of trouble and expense. What if the lawyer who drafted your health care proxy and power of attorney and will screwed something up and you don't know about it until it's too late to fix? What if someone is in the hospital and you've misplaced the necessary paperwork? What if you go on a trip and you forget to take the necessary paperwork? Plus not all jurisdictions recognize civil partnerships.

And even if the law said that a civil partnership is marriage in everything but name, why is it so important to you for gay people not to have the name? Does it invalidate your own marriage? How does it hurt you? It doesn't; you just don't want gay people to have it.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

> So why would you deprive them of seeking to satisfy the same basic human needs that you have?

They have a basic human need to have their romance licensed by the State?

>What if you go on a trip and you forget to take the necessary paperwork? Plus not all jurisdictions recognize civil partnerships.

Right all those are valid, civil partnerships should be recognized and they should be afforded those legal conveniences.

>And even if the law said that a civil partnership is marriage in everything but name, why is it so important to you for gay people not to have the name?

Conversely, why is it so important for them to appropriate the concept, redefine it, redefine it's terms and concepts to suit them?

>Does it invalidate your own marriage? How does it hurt you? It doesn’t; you just don’t want gay people to have it.

I know you're an intelligent guy, so here is something to consider:

If "marriage" is no longer about the natural union between a man and woman, primarily for the sake of promoting a stable unit for raising children, but instead the State conferring of dignity on any romantic partnership. Why must it be limited to exactly two people? What romantic configuration shouldn't be dignified by the State?

There are now even groups dedicated to "unmarried equality". Diluting marriage down to be absolutely meaningless harms me and harms our entire society and our futures.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

An aside,

Why do you think the State doesn’t seem to be doing anything about alarming rates of divorces, no marriages, and broken families?

I have my own cynical theories, but I'm curious to hear yours.

[Krychek_2]

Because there's no real political support for it. In a culture in which as many people as in ours live together without marriage or are on their fourth marriage, do you really expect the legislature to pass something that goes against the desires of so many of their constituents?

The reason lots of people live together or get divorced is that for a lot of people, traditional marriage never really did work, but the legal system made it their only real option. Now that we have a free market of relationships so to speak, traditional marriage isn't what a lot of people choose.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I don’t think there are that many people who wouldn’t support the State promoting families and natural marriage.

>The reason lots of people live together or get divorced is that for a lot of people, traditional marriage never really did work, but the legal system made it their only real option.

Huh? Their only real option for what? A few legal conveniences in exchange for licensure and a lifetime of tax penalties?
No offense, but there’s not lot of meat on that sandwich. You’re making emotional gestures without much substance.

> Now that we have a free market of relationships so to speak, traditional marriage isn’t what a lot of people choose.

Why isn’t the government promoting it and encouraging it? You said earlier that it “goes against the desires”, which of course doesn’t make sense. Further, plenty of studies show Congress is only aligned with the will of the people 10% of the time. They don’t really give a crap what their constituents want. So that can’t be a reason.

Here’s what I think. Broken families are dependent families. If there’s one thing our modern government loves, it is dependency. Their policies broke black families apart and creating a voting class that was ultra-reliable for decades, and now they are exporting those to the rest of us.

Their policies do not promote independence. They promote dependence.

The data supports the trend, which doesn’t by itself, however, prove my thesis.

[Krayt]

Protected? Sure! Elevated? Not if it means pushing gay people down by denying marriage to them.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

No one ever denied marriage to them. They always had access to a natural marriage and were never denied because of their lifestyle choices. Many states even accommodated them with civil unions.

[not guilty]

"No one ever denied marriage to them. They always had access to a natural marriage and were never denied because of their lifestyle choices."

JHBHBE, I hope you don't have children, but for the sake of this discussion, hypothesize that you have a young adult, heterosexual daughter. How do you think it would work in practice for her to marry a gay man to sire your grandchildren? Hint: think hot monkey buttsex on the downlow while keeping up a façade with his beard/broodmare.

Is that the kind of family formation you believe the government should encourage?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

There are countless examples of exactly that.

Many homosexual men entered into a natural marriage and raised children, choose a normal lifestyle.

They wanted normalcy, a biological legacy, and better mental and physical health. Why do you diminish their choices?

How would the government even know what sinful desires the man might harbor?

[not guilty]

"Many homosexual men entered into a natural marriage and raised children, choose a normal lifestyle."

Someone marrying in contravention of his/her natural attraction is a surefire recipe for heartache. There is nothing "normal" about that. Would you wish such a perverse pairing on any of your offspring?

When I say I enjoy Haggard and Jones, I am speaking of Merle and George, not Ted and Mike.

[Sabedi1]

I don't really care what gays do, but don't pretend that a gay man ejaculating into another gay man's rear while raising surrogate children that at most is only one of their biological children is anything like a natural family.

[Frank Drackman]

You just described our Secretary of Transportations life

[SRG2]

I don’t really care what gays do, but...

i.e., "I do care."

[Krychek_2]

Brett, Idaho is actually litigating whether it can deny emergency medical care to women in emergency medical situations. How do you think that looks to the majority of the population that isn't composed of theocratic fetus-worshippers? I'm telling you, the badly-misnamed pro-life side has severely overplayed its hand.

As far as guns are concerned, it took one major mass shooting for both parties to agree to a bump stock ban. That pendulum is going to swing back too.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You apparently missed this:

On top of that, petitioners have raised a difficult and con-
sequential argument, which they did not discuss in their
stay applications, about whether Congress, in reliance on
the Spending Clause, can obligate recipients of federal
funds to violate state criminal law. Brief for Petitioners in
No. 23–726, pp. 48–51; Reply Brief in No. 23–727, pp. 3–4;
see also Brief for Prolife Center at the University of
St. Thomas as Amicus Curiae. The District Court did not
address this issue below—nor did the Ninth Circuit, which
we bypassed. We should not jump ahead of the lower
courts, particularly on an issue of such importance. Cutter
v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7 (2005) (“[W]e are a
court of review, not of first view”); New York v. Uplinger,
467 U. S. 246, 251 (1984) (Stevens, J., concurring) (dismiss-
ing as improvidently granted where “constitutional ques-
tions” would otherwise be considered “premature[ly]”). The
lower courts should address the Spending Clause issue...

[Sabedi1]

How about we ban bump stocks but reopen the NFA machine gun registry? Would you agree to that? If not, why not?

[Frank Drackman]

As the owner of a fair number of NFA weapons I’d be for it because I got them to shoot and not as investments, but they’ve become like 1970 ZL1 Camaros, to valuable to scratch for most owners, I bought my Mac-10s when they were $450, and you could get 5 for $2000

Frank

[shawn_dude]

I disagree. Sure, it’s likely true that a majority of Idahoans support abortion in some circumstances, but that is largely true for every state including those passing draconian anti-abortion laws. The difference is that a majority of citizens generally don’t vote in primaries which has led to an erosion of democratic representation in many parts of the country.

The question is at what point will life-long Republicans vote outside of party lines for candidates that will protect women’s rights? I think that time is many, many more decades off than your estimate–if ever.

[bernard11]

On abortion, Dobbs returned abortion law to the legislative sphere. Give it another 5-10 years, and each state will reach some sort of democratic equilibrium, with its laws matching local public opinion, and the furor will die down.

So individual rights are now to be curtailed by local majorities, and that's just fine with you?

Abortion being a national issue that people fought over? That’s a highly unnatural state brought about by the Roe Court nationalizing a state level issue. Don’t expect it to continue much longer, now that Roe is history.

I expect it to continue as long as there are those who want to pass national abortion bans. I also expect it to continue as long as we have some states passing mindlessly extreme bans.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Wifebeating was once viewed as an individual right.

[Ed Grinberg]

I take your point to be:
It's appropriate to "curtail individual rights" if the "right" in question deprives others of their rights.
Good point.

[Martinned2]

Yes, it's a pretty basic principle that was already articulated in articles 4 and 5 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man: https://www.elysee.fr/en/french-presidency/the-declaration-of-the-rights-of-man-and-of-the-citizen

(And, in more detail, in the works of John Stuart Mill.)

[Krayt]

Wifebeating was once viewed as an individual right.

Dot dot dot by the men doing the beating.

There’s an old musical with a song that has a line about how being beaten by your husband is a sign of love.

Make America great again!

[Sabedi1]

You seem fine with that when it's the right to carry a gun. Why do you think rights begin and end with killing babies and ejaculating into other men?

[Sarcastr0]

My point in particular is that Brett’s assuming that opinions can’t change quickly and sustainably, and gay marriage really shows how that’s not right, especially if it’s about restrictions on a sympathetic group.

Dobbs is already effecting national elections, and the impacts of red states catching this car haven’t really hit the media yet.

Bruen is a different thing; less about public engagement with social effects, more about the right-wing project of 'lets do rights correctly this time' will be ineffective.

[Armchair]

"we’ve seen pregnant women having to carry dead fetuses to term, "

When you have to overstate and lie about your case, you're probably not making a good argument. You literally cannot bring a "dead" fetus to term.

What you're actually talking about is a "nonviable" fetus, ie one the doctors don't "think" will live. Or won't live long.

This is a good example, friendly to your point of view. But look at the change in language.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/post-roe-america-women-detail-agony-forced-carry/story?id=105563349

The second case they're using is Trisomy 18. It's a rare medical condition that has a low CHANCE of survival. But low chance isn't zero. And low chance isn't "dead".

Again..overstating your case to the point of essential lies.

[Krychek_2]

Assuming you're right, do you really think that forcing her to go through the pain of labor and then putting a baby in her arms who dies minutes later is anything other than gratuitous cruelty? Having the abortion would have been far less painful to her. And again, how do you think that looks to people who aren't fetus worshippers?

[Armchair]

"Assuming you’re right"

Assuming? Really? Really?

Think about this. Your argument relies on the concept that a dead fetus can be brought to term. It cannot. It's dead. If it dies at 5 months, it's not getting to 6 months growth, let alone 9. It's dead. Dead things don't grow. Biology 101. Period.

But the wordplay sounds great....a great tagline that when is actually thought though relies on such broken science that it would make a flat earther blush.

Rethink yourself.

[Krychek_2]

Ok so you’ve completely ignored my basic point. Noted.

You’re quibbling over something that doesn’t impact on anything. Whether the fetus is actually dead or merely non viable, forcing her to keep carrying it is raw cruelty. Which is why abortion rights are coming back. Americans are far more compassionate than that.

[Armchair]

I'm not ignoring your basic point. I'm saying your basic point is wrong. Incorrect. Factually inaccurate. A lie.

It's like insisting the earth is flat. Just such a blatant misconception that science has demonstrates is wrong.

But you're right about one thing. Americans are compassionate. And they've decided in some places that people deserve a chance at life, even if some doctors say it's "unlikely" based on their genetics. And some have lived long lives, despite that assessment.

It's sad you can't see either of these points.

[Armchair]

"putting a baby in her arms who dies minutes later"

Based on your ahem "limited" knowledge of the facts, perhaps you should inform yourself. One of the issues is a genetic condition called Trisomy 18. Used to be the 1 year survival rate was relatively low. 5-15%. Which meant that 5-15% of children would survive beyond a year. But a recent study out of South Korea demonstrates that with good, modern, medical care...that can be substantially higher. 63%. And can only improve further, with better medical advances.

So, you've gone to a better than 50/50 chance of your child surviving beyond the first year. But...you'd prefer...just kill them in utero instead.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10199514/

Used to be Down Syndrome had low survival rates, and median survival was just 25 years. Now, it's more like 60 years. People who can live good reasonable lives. Or....we can eliminate it like Iceland did...and kill every child in utero who has Down Syndrome.

You're going by the concept of "Cruelty"....isn't it cruel to kill entire groups of people in utero, just because they don't have the right genes? What does your ethics say about that?

[Krychek_2]

Ok so you’ve completely ignored my basic point. Noted.

[Armchair]

Your “basic point” relies on incorrect facts and justifies the eradication of entire groups of people based on their genetics.

You might as well be arguing to eliminate left-handed people or those with black skin because they will die sooner. So just kill them all in utero now.

If you’re going to appeal to people, perhaps you should consider that.

[shawn_dude]

Here's a recent example of a woman forced to give birth to a baby who died in her father's arms 4 hours after birth. The baby had anencephaly.

"Anencephaly is rare neurological disorder that involves a defect in the closure of the neural tube during fetal development. Infants with this disorder are born without a forebrain (the front part of the brain). The remaining brain tissue is often not covered by bone or skin."

Doctor's knew this at 20 weeks and she was forced to carry to term and then watch the baby die.

Of course, given this crazy comment of yours, you're not arguing in good faith, which anyone with 30 seconds of time and access to a search engine could see.

[Armchair]

Look at that. Another genetic condition. What does the data show.

These data show that over 40 percent of liveborn anencephalic infants (51 % males; 34% females) survive longer than 24 hours, and of these, 5 percent are still alive on the seventh day.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/000992288402300505#:~:text=These%20data%20show%20that%20over,alive%20on%20the%20seventh%20day.

Sounds like there are options for TREATMENT of the condition. Not just blindly killing off the entire genetic group.

[Kazinski]

Wasn't part of the problem that they didn't want the abortion in Ohio because they would have to report the rape?

They didn't want to report the rape because it was the mothers illegal alien boyfriend.

[Krychek_2]

I don’t know if that’s true, but if so, so what? Seriously. So fucking what?

A ten year old rape victim had to leave the state to have an abortion. That's the take home message .

[Bwaaah]

Oops. Wrong axe to grind? (errr...wrong fucking axe?)

[Krychek_2]

The rapist was in fact convicted and is now doing time. Even if Kazinski is right on the facts -- and again, I don't know if he is or not -- she still had to leave the state to get an abortion.

[ThePublius]

Apparently she (her mother) waited too long. The limit is 6 weeks in Ohio, she was 6 weeks and 3 days pregnant when she arrived in Indiana for the abortion.

[Sabedi1]

No, she had to leave the state because her mother didn't want to report her illegal Hispanic rapist.

[David Nieporent]

Wasn’t part of the problem that they didn’t want the abortion in Ohio because they would have to report the rape?

No.

[DaveM]

Nothing beats being torn limb from limb in the womb for "raw cruelty". I literally cannot believe I had to even write that sentence. We live in such a cruel age.

[Ed Grinberg]

If you’ve convinced yourself that certain people — blacks, Jews, unborn children — are not really people, all sorts of cruelties become OK; you just don’t see them as such.

[Krychek_2]

The thing is, though, that even if I were to accept your premise that fetuses are fully human persons, your position essentially is that women have no rights and no interests at all. The woman clearly is a person; that is not in dispute. What I'm hearing from your side, though, is that no matter how much she suffers, no matter how much her health and wellbeing are threatened, she simply does not matter. The only thing that matters is the fetus.

Which is why your extremist position has largely been rejected by most of the American people. Even in DeSantis country, Florida, support for abortion rights (which is on the ballot in November) is currently polling at 70%.

[Frank Drackman]

Imagine if Willie Mays had been aborted, Vic Wertz would still be running the bases at the Polo Grounds

Frank

[David Nieporent]

Nothing beats being torn limb from limb in the womb for “raw cruelty”

Early term fetuses don't have limbs.

[Bwaaah]

"Early term fetuses don’t have limbs."

Good point. That explains why the heads come off.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Early term fetuses don’t have limbs."
Fetal term begins around nine weeks and limbs have developed.

[Sabedi1]

The law always protected the cases the media whines about, but dishonest doctors claimed they weren't allowed to do these procedures to drum up support for exactly what you're stating.

[Martinned2]

Interesting new NBER paper by Canayaz, Erel & Gurun:

We examine the repercussions of protectionist policies implemented in the United States since 2018 on the composition of workforce and career choices within the semiconductor industry. We find that the shift towards protectionism, aimed at reviving domestic manufacturing and employment, paradoxically resulted in a significant drop in hiring domestic talent. The effect is stronger for entry-level and junior positions, indicating a disproportionate impact on newcomers to the workforce. Additionally, we trace the trajectories of undergraduate and graduate cohorts possessing chip-related skills over time, and document significant shifts away from the chip industry.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w32466

[apedad]

WikiLeaks Founder Pleads Guilty and Is Sentenced for Conspiring to Obtain and Disclose Classified National Defense Information

Assange was detained in the United Kingdom based on the U.S. charges for the last 62 months, while he contested extradition. As part of the plea agreement, Assange was transported to the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands to enter his felony guilty plea and be sentenced on the morning of June 26 (Saipan local time) in a U.S. courtroom, with the venue reflecting Assange’s opposition to traveling to the continental United States to enter his guilty plea and the proximity of this federal U.S. District Court to Assange’s country of citizenship, Australia, to which he will return. At today’s proceeding, Assange admitted to his role in the conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act and received a court-imposed 62-month time-served sentence, reflecting the time he served in U.K. prison as a result of the U.S. charges. Following the imposition of sentence, he will depart the United States for his native Australia. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Assange is prohibited from returning to the United States without permission.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-pleads-guilty-and-sentenced-conspiring-obtain-and-disclose-classified

I don't mind the sentence being the time he sat in prison in the UK but I wonder why, i.e., strongly disagree, we allowed him to dictate where the trial was held.

[tylertusta]

I wonder why, i.e., strongly disagree, we allowed him to dictate where the trial was held.

There was no trial.

We do not have enough information on the plea negotiations to know how accommodating the DOJ was.

In the grand scheme of things, perhaps having him go to a judge in the Marianas is a small price to pay compared to the costs of trying to extradite him in the first place.

[Guten]

The internet is saying that Wikileaks deleted 20k emails related to Clinton. The rumor is that removing those emails was part of the plea deal.

[Bwaaah]

Well if the internet is saying it, then it must be true. First day trolling?

[Krayt]

If they were publicly posted, they are out there now.

[Drewski]

I heard they also deleted the location of Jimmy Hoffa's body, the rest of the Panama Papers, and the missing 18 minutes.

[Krayt]

One thing I am not seeing in any of this is what did he actually do that was illegal? He must have somehow participated in the stealing of info, via help, money, something, and not just received and published, which is not illegal here, much less overseas.

I see such embedded in the charge description, but almost cryptically, but no outlet speaks of what he actually did.

[apedad]

During Manning’s bulk exfiltration and passage of classified materials to WikiLeaks, Manning and Assange communicated regularly via online platforms about Manning’s progress and what classified information Assange wanted. For example, after sending the classified JTF GTMO detainee assessment briefs to Assange, Manning told Assange “thats [sic] all I really have got left.” To encourage Manning to continue to take classified documents from the United States and provide them to Assange and WikiLeaks without authorization, Assange replied, “curious eyes never run dry in my experience.”

~~~
It wasn't the actual initial publishing, it was that Assange then conspired with Manning to obtain more info and that's what he pled guilty to: Conspiring to Obtain and Disclose Classified National Defense Information.

[Krayt]

So "thank you, you got any more?" was it?

[Dr. Ed 2]

It’s not just him, this is diplomatic relations with the British and particularly Australian Governments. The AU probably wanted the trial close to them, as they likely are taking custody of him, i.e. ensuring his deportation.

And don’t think that the US Govt doesn’t want this — if this hearing was held in downtown DC, don’t you think it would be a mob scene with reporters all asking questions that the Govt might not want asked — and the truly wild card of what Assange might say.

Have the hearing on some remote island that most reporters have to look up how to spell the name of, and that won’t happen. He will QUIETLY disappear in Australia and that well may be part of the deal, that the Aussies will keep him quiet.

When you realize that he was actually arrested for not wearing a condom, and ALL of the governments that are involved in this, I say whatever…

[David Nieporent]

I wonder why, i.e., strongly disagree, we allowed him to dictate where the trial was held.

There wasn't a trial, but setting that aside, it was a condition of the agreement for him to drop the challenge to extradition.

[Mr. Bumble]

"It's the economy, stupid".

How bad is it when a chain based on beer, wings and boobs is closing 40 locations?

[Sarcastr0]

How bad is it when your quest to shit on the economy is reduced to causally muddy anecdotes like this?

[Mr. Bumble]

The sleeping douche has been awakened.

[hobie]

See there, ThePublius? That’s an ad hominem.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

No, it's just an insult. He just pointed out that the arguer is a douchebag. He didn't say/imply that the argument was wrong because the arguer is a douchebag.

[bernard11]

No need.

The argument is so patently idiotic that any damn fool can see it's wrong.

"Company goes broke. Ergo, the economy is terrible."

Fucking joke.

[Bwaaah]

No. See ^^THIS^^

[Mr. Bumble]

Hardly "causally muddy anecdotes...".

https://www.today.com/food/restaurants/hooters-restaurants-closing-2024-rcna159029

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Hooters? The average age of that chain's fans is dead.

[Mr. Bumble]

So says the fan of the living dead Rolling Stones.

[Frank Drackman]

And you’re even older you wrinkled fuck

[Dr. Ed 2]

IF it were just 40 restaurants, that would be one thing.

It isn't just 40.

The hospitality business is hurting because Americans are hurting.

[David Nieporent]

The hospitality business isn't hurting and Americans (collectively) aren't hurting.

[Mr. Bumble]

Fucking Carnack the Magnificent speaks from his enclave in Whitelandia.

[Krayt]

Aren't you the one whose investments kept ahead of inflation?

Don't forget to point that out loudly to everyone as the election approaches, so they can ignore inflation as a factor.

[Sarcastr0]

Nah, I don't trade enough to talk about my investments here.

I have noticed that as inflation indices have cooled down, you're getting jankier and jankier economic indicators that people are hauling out to yell at Biden about.

[bernard11]

Let me just say that anyone who is concerned about inflation, and has taken the briefest look at Trump's economic proposals should be running to vote for Biden.

There is an absolutely massive disconnect here, but the cultists are blind to it.

[ThePublius]

It is bad. Many restaurants are closing down altogether, closing lots of locations, and so forth. It's about costs of food and supplies, and in at least one case, a mandated ridiculously high minimum wage.

[Mr. Bumble]

Much more than "one".

[Bwaaah]

And, yes, you stirred the douche.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The thing with the minimum wage is that the labor supply for fast food is not what it was 50 years ago.

Back then, it was teenagers whose living expenses were already being paid for by their parents and the part-time minimum-wage job was just spending money.

Now it's actual parents trying to raise children on it -- a different situation. And all these laws to raise the minimum wage are is the new incarnation of the labor movement. Imagine a union imposing the minimum wage -- that's what the steel industry was dealing with 50-60 years ago. Likewise the auto industry.

[shawn_dude]

The minimum wage isn't the real issue here. You've got restaurants hiring people at poverty-level wages that then rely on public tax dollars to get food and other assistance. Those same businesses are structured based on a franchise model that centralizes a lot of control over menu, costs, prices, marketing, etc to a national office. That model cannot handle a lot of variability in local wages and will need to adapt. It will be interesting to see if more diners go to sit-down restaurants, where tipping is traditional, instead. This could be a boon for mom-and-pop restaurants or chains like Chilis and Applebees.

The only restaurants covered offer limited or no table service
where customers order food items and pay before consuming. The restaurant is part of a chain of at least 60 establishments nationwide. The restaurant is primarily engaged in selling food and beverages for immediate consumption.

[shawn_dude]

Oh yeah... and the state added 10K new fast food jobs between March and May (the law took effect in April) with roughly 21K new jobs having been added since January.

So while some are closing, a lot of them are staffing up to the tune of a large net increase despite the higher wages they have to pay.

[Kazinski]

It’s an aging and dated franchise, it happens.

They probably had a large buf light inventory they had to take a loss on.

But there was Red Lobster too, and California's 20$ fast food minimum wage is taking a toll too.

[Mr. Bumble]

It may be but they are hardly alone in the restaurant closings and the boobs were always fresh not aging.

[Bwaaah]

All-you-can-eat shrimp is understandably challenging. But beer, wings and boobs? That formula there is freakin' transcendent. It's gotta be something else going on, like some kind of attack on everything that's good.

[ThePublius]

It was new corporate parent, Thai Union Group, that wrecked Red Lobster. A true shame.

Here's a very good article on what happened:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/25/business/red-lobster-bankruptcy-thai-union/index.html

[bernard11]

Or bad management, or declining popularity?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sounds more like they bought the chain to loot it and throw it away. Forcing them to make Thai Union their sole shrimp supplier, and then creating an endless shrimp promotion to maximize over-priced shrimp purchases.

[Sarcastr0]

Red lobster is it's own insane story.

But mostly this is following a trend:
https://foodinstitute.com/focus/recent-spate-of-restaurant-closures-confounds-industry/

Forbes has some good recent analysis: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2024/06/06/major-restaurant-chains-that-have-closed-down-locations-across-the-us-in-2024/
Major chains including TGI Fridays, MOD Pizza, Outback Steakhouse and Applebee's cited “underperformance” as the main reason for closing certain restaurant locations. They are strategically shuttering stores that are not meeting sales and profit expectations.
...
Although five of the cullings took place in California, Van Warner made clear that the state's new minimum-wage law was not responsible for the shutdowns.

Y'all pick the kind of story you want, and then pick a sector and anecdote that fits. And it turns out not to be the causal relationship you're looking for. But you will bluster nevertheless.

[ThePublius]

Agreed, Red Lobster's demise was not the economy, it was the new corporate ownership and also poor decisions.

[Mr. Bumble]

One size does not fit all and there are multiple reasons for restaurant closings but inflation is playing a big part.

Here are some of the major closings:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2024/06/06/major-restaurant-chains-that-have-closed-down-locations-across-the-us-in-2024/

[Martinned2]

What's stopping a restaurant from increasing its prices in line with inflation? I can see how unexpected inflation might be a problem for a company whose prices are locked in for a longer period, but printing new menus isn't that expensive.

[Brett Bellmore]

It isn't any expense at all in the restaurants that have gone to digital menus, where you scan a QR code to look at the menu.

What's stopping restaurants from increasing their prices in line with inflation is that food inflation has been substantially worse than overall inflation, and eating at restaurants is a luxury. People drop luxury spending when things get expensive.

We find it cheaper to do gourmet cooking at home, than to go to even a mid level restaurant. I'm sure a lot of people have observed that, and changed their behavior accordingly.

[Commenter_XY]

We find it cheaper to do gourmet cooking at home, than to go to even a mid level restaurant. I’m sure a lot of people have observed that, and changed their behavior accordingly.

Yes.

[Sarcastr0]

We find it cheaper to do gourmet cooking at home, than to go to even a mid level restaurant. I’m sure a lot of people have observed that, and changed their behavior accordingly.

You could look up the statistics on this.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/237215/average-away-from-home-food-expenditures-of-united-states-households/

[Mr. Bumble]

They have been increasing prices and that is part of the problem. Eating in a restaurant is not a necessity and people will decide to forgo it when it making decisions on how to spend.

[John F. Carr]

Browsing online menus yesterday to decide where to eat today I came across this:

There is a 5% Kitchen Admin Fee applied to all checks. We feel this is the most transparent & best way in lieu of raising our menu prices, to help close the gap in wage disparities between our Front of the House and Back of the House employees.

I felt that was more deceptive than transparent and picked a different restaurant. Obviously if they have that policy they must think it generates more revenue than increasing prices by a dollar per dish.

[Mr. Bumble]

Up next: cover charge for entering.

[Martinned2]

Yes. In other countries they have laws against drip pricing.

[shawn_dude]

California is attempting to pass a law that would force hidden fees onto the stated price. I'm sure that'll get a lot of bad press in the conservative media but, as a customer, I don't want to have to do a bunch of math to figure out what the hamburger I'm buying will really cost me when I get to the register.

[shawn_dude]

Nothing, technically, but fast food franchises are often obligated to set prices according to the parent company's wishes. So if California raises minimum wages to $20/hour and McDonalds doesn't let those franchisees raise prices, that's a closed restaurant.

Fast food in the US collects some amount of their profit from the difference between the poverty-level wages they pay and the amount of tax-funded public services their employees rely on to maintain a basic living. At $20/hour, assuming a 2080 work year, a fast food worker would now make $41,600/year before taxes.

[SRG2]

https://foodinstitute.com/focus/restaurant-chains-dominate-top-10-fastest-growing-retail-brands/

[Frank Drackman]

Hooters? I try to go whenever there’s one around, one of the better ones is in Escondido CA surprisingly

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

Nothing surprising at all, Dr. Frank. I have seen some of the lovely Hooters ladies from CA, breathtakingly.....beautiful. CA is beautiful, generally. I would move there in a heartbeat (if it was affordable).

[Frank Drackman]

Escondido has one of the few remaining “Shakey’s Pizza Parlors” also, hasn’t changed since 1972 except Flat Screens replaced the old reel to reel 3 Stooges shorts

[shawn_dude]

Huge swaths of California are affordable*. The beach cities, notsomuch. Cities and towns with median home prices below $500K are all over the state. Shasta county's median price is $351K. Tulare county, famous for the Sequoia National Park, has a median home price of $369K. Lassen county is $224K, but you better like fishing and hiking because that's all there is to do there. The lowest median is in Modoc county at $130K but you better not like neighbors because it's the least-populated county in the state.

Property tax rates are low in California so these areas represent annual property taxes under $2K. As far as fees and other forms of revenue generation, the state ranks roughly in the middle of the pack. Just don't expect to live in San Diego, LA, or SF if you're price-shy.

*"Affordable" is relative. Most people think of California as a string of beach cities and ignore the vast inland farms and rugged wilderness from the hot deserts through to soggy, temperate forests.

[ThePublius]

Karen Read murder trial: the jury is deliberating now.

What was weird is that while the original jury slip had check boxes for guilty and not guilty for the murder charge, for the lesser included charges there were only check boxes for guilty.

Is this normal?

The judge said that this is how it's always done in Massachusetts.

(The judge also made a snarky remark to Ms. Read, "what's so funny?" as Read was smiling - probably at the absurdity of the verdict slip discussion. I think that was quite inappropriate of the judge.)

[hobie]

Sounds very inappropriate. Was this done in front of the jury?

[ThePublius]

Good question. I don't. know, but I think not, as the jury already had the case and was probably in the jury room at the time.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Is this normal

Looks like it. See, e.g.,

https://www.mass.gov/doc/5501-verdict-slip/download

[Martinned2]

That's not exactly what our friend Publius described.

That said, it's not my idea of great decision making either. The English forms shown in the Annexes here are much better, because they also ask about the individual steps in the route to the verdict. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Crown-Court-Compendium-Part-I-December-2020-amended-01.02.21.pdf

[apedad]

Waivers for DACA Recipients Open Narrow Path for Work Relief

An initiative by the Biden administration to steer undocumented young people with college degrees to long-term employment-based visas may offer relief to only a narrow group of Dreamers.

It could also offer applicants and their employers more certainty of their ability to live and work in the US, an outcome that large tech firms like Microsoft and Alphabet Inc. have urged for all recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival protections, the program for undocumented people who arrived in the US as children.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/waivers-for-daca-recipients-open-narrow-path-for-work-relief

Mouthbreathers shouldn't have any problems with this since 1) a lot don't have college degrees and 2) even if they have a degree it's not like they would go to work for Microsoft or Alphabet anyway.

[ThePublius]

I really hate this "college degree" bar as the threshold for preferred treatment of people. What about all of the Dreamers who have become electricians, plumbers, welders, carpenters, and so forth? Aren't they valuable? Don't they deserve a long term work visa as much as college grads do?

[Mr. Bumble]

Probably more so since they are probably making a positive contribution to the economy.

[Kazinski]

We shouldn't have a private immigration system for tech companies anyway.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Many people insist on merit. Education is merit.

[ThePublius]

Skill is merit. Education alone does not mean there's merit. There are many who graduate with worthless degrees, negative ROI degrees.

[hobie]

Skill is a manifestation of knowledge, I would argue

[Sarcastr0]

Talent + education = skill.

Merit is a set of selection criteria, often involving skill level, based on current attributes that are an attempt to predict potential for future success upon being selected.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Temperament + Talent + Education + Practice + Varied Experience = Skill.

During an era preceding this one there was a nostrum still remembered by some people now, "There was a time when thinkers still built, and builders still thought."

[Sarcastr0]

I'd argue that's total quality, not skill. I know skilled people who thanks to temperament do not add quality.

I would count practice and experience as education, but you are right that's not clear - education can be thought of as purely academic. I was thinking of more of a 'never stop learning' paradigm.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I was thinking of more of a ‘never stop learning’ paradigm.

And you were still discounting to near-zero any skills except mostly abstract ones associated with middle class jobs. I was thinking of a top-flight millwright. Which, to give you your due, no one gets to be without a never-stop-learning outlook.

[Bwaaah]

"Education is merit."

Umm. No. Doing something useful with it is meritorious. Education in itself, especially without specifying what kind of education (e.g. White Supremacist Studies), says little to nothing of merit.

[Nige]

Imagine. Studying White Supremacy. In America, of all places.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Can you explain? I don't get your comment.

[Bwaaah]

Dummy puts on his facetious voice so as to imply that courses in "White Supremacist Studies" not only exist, but are typical of the United States. Of course, there are no programs for White Supremacist Studies, nor even a politically significant portion of the American population that subscribes to such an ideology.

Dummy is using archaic language from 2020, when it was evil to say that all lives matter. Dummy is ignoring that after a couple of years of Democratic struggle in front of their bathroom mirrors, most of them realized, "I'm good enough. I'm smart enough. And gosh darnit, I'm not a white supremacist."

Dummy clings to his neoliberal, race essentialist lexicon, feigning a contempt for whiteness that even he doesn't actually sport.

Dummy is just saying dumb shit, like dummy does.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Lol you got schooled!

[Frank Drackman]

Thanks Revolting I’ve got a HS Diploma, BS in Poultry Science, and an M.D. (Mentally Deranged) of those the biggest pain in the ass was the HS Diploma, going to an “Intergrated Pubic Screwel, which meant a PE class of 34 N-words and 2 Crackers, how was I to know no whites took PE after 10th grade? In California it was a higlight, pool, whirlpool, California girls in short shorts…..

Frank

[M L]

It's a proxy for "people who are more likely to vote Democrat because they went through our Democrat indoctrination centers"

If anything it should be the opposite - keep the ones who have become electricians, plumbers, welders, carpenters, and kick out the ones with liberal arts degrees and student loans

[Nige]

Or, to put it another way - 'we hate education beause we think educated people won't vote for us.'

[Sabedi1]

Learning about how blacks are oppressed or about how ejaculating into another man's rear is the ultimate act of love is not "education."

[Bob from Ohio]

"Mouthbreathers"

Gentlemen, the tolerant left!

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Are you feeling insufficiently tolerated, Bob?

[Bwaaah]

Ewww...Alpheus W Tonepolice entered the room, and he's pissy about "tolerance" today. No, wait, it's his Bob thing. Oh, I don't know; I'm gonna just shut my trap now.

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha!

“No matter what you think of either candidate, only one has been deemed mentally competent to stand trial, and that is Trump. And stand trial he has, facing the Dems’ lawfare offensive. Robert Hur, the DOJ Special Counsel looking into Biden’s handling of classified documents, concluded that our president is too old and incompetent to stand trial. So, what do we do in America when our DOJ tells us that someone is not clear-headed enough to withstand a trial for a crime he clearly committed? We run him for president. That would be elder abuse in most cases.”

https://dailycaller.com/2024/06/26/hart-im-with-robert-hur-joe-biden-donald-trump/

[Mr. Bumble]

Did he say incompetent or incontinent? Another reason to release the tapes.

[apedad]

You want to see tapes of someone who is incontinent?

Ewwwww.....

[Mr. Bumble]

Listen to tapes not see. I don't think there is video of Biden's questioning.

[Brett Bellmore]

Trust me, it's pretty boring, since you're wearing clothes at the time...

Does he make a point of wearing black pants? It would be circumstantial evidence.

[Frank Drackman]

Check your Dylexia meds, Sleepy’s Incoherent, OK incontinent also

[not guilty]

Line one of the Daily Caller piece quoted by ThePublius: Note: This is a satirical piece.” (Italics in original.) Did you think no one would click on the link?

““No matter what you think of either candidate, only one has been deemed mentally competent to stand trial, and that is Trump. And stand trial he has, facing the Dems’ lawfare offensive. Robert Hur, the DOJ Special Counsel looking into Biden’s handling of classified documents, concluded that our president is too old and incompetent to stand trial.”

The only truth there is that one presidential candidate has actually stood trial. Donald Trump’s mental competence was not litigated there. Robert Hur made no conclusion that President Biden “is too old and incompetent to stand trial.” He declined prosecution because the evidence did not rise to proof of any offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Ctrl-f searches of the words “competent,” :incompetent,” “competence” and “incompetence” show that none of these words appear anywhere in the Hur report. https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf

OTOH, the nut graph does say:

However, for the reasons summarized below, we conclude that the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecution of Mr. Biden is also unwarranted based on our consideration of the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in the Department of Justice’s Principles of Federal Prosecution. For these reasons, we decline prosecution of Mr. Biden.

FWIW, the phrase “reasonable doubt” appears 28 times.

[DaveM]

We've trod this ground many times before. Look, Biden isn't too old and incompetent to stand trial, he just "presents" as being too old and incompetent to stand trial.

Which is somehow seen as better. YMMV.

[Noscitur a sociis]

This entire discourse is really weird to me.

"Our guys isn't even competent enough to get prosecuted for the felonies he committed!"

"Oh yeah? Well our guy is so with it that he knew exactly what he was doing when he committed all those felonies!"

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It's weird to you because only the first one is true. The other one is your invention.

[David Nieporent]

Robert Hur, the DOJ Special Counsel looking into Biden’s handling of classified documents, concluded that our president is too old and incompetent to stand trial.

He did not, in fact, say any such thing.

(Nor, of course, does a prosecutor's opinion on that subject have any legal foundation.)

Only one of the candidates, however, has been convicted of a felony or 34.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Why is a profit motive immoral in healthcare, but not immoral in other core needs such as food or housing?

[Mr. Bumble]

You're not paying attention; the left thinks all profit is immoral.

[Longtobefree]

“the left thinks all profit is immoral”

Except the corruption kind; especially if your last name is Biden or Clinton

[Nige]

Apparently you guys think evidence is immoral.

[bernard11]

Why do you believe such idiocy?

Yes, there are some on the extreme left who are economic illiterates, as there are some on the right, but this is by no means a commonplace view.

[apedad]

Ok, that's a good question and I'd say it's because there is a much greater availability / variety / options for food and housing where healthcare is a highly specialized endeavor and it's difficult to provide availability / variety / options.

[apedad]

Additionally, for rural areas, an adequate healthcare workforce is difficult to maintain (low population, low education rates, low salaries, etc.).

[Dr. Ed 2]

No apedad, the problem with maintaining an adequate healthcare workforce in rural areas is HOUSING.

Seriously. It's so much of a problem that some rural medical centers are building it.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

How does a profit motive hinder those things?

[Brett Bellmore]

Essentially, food and housing are solved problems, because there is an objective minimum quantity and quality that "gets the job done", beyond which all improvements are conspicuously a matter of luxury, not "need". And that level is, for any advanced society, so remarkably low relative to resources, that you can trust that almost everybody will manage to get it without assistance, and the assistance for those who can't is cheap enough to not be controversial. While the political case for providing people with subsidized luxury is hard to make.

People do die of starvation and exposure in this world, but in the advanced nations only due to mental health issues, and even in the poorer countries it's usually disguised genocide, not unavoidable.

So, the free market is allowed to function, and does a great job, with government just filling in the cracks.

Whereas for health care, we are still in a situation of fundamental scarcity. People unavoidably get sick, unavoidably die, and you could bankrupt the entire world economy trying to provide the best health care to even one nation's population.

This situation should not endure forever, eventually health care will become another solved problem, like food and shelter. Might take another 50-100 years, but we'll get there.

But in the meanwhile, even though the free market is the best way to get there, and the most efficient way to distribute what we have in scarcity, this conflicts with many people's sense of justice, providing government with an excuse to meddle. Even if it's making things worse as often as better.

[bernard11]

As has been pointed out over and over the health care market does not at all fit the free market model. The only people advocating for that approach are blind ideologues.

Food and housing are well-suited for markets - lots of options, competitive providers, consumers well able to decide for themselves what products they want at what prices, etc. Further, they are not panic buys. When you need a coronary bypass you don't interview a lot of surgeons, compare prices, check their credentials, get references, etc. Unless you have good reason you go to the one your PCP refers you to rather than shopping around and delaying the operation.

Another difference between food and healthcare is that nobody goes without eating for two years and then suddenly has to have hundreds of thousands of calories in a short period of time. That's why you want insurance.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — In this nation the price of eyewash remains too high to risk taking you seriously. If any of that were true, Costa Rica, a nation much poorer than the United States, would not mysteriously have found a way to deliver life expectancy exceeding that of the United States.

[Brett Bellmore]

There's nothing mysterious about it. It's an artifact due to the transition from poverty and survivor bias.

In a poor country, mortality in infancy, childhood, and middle age is extremely high, so that if you make it to old age you're one tough bastard, and have a remarkably low mortality rate. (Look up "heterogeneity of frailty") Very different from a developed country, where advanced medicine keeps frail people alive, who then die at an elevated rate when they get old.

So, if you take a poor country, and introduce medicine, you get a younger population whose mortality is lowered by medicine, and you still have the older population whose mortality is lowered by survivor bias, and the overall mortality figures look incredible.

But if you were to follow somebody born today through their life, you won't see that amazing longevity in practice, because the fragile will survive to old age, and by the time they're old, you'll see normal mortality rates in the elderly.

[Kazinski]

A large part of longevity is diet, genetics, and climate. Costa Rica, Puerto Rico, and Thailand are all ranked 43-44-45, and Cuba which has the best medical system in the world, and highest literacy rate (well almost North Korea is at 100%) is at 58.

Another factor is the freedom and disposable income to eat drink and ingest whatever you want while h might not be good for you.

[Krayt]

No, it won’t be “solved”. Not until people live forever.

The question is how to get there fast enough. Delays mass murder, piles upon piles, like compounded interest, as medical tech falls further and further behind where it otherwise would be.

You can’t hand it out for free until it is invented, first. Medical care is not a static thing to issue people. It is hundreds of inventions every year.

You seek to give a free phone to everybody — a bakelite rotary dial phone hardwired to a copper wire. Yay, you! You good, kind-hearted person.

Expenses increase because there’s more to buy, year after year. It isn’t a static thing for a one time purchase.

Finally, if command and control is good enough for medical care, it should be good enough for phones and video games. Let’s eviscerate the profit motive there, too. I am sure smart phone and video game development will accellerate!

[Brett Bellmore]

"No, it won’t be “solved”. Not until people live forever."

Yeah, that's what I mean by "solved"; That within 50-100 years, we should have enough understanding of biology to stop the aging process, or at least slow it to the point where people die of misadventure before they become fragile. I follow the progress in this area extensively, and it IS coming, though hardly fast enough to be much benefit for me. For my son? Sure, I don't think HE has to worry about dying of old age.

It's really cheap to not be able to do anything; "He's dead, Jim." is basically free. It's really expensive to keep sick people alive. Once you know how to prevent illness, it goes back to being cheap.

We're in the middle: We know enough to intervene and keep sickly people alive for a long while, but not enough to prevent them from getting sickly in the first place. But you have to go through the middle to reach the other side.

[Bob from Ohio]

Non profit status doe not mean no "profit" is created, its just an ownership type {no shareholders] and tax status.

Cleveland Clinic here creates lots of "profit", income in excess of operating expenses. If a non profit hospital does not create "profit" it cannot borrow for capital improvements or cover unanticipated expenses, or even stay in business if it runs a deficit.

[DaveM]

The argument is that if you have a profit "motive", you're buying and selling human health, and that would be bad.

And actually I would agree with that. Profit is actually a very poor "motive", period, regardless of the service provided (with one exception: those services for whom profit is what is to be delivered).

What profit is is an excellent measure of success. But if you make maximizing your measure the "motive", then you will be "teaching to the test", or over-fitting. A classic strategic error.

[Brett Bellmore]

Profit's a bad motive, except that it works.

David Friedman really nails it in his "Love is not enough" chapter.

"So under private property the first method, love, is used where it is workable. Where it is not, trade is used instead. The attack on private property as selfish contrasts the second method with the first. It implies that the alternative to selfish trade is unselfish love. But, under private property, love already functions where it can. Nobody is prevented from doing something for free if he wants to. Many people — parents helping their children, volunteer workers in hospitals, scoutmasters — do just that. If, for those things that people are not willing to do for free, trade is replaced by anything, it must be by force. Instead of people being selfish and doing things because they want to, they will be unselfish and do them at the point of a gun.

Is this accusation unfair? The alternative offered by those who deplore selfishness is always government. It is selfish to do something for money, so the slums should be cleaned up by a youth corps staffed via universal service. Translated, that means the job should be done by people who will be put in jail if they do not do it."

[Martinned2]

Profit works sometimes, and sometimes it crowds out intrinsic motivation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3906839/

[bernard11]

Profit is not universally a bad motive, but there are situations where it works badly.

One good example is monopolies, which are inefficient in the sense that they produce less than the optimum quantities and charge more than the market equilibrium price.

[Brett Bellmore]

And governments are, universally, monopolies, so I don't see how you diminish the risk of monopoly by handing over control of something to... a monopoly.

It's not that profit is universally a good motive. But as David says, you've only got three mechanisms for getting things done: Love, trade, and force. And if you take profit off the table, and "love is not enough", all you've got left in your toolkit is force.

So profit doesn't have to be perfect. It just needs to be better than force.

[bernard11]

And governments are, universally, monopolies, so I don’t see how you diminish the risk of monopoly by handing over control of something to… a monopoly.

But government is not a profit-maximizing monopoly. It is the profit-maximizing feature that makes monopolies inefficient.

[Brett Bellmore]

I find that a very dubious assumption indeed. What makes monopolies inefficient is that they don't HAVE to be efficient to survive, there's no competition.

[bernard11]

I find that a very dubious assumption indeed. What makes monopolies inefficient is that they don’t HAVE to be efficient to survive, there’s no competition.

You're wrong.

What I said is not an assumption. It's a logical deduction assuming profit-maximizing behavior. Basic economics, around Chapter 4.

Further, and I should have been clearer, I was not talking about the business operating inefficiently. I was talking about making production and pricing decisions that are inefficient from an economy-wide POV, that waste resources, all as a precise consequence of profit-maximizing behavior.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>I was talking about making production and pricing decisions that are inefficient from an economy-wide POV, that waste resources, all as a precise consequence of profit-maximizing behavior.

You’re essentially arguing that command economy is better, against all empirical evidence to the contrary mind you.

Economic decisions are best made locally. The locals have the most information about their needs and their resources.

[Kazinski]

Yes its not a profit maximizing entity, which makes it even more inefficient. Take the Soviet auto industry, they had to make a car, and they did, then they rolled out the same model for decades.

I remember a conversation I had with a cell phone engineer in the early '00s. He said the cell phone companies should be taken over by the government because once you had the network in place its all profit.

I told him it was a terrible idea because as soon as that happened all innovation would stop, and it would be frozen in place forever. Flip phones forever, but actually that was even prep flip phone era, it was late brick I think.

[Sarcastr0]

Efficiency should not the be-all end-all of every effort, especially if you're talking distribution of resources.

Innovation, now that's my jam! Lets dig into that.
I agree that innovation is really supercharged by markets to a frankly miraculous extent. But markets alone don't get you to smartphones.
Because basic research is not something markets support these days. This is why Bell Labs closed - the costs and risks are prohibitive these past 30 years or so.

Federally funded research is involved in almost every component of the iPhone. Government-industry-academia is where it's at these days.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>Efficiency should not the be-all end-all of every effort, especially if you’re talking distribution of resources.

Can you elaborate further? That seems like nonsense. Why wouldn’t you want scarce resources allocated as efficiently as possible? Helping the most people with the limited resources seems to be the moral choice.

[Sarcastr0]

limited but needed resources should be distributed *fairly* not efficiently.

Think heat, light, food, etc.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

How is serving the most people with the limited resources not the fairest?

Who gets to decide what is fair, then who gets to decide who is banned from government healthcare in service of fairness?

You've clearly thought this through, what are the factors of fairness and where does this moral framework stem from?

[Bwaaah]

"Limited but needed resources should be distributed *fairly* not efficiently."

The voice of a statist, formulating his basis for picking his preferred winners, inefficiently.

*fairly*

[Brett Bellmore]

"limited but needed resources should be distributed *fairly* not efficiently."

Trivially, it's fair to distribute limited but needed resources to people who contribute to making them LESS limited by actually paying for them.

[Sarcastr0]

Zero money? then perish. It's efficient!

In order to maintain your simplistic support of markets, you all neglect the implications of 'limited but needed.'

Do you all have a bidding war at your family dinners?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

As if government is immune to selfishness.

Empirically, the government is horrible at healthcare. Single Payer Defense is a corrupt, wasteful, inefficient and failing system. Why wouldn't Single Payer Healthcare turn into the same horrible mess?

[Ed Grinberg]

To a leftist, the profit motive is immoral generally.
To a normal person, there's no reason why a good doctor shouldn't be well-compensated for his work (just like a good homebuilder, a good baker, etc.).

[Bob from Ohio]

SCOTUS holds that when the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.

Big blow against the administrative state. Next up [hopefully] Chevron overrule.

[Martinned2]

Makes sense to me. Jury trials are no more nuts in securities fraud cases than in any number of other areas where they are nonetheless used.

[Brett Bellmore]

Now if they'd only reverse their current precedent on the right to jury trials and misdemeanors. The Constitution says "all" criminal trials, the Supreme court says "some".

Allowing an arbitrary number of charges so long as the individual sentences were short effectively allows somebody to end up with a life sentence and never get a jury trial. That was just pouring salt on the constitutional wound.

[apedad]

Where does it say "all" (since you specifically put 'all' in quotes)?

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

[Brett Bellmore]

In the Sixth amendment, obviously, since I was talking about the right to jury trials in criminal trials.

The Court has ruled that "all" doesn't really mean "all".

[apedad]

Ah, you're right.

In Barker v. Wingo the Court decided:

Length of delay. The Court did not explicitly rule that any absolute time limit applies. However, it gave the example that the delay for "ordinary street crime is considerably less than for a serious, complex conspiracy charge."

Reason for the delay. The prosecution may not excessively delay the trial for its own advantage, but a trial may be delayed to secure the presence of an absent witness or other practical considerations (e.g., change of venue).

Time and manner in which the defendant has asserted his right. If a defendant agrees to the delay when it works to his own benefit, he cannot later claim he has been unduly delayed.

Degree of prejudice to the defendant which the delay has caused.

And if a defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated, then under Strunk v. United States, the indictment must be dismissed and any conviction overturned and a reversal or dismissal of a criminal case on speedy trial grounds means no further prosecution for the alleged offense can take place.

Sounds like a strong remedy.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Hahaha what? That's about the delay between charging and trial, not whether the trial is by jury or not.

[Sarcastr0]

Have you read Duncan v. Louisiana, Brett?

I never found it a very convincing case, but you should read what the Supreme Court finds before you declare it wrong as to the Constitution.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

[Sarcastr0]

I agree with Brett as to the constitutional lay of the land on jury trials being pretty bad.

Brett should read the opinions and engage with their arguments. It'd be easy to do get where he is, but via actual argumentation, not his usual Arbiter of Constitutionality bit.

[not guilty]

"Allowing an arbitrary number of charges so long as the individual sentences were short effectively allows somebody to end up with a life sentence and never get a jury trial. That was just pouring salt on the constitutional wound."

Under existing decisions of SCOTUS, the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee the right to jury trial for petty offenses, whether federal, Lewis v. United States, 518 U.S. 322 (1996), or state. Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538 (1989). A defendant is entitled to a jury trial whenever the offense for which he is charged carries a maximum authorized prison term of greater than six months. Blanton, at 542. Where the offenses charged are petty, and the deprivation of liberty exceeds six months only as a result of the aggregation of charges, the jury trial right does not apply. Lewis, at 330.

Positing that a criminal defendant could end up with a life sentence and never get a jury trial is hyperbole at best. A judgment of consecutive sentences needs to be supported by facts. The aggregate length of the sentence is one consideration among several. Is it possible for a defendant in his late eighties? I suppose so. But how likely is that to happen?

[Brett Bellmore]

Lewis v United States. "Held,
1. A defendant who is prosecuted in a single proceeding for multiple petty offenses does not have a Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial where the aggregate prison term authorized for the offenses exceeds six months."

All you need to do is bring enough counts, and you can effectively put somebody behind bars for life, under this reasoning.

[not guilty]

Yes, I acknowledged Lewis, as well as the theoretical possibility of an elderly defendant being sentenced for the remainder of his life.

Now please answer my question about how likely that is to happen, especially in light of the necessity to support consecutive sentencing factually.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I said, the constitutional wound was allowing people to be criminally tried without the right to a jury trial despite the Sixth amendment's "all". Again, "all" is not a word that possesses a lot of ambiguity.

That would have been an offense against the Constitution even if they'd limited it to six months. That they didn't even do that was pouring salt on the wound.

That's a constitutional wrong by the Court even if prosecutors hardly ever walk through the door they threw open.

But sometimes they do walk through it.

[not guilty]

It looks like you found an outlier where a plethora of charges was initially brought, but none was adjudicated as of the time of that writing. Did you think I wouldn't click on the link?

Moreover, the linked article does not indicate that the California defendant there was not entitled to trial by jury. My research is not exhaustive, and I don't know whether what I am citing is current, but it appears that the California constitution protects the right to jury trial of petty offenses where imprisonment is an available penalty. Under the California Constitution, only infractions not punishable by imprisonment (§ 19c) are not within the jury trial guaranty. Mitchell v. Superior Court, 49 Cal.3d 1230, 1242, 265 Cal.Rptr. 144, 783 P.2d 731 (Cal. 1989).

I am all for an expansive right to jury trial in criminal cases, but refusing to acknowledge extant SCOTUS decisions as being authoritative is just foolish.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I didn't think you wouldn't click on the link. I think the link adequately satisfied any demand that I demonstrate the threat of stacking 'petty' charges to achieve outrageously long sentences without any jury trial wasn't purely theoretical. Not that it wouldn't still be bad if nobody had taken them up on the invite.

Seriously, what do you want? The court ignored that "all", and then poured salt on the wound by allowing stacking charges with consecutive sentences.

[not guilty]

Uh, Brett, Mr. Berny had the right (under the California constitution) to a jury trial on all charges. The District Attorney presumably knew that when he brought the charges. It follows that the availability vel non of trial by jury had zilch to do with the prosecutor's charging decision.

[Noscitur a sociis]

But sometimes they do walk through it.

1. The math in that article is a little fishy. It says he was charged with 170 counts of the same violation, which carried an aggregate total of 60 years. That would mean that the offense was punishable by a maximum sentence of 128 days, which would be a bit odd.

2. This guy wasn't sentenced to anything, because the charges were dismissed prior to trial.

3. Had he been convicted of all 170 counts, there is a zero percent chance he would have received the maximum sentence on each, to be served consecutively.

4. California requires a jury trial for any offense that can result in imprisonment, so he would have been able to have a jury trial had the charges not been dismissed.

Other than that, great point!

[Drewski]

The right answer IMO and more a correction to the administrative state than a wound. The only problem is that funding doesn't move with the opinion so we're going to see even more clogged dockets, especially as the fallout reaches other agencies. These are complex, slow cases.

[Martinned2]

(For those keeping track, the EPA also lost in the Supreme Court, but then so did the Sacklers.)

[Jerry B.]

The Washington Post seems to think the Sacklers won, for some reason. I think it’s that they haven’t been punished enough.

[Martinned2]

I haven't read it yet, but so far all I'm seeing suggests that the Court concluded that "nothing in present law authorizes the Sackler discharge."

The dissent (Kavanaugh, joined by the Chief, Kagan, and Sotomayor) doesn't like this result because: "As a result, opioid victims are now deprived of the substantial monetary recovery that they long fought for and finally secured after years of litigation."

But I don't think that that makes this result a Sackler victory.

[John F. Carr]

It's a half full / half empty division. The Sacklers paid a minority of their assets when all of their assets should have been at risk. The Sacklers paid a minority of their assets to settle a weak case against them.

[Moderation4ever]

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????'
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
dfcccccccqwccccccccccccccwcwwcwcwcwwcwcwcwwcwcwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwfwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwfwwfwfwwfwfwfwwfwfwfwfwwfwfwwfwfwfwwfwfwwfwfwfwwfwfwwwwwwwfwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwfwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwfwwfwfwwfwfwfwfwwfwfwfwwfwfwfwwfwfwwfwfwfwwfwfwfwwfwfwfwwfwfwwfwfwfwwfwfwfwwfwfwfwfwwfwfwwfwfwfwwfwfwfrwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwrwwrwrwrwwrwrwrwrwwrwrwwrwrwwrwrwrwrwwrwrwwrwrwrwrwwrwrwrwwrwrwwrwrwrwwrwrwrwrwwrwwrwrwrwrwwrwrwrwrwwrwwrwrwrwrwwrwrwrwwrwwrwrwrwrwwrwrwrwrwwrwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwvwwwwwwwwwwwgwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwgwgwgwwgwgwwgwgwgwwgwgwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwfcvvd

[Moderation4ever]

My grandpuppy typed this while I was not watching her close enough.

[Sarcastr0]

She really elevated the discussion around here!

[John F. Carr]

I have heard of a keyboard input filter to reject cat-like typing. I do not know of one for dog-like typing.

[Kazinski]

We've got a 100O monkeys on a 1000 keyboards twice a week here.

[Frank Drackman]

Our Pomeranian writes most of mine if you were wondering

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You're like a walking stereotype.

Wealthy aged medical professional.
Corvette
Paris Hilton-esque dog

Do you also have a 20 something hot trophy wife you like to show off at the mostly white country club?

[Frank Drackman]

She’s in her 50’s 5 years younger, just like the chicks I hit on in High School, and no Country Club, where I live you can’t get in unless you have a Chan, Ching, or Chung in your background, and I guess his Hole-ey-ness forgot creating Poms, they’re fierce as fuck
Frank

Btw, I think Paris’s was a Chee-wa-wa

[Martinned2]

I'm sure this SEC case will get its own post(s) later, but for now it confuses me, considering the actual words of the 7th amendment:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Surely any suit created by statute is, by definition, not "at common law"?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Following the analysis set forth in Granfinanciera, S. A. v. Nordberg, 492 U. S. 33, and Tull v. United States, 481 U. S. 412, this action implicates the Seventh Amendment because the SEC’s antifraud provisions replicate common law fraud."

Essentially, the government can't create laws parallel to existing common law, and evade the 7th amendment by using them instead of suing under common law. The Court even suggested that the SEC was replicating one of the causes for revolution cited in the Declaration of Independence:

"When the British attempted to evade American juries by siphoning adjudications to juryless admiralty, vice admiralty, and chancery courts, the Americans protested and eventually cited the British practice as a justification for declaring Independence."

I assume they're referring to, "For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:"

[Martinned2]

Yes, I saw that. What puzzles me is why not. The 7th Amendment seems quite clear in how it is limited to "suits at common law". It's not that the drafters of the amendment didn't realise that Congress might draft statutes that gave rights for individuals to sue each other for more than $20. It would have been easy for the drafters to just apply the 7th amendment to all private law suits for money, but they didn't do that.

It seems to me that the majority in Jarkesy (and in the earlier cases you mention) ignored the plain text of the constitution in favour of what they supposed was the policy behind the amendment.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, if the Court is right that the British were using a similar scheme to deny colonists jury trials, and this was what led to that line in the Declaration of Independence, I think they've got a strong basis for that supposition.

[Martinned2]

Sure, but we're not supposed to take into account the intentions of the drafters unless the text is somehow open to more than one reasonable interpretation. That's the whole point of textualism/originalism.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hey, I would have just shut the whole scheme down on the basis that it creates non-military courts and judges outside the authorization of Article 3.

But I can understand a non-circumvention canon for constitutional interpretation.

[Martinned2]

The more sensible to frame that (analogous to how the ECtHR enforces the distinction between criminal and civil cases), would be to say that all this enforcement of statutes with civil penalties is basically a contradiction in terms. A penalty is a penalty, particularly if the money goes into the government's coffers. (We can talk about punitive damages another time.)

The ECtHR and the CJEU haven't quite taken this thought to its logical conclusions. Administrative penalties are still allowed in Europe. But the criminal prong of art. 6 ECHR does require that anyone who is on the receiving end of an administrative penalty should be able to challenge their fine in court and get a proper merits review. None of that "procedure/reasonableness only nonsense".

[Kazinski]

There is an 1856 precedent that says Congress can't remove topics from common law where private rights are implicated, like being fined or imprisoned:

"1) The Constitution prevents Congress from “withdraw[ing] from
judicial cognizance any matter which, from its nature, is the subject of a suit at the common law.” Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co."

[Martinned2]

Yes, I saw that. But why not?

And how is an SEC enforcement of the securities laws a matter which, from its nature, is subject of a suit at common law? Citizens can sue each other under common law fraud theories, but the state can only enforce securities fraud statutes against citizens because there is a statute that makes that possible. Again, it's quasi-criminal.

[David Nieporent]

"It's quasi criminal" sure isn't an argument against the right to a jury!

[David Nieporent]

It would have been easy for the drafters to just apply the 7th amendment to all private law suits for money, but they didn’t do that.

Or they did, and you're just begging the question.

[Martinned2]

Your reading makes several words of the 7th amendment redundant.

[Ridgeway]

@Martin-

I think, but am not positive, that the distinction there is between law and equity, rather than between common law and statutory law. We saw that recently in the Trump civil case brought by the NY AG.

Trump was not entitled to a jury trial not because the suit was brought under a statute (which it was), but rather because it sought only equitable remedies, rather than damages.

[not guilty]

IIRC the Trump Organization would have been entitled (by statute) to a jury trial in the civil action brought by the AG, but he did not make a timely jury demand.

[Noscitur a sociis]

But the Seventh Amendment explicitly says "common law". The Seventh Amendment isn't incorporated against the states, so Trump's trial in New York doesn't shed a great deal of light on things.

[Ridgeway]

I understand that the 7A says "common law", but in 1791 were there any suits grounded in statute? Or were there only two choices: suits at common law or suits in equity? I don't know and anm far too lazy to find out independently.

I also take yr point about the 7A incorporation. I don't remember (and I doubt if I ever knew) what the NYS constitution and statutes say about rights to a jury trial. It has been a looooong time since BarBri.

[Martinned2]

The DIG in Moyle has now been officially published: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-726_6jgm.pdf

[tylertusta]

6-7 cases left and CJ Roberts did not announce that tomorrow is the last day for the term.

We might actually see Fischer and/or Trump's immunity case opinions released in July.

[Josh R]

The Supreme Court's website lists July 1st as an opinion day.

[tylertusta]

Correct. It has been updated after I made my initial comment.

The question is whether Fischer and/or Trump will come out Friday, or will it come out Monday?

My guess is Monday.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Or will Trump be delayed until autumn?

[Kazinski]

Put it off until next term and then DIG it.

That would maximize the entertainment value.

[not guilty]

"Put it off until next term and then DIG it."

Do you realize that that would leave the D.C. Circuit opinions in place?

I could live with that. No immunity for Trump and an expansive scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2).

[Kazinski]

After November it will be moot.

[DJK]

But the DC Circuit's opinion would still be precedential. I have a very hard time seeing SCOTUS leave a decision in place when a majority seems to agree that the DC Circuit went way too far.

[tylertusta]

I agree. The Court in unlikely to leave the DC Circuit decision(s) in place, but what we will finally get might be fractured and convoluted.

[Kazinski]

But come to think of it, vacate and dismiss as moot, is probably the right decision.

Isn't that Jackson's preference when one side drops the case to.avoid final judgement?

[not guilty]

Dismissal of an indictment requires leave of the trial court. A government motion to dismiss is ordinarily granted, but as Michael Flynn learned, not as a matter of right.

[tylertusta]

Had Trump not pardoned Flynn, I'm confident that Sullivan's antics would get a poor reception at the DCCA, or even perhaps SCOTUS.

Dismissal should have been granted, though not necessarily as soon as the parties wanted.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

They must have really struggled with the immunity question. That would appear to be potential good news for Trump, since it would seem that SCOTUS is preparing to recognize some amount of immunity from criminal prosecution. I'm really looking forward to reading that opinion.

[Moderation4ever]

Trump need either fully immunity or no immunity. Full immunity no case and no immunity no trial till after the election. Partial immunity means court hearing to determine what is chargeable, that means hearing and witnesses and that would happen before the election.

[Bob from Ohio]

"hearing and witnesses "

Not a trial, no jury.

Does Trump even have to be there?

Crim Rule 43 says

"(b) When Not Required. A defendant need not be present under any of the following circumstances:

(3) Conference or Hearing on a Legal Question. The proceeding involves only a conference or hearing on a question of law."

[Michael Ejercito]

I rthink the Court wants to split the difference regarding immunity.

Announce a general principle, and remand for further consideration.

In my opinion, something akin to immunity unless the official act violated clearly established law, as determined by the Supreme Court, would be the proper resolution of this cert.

[tylertusta]

I'm eager to see what the outcome is as well. I have a suspicious that it'll be a plurality decision by a splintered Court.

I will say this: I did not see five Justices who were willing to accept the panel opinion as no one (even the Special Counsel!!) wanted any part of that hot bag of garbage.

[Mr. Bumble]

Betting on July 5.

[SRG2]

BTW as far as polls are concerned, the Tories look as though they're going to get absolutely crushed in next week's UK election. But the polls are close to election day, so are likely to be somewhat more reliable.

[Martinned2]

Yes, but constituency-level polling is hard. (Because constituencies, unlike the US states that allocate presidential electors at the state-level, change their boundaries.) And at this level of polling the relationship between the swing and the number of seats is very strong. Just a few percentage points more or less can make a huge difference. See this 2019 blog post from my colleague Giles Wilkes: https://freethinkecon.wordpress.com/2019/08/12/the-voting-system-drives-our-politicians-mad/

[SRG2]

I see he remembers the good old days of Peter Snow and his swingometer! (I occasionally saw him cycling along High Street Kensington.)

Certainly modelling has to be significantly more granular. FWIW a good friend of mine who is a Tory peer predicted the collapse of the Tory party last year - though not quite as quickly. Still, we can't know for sure until next week, I do like the British practice of the PM moving out the day he loses - "you lost, now piss orf".

[Martinned2]

In the category of "did this really need intervention from Congress?"

US Representative Virginia Foxx wrote to George Mason University’s president and the Antonin Scalia Law School’s dean following reports ex-professor and former Republican Federal Trade Commissioner Joshua Wright used his academic influence to seduce and harass young, female students in his law classes. Foxx, who chairs the House Education and Workforce Committee, sought an explanation of all steps the law school or university took to investigate each of the students’ allegations, as well as the outcomes of those investigations. She also sought copies of all Title IX policies and procedures in place between 2004 and 2023, and steps the law school and the university have taken to protect against such incidents recurring in the future.

(Chairwoman Foxx is a Republican, in case anyone was wondering.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm just waiting for them to start going after the lesbian professors.

[Estragon]

Oh boy, the nefarious lesbian professors strike again!

“She may be half right — this may be a lesbian love triangle… There is a lot of stuff that we don’t understand, and I’ve seen professors convince female undergrads — in healthy relationships with boyfriends they loved — that they actually were lesbians and their boyfriends actually rapists.

So what if the psychic is half right — that Scofield is involved because she convinced one of the victims to dump her boyfriend, who then murdered her? (NB “involved” psychically, not legally.)”

[Sarcastr0]

What keeps Congresspeople elected is constituent relations, job creation, and getting in the news doing popular stuff.

So yeah, this needed intervention from Congress - the Representative needed it.

It's smart politics.

[Martinned2]

How does a Republican congresswoman from North Carolina improve her chances of re-election by challenging a Republican university about its investigation of a Republican faculty member?

[Sarcastr0]

Because most folks are quite so partisan that "used his academic influence to seduce and harass young, female students in his law classes" isn't loathsome behavior.

It's low-hanging fruit. And she might even believe in it.

It is a bit risky; if the facts don't come out right she's on the wrong side of a cancel culture push. But if her campaign people did her due diligence this is good politics.

[Kazinski]

George Mason is hardly a Republican university, half the law school is conservative (and that's in a universe where Ilya is a conservative), the rest typical leftist.

[Sarcastr0]

Scalia Law is conservative, though I know a liberal who went through and said they were fine, though they had to keep their head down.

Mercatus Center is at GMU.
GMU economics as conservative.

Their science is pretty normal, if aligned with DoD interests more than the usual.
-----
Prof. Somin is a conservative. He's just not of the American right-wing.
The American right these days does love to try and define conservativism narrowly and gatekeep it. But that's just their illiberalism talking.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Prof. Somin is a conservative."

Now who is gatekeeping?

He says he is a libertarian.

[Sarcastr0]

For this purpose (i.e. legal/economic, in the binary world of academia) libertarian and conservative largely overlap.

[Kazinski]

Academia is anything but binary.

[Sarcastr0]

You’re the one that said academia was a universe wherein Somin was a conservative.

Pick a lane.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Why can't Somin be a conservative and it not be binary?

Because that requires too much thinking for some government midwit?

[Commenter_XY]

You are so full of shit = Prof. Somin is a conservative.

[Sarcastr0]

Gatekeep harder.

Keep that tent exclusive, pure, and small.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Prof. Somin is a conservative. He’s just not of the American right-wing."

You know, if you're in Europe, England is to the West. That doesn't mean somebody in New York has to agree it's to the West; These things are relative.

If you ask somebody in America if Somin is a conservative? No, not by American standards. But he's not a full blown American 'liberal', either. Not hostile enough to economic liberties or gun ownership to qualify.

He's what we call a "liberalitarian". It's a species of libertarianism that's been crossed with leftism. It's not pure leftism, because it's more open to economic liberty, and doesn't openly hate on guns, but it's not pure libertarianism, either, because it dramatically plays up those parts of libertarianism congenial to leftists, and deprioritizes the parts leftists can't stand.

Traditional libertarians, for instance, yes, wanted open borders, but saw it as the last thing on the agenda, after you'd done everything else, for path dependence reasons. Liberalitarians? Well, you've read what Somin has to say on the topic: It moves to the top of the list, and never mind if winning on it first would mean losing on everything else.

[David Nieporent]

Traditional libertarians, for instance, yes, wanted open borders, but saw it as the last thing on the agenda,

They did not. It was a top priority, and there were no conditions on it.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

What keeps congressmen elected is decades of rigging the system in the incumbents favor.

[Ed Grinberg]

Hey, I bet I know where Martinned2 is coming from:
Did this really need intervention from Congress?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_States_Congress_hearing_on_antisemitism
My answer: of course it did. There was blatant, widespread "illegal discrimination against Jewish students" (source).
Is there similar blatant, widespread illegal discrimination against female law-students? I highly doubt it.

[Martinned2]

That sounds about right. If there is evidence that something bad is widespread, Congress might investigate. Particularly if its something that is already regulated by Federal law anyway. But investigating isolated incidents is normally an abuse of power and resources.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

"BREAKING: White House press corps has petitioned CNN to open up the debate studio to reporters, who for now have to watch a feed from a building across the street, b/c they believe there may be a "medical emergency" involving one of the prez candidates requiring on-scene coverage"

https://x.com/paulsperry_/status/1806350317216231826

I'm sure it's a big nothingburger, but juicy nonetheless...

[SRG2]

I wonder what the odds are of Trump pulling out? (Of tonight's debate, of course.)

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

He should pull out. CNN just announced a two minute delay. They are going to manipulate the airing.

[Frank Drackman]

Entire Zapruder film is maybe 20 seconds

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

And in those 20 seconds you can clearly see the two shots.

I can't believe the CIA got away with it

[Frank Drackman]

Not that clear actually although I’m sure his Zombie-ness must have better than 20/20 Vision

[M L]

Not sure what this means.

WH wants reporters there to help w triage response, carry gurneys and do CPR, bandage wounds?

WH is going to use the heart attack gun on Trump during the debate and want on-scene media coverage?

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

It’s not the White House that’s asking, but the White House press corps that wants to be right on the spot if anything cool happens.

Relatedly, anyone else see Civil War?

[M L]

Ah - got it.

[Longtobefree]

Even so, it does not require on the scene coverage.
The fewer "media", the better.
CNN alone is bad enough, don't provide reinforcements.

[Krayt]

Not a fan of the word "juicy" in relation to these two geezers and some of their medical issues.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I've figured it out. It's tied into the delay of the immunity case.

Deep State/Jelly Spine Robert's is expecting the case to be moot after tonight and can avoid releasing any opinion.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

In a recent court filing, Corrupt Jack Smith (whose been smacked down by SCOTUS 9-0) confessed to disabling the security cameras, and then putting SECRET covers on top of random piles of documents for their photo ops to leak.

And isn't it just too weird how whenever Corrupt Jack Smith gets some bad news, convenient leaks to the media happen that suggest (but don't prove) some bad thing about Trump?

I hope President Trump '47 uncovers any illegalities and puts evildoers in prison. A prison in a Red/1776 State.

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

buddy you sound like a nutcase, but just a tip: '47 doesn't make any sense. The apostrophe is there to abbreviate things, like changing 2024 to '24. If you think he's going to win, he'll just be 47, not '47.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The ‘ is abbreviating “Supreme MAGA Commander for Life 47”

Idiot.

I don't think he's going to win. That's why I said "hope". The Democrats are going to cheat even more so then they have in 2020 and 2022. If they can't cheat enough, the CIA or FBI will JFK him.

[David Nieporent]

Jack Smith did not, in fact, confess to any such thing. (Nor was he "smacked down by SCOTUS 0-9.")

[John F. Carr]

A man's convictions for pleading guilty to a crime he was not really guilty of have been upheld by the Appeals Court of Massachusetts. He was in jail at the time of the drug offense he pleaded guilty to. Sloppy work by a prosecutor who thought he had a conviction just fall into his lap – a person who wasn't even a suspect spontaneously confessed. A criminal record check should have revealed his story was false. But just like it is still burglary if the front door isn't locked, it is still perjury and "witness intimidation" to falsely confess and plead guilty to a crime when the authorities should have known better.

https://www.mass.gov/doc/comm-v-mendez-23p0395/download

I recall another person being convicted of a crime he was obviously not guilty of due to incarceration. In that case the Appeals Court took the unusual step of ordering him found not guilty instead of remanding to the trial court for more argument. I think his ex had accused him of raping her even though he was in jail at the time. Being away from the scene of the crime was not a good enough excuse for the Superior Court judge.

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

This is a really dumb comment, but the opinion in Murthi uses the construction "Plus, " to connect two sentences. The quote from the opinion is:

> Plaintiff Jill Hines, a healthcare activist, faced COVID–19-related restrictions on Facebook. Though she makes the best showing of all the plaintiffs, most of the lines she draws are tenuous. Plus, Facebook started targeting her content before almost all of its communications with the White House and the CDC

This is incredibly turgid prose. The "Plus, " construction is very juvenile. Has any court opinion ever used it like this before? Whoever assembled the draft on ACB's team should be ashamed.

(I don't care about the opinion itself)

[MoreCurious]

One more thing to lose sleep over. Plus, thanks a lot, PDSH.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/06/25/climate-aerosols-shipping-global-cooling/

“We’ve been accidentally cooling the planet — and it’s about to stop”

Here comes Narrative #838231198390 since the previous ones have all failed to usher in a One World Communist Government.

[Krayt]

I saw Star Wars in the theater in 1977 as a kid. I just now realized I will never live long enough to see the last movie, no matter how long I live. And that it will probably be the same, continuous universe, with just soft reboots from time to time, like TFA.

It will go on without me. Like the last WWII vet, like the last WWI vet and the last Civil War vet, eventually, the last person to see Star Wars originally in the theater will pass away.

[hobie]

Same here, but I ain't fretting too much about it. This last trilogy was so derivative of the first, and so obviously written for teenage audiences as opposed to the first, that I don't have much hope. I will say I spent some time reading the official Star Wars novels on how the saga progresses going forward. There's some very interesting possibilities. But if they keep allowing these idiot directors to write their own movies, we'll never get to the good stuff.

You and I got to see the original and experience the awe. No one going forward from now will ever get that feeling.

[Krayt]

I've seen videos by kids-at-the-time who only knew it as VHS tapes, before seeing the new trilogy, and so on for the third. They kind of felt some awe, but that kind of thing was in a dozen movies by that point.

Teens stunned at the Matrix are close to 40 now.

[Michael Ejercito]

There is an entire galaxy from which to base derivative material.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I saw Star Wars in the theater in 1977 as a kid."

Me too. Still holds up. Young fresh face heroes, classic Brit actors and great adventure.

Too bad Lucas ultimately ruined it withe the twin kids of Vader stupidity. I guess Ben read The Purloined Letter, leave the kid with his uncle, who would look there!

[Frank Drackman]

Saw it in 1977 also, thought “Smokey and the Bandit” was better, haven’t seen Star Wars or any of the Sequels either ( did see Smokey & the Bandit 2, with Fat Don Deluise, who’s horrible in eveything, cameos from Terry Bradshaw, Joe Klecko, seen the the original easily 500 times (west bound and down……..)

Frank

[SRG2]

The Superintendent of Schools in Oklahoma, evidently a theocracker, requires schools to incorporate the Bible and the 10C in their curricula, effective immediately.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/27/us/oklahoma-schools-bible-curriculum/index.html

“It’s crystal clear to us that in the Oklahoma academic standards under Title 70 on multiple occasions, the Bible is a necessary historical document to teach our kids about the history of this country, to have a complete understanding of Western civilization, to have an understanding of the basis of our legal system,”

I guess he has a point, what with the Biblical approval of slavery...

This is so obviously unconstitutional it has to be more performative bullshit.

[hobie]

I guess the dogma of the indian tribes there is equally relevant. At best, the Bible is a fictional account of the history of the Levant. Could possibly make a case for it's inclusion in Israeli schools.

[hobie]

But there is Leviticus 19:33-34 NIV

"33 “‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God."

Them little Okie brats could be taught that, yes?

[Frank Drackman]

Those Okie's would teach you a thing or two, like how to shit out of your mouth. Speaking of Shitting, did you see Sleepy Joe Shit himself tonight?

[Sarcastr0]

This culture war bloviating undercuts itself. Without more of granular implementation, studying the bible can be a pretty secular activity.

[shawn_dude]

One *could* teach about the historical significance of the Bible along with similar religious texts, go over how these texts were used to support things like slavery, forced conversion, witch trials, and women as chattel. It could fall squarely in the "be careful of what you wish for" category if not for the likelihood of the state also preventing the teaching of non-Christian texts or facts that don't present Christianity in a positive light.

[M L]

TIL there is a debate happening today.

Why the hell is there a debate more than 5 months before the election?

Why is RFK being excluded from the debate?

[Frank Drackman]

Because he’s a fucking idiot without a chance to win(and I like the guy) and the “Worm in his Brain” is a real thang, it’s called Cysticercosis, part of why I’ve never been further south than Key West in the Western Hemisphere, and only Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Port Said Egypt outside of Europe, lots of worms, flukes, nematodes, nobody ever catches something in Amsterdam (umm well maybe “something “ hey now!)

Frank

[Estragon]

I encourage all would-be Trump voters to continue talking about RFK wherever and whenever possible, especially with your fellow travelers.

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

Right now, it’s really not that clear who he hurts.

Part of it hinges on tonight’s debate: whether one candidate screws up so badly that his supporters start looking for a way out. The risk is higher for Biden, not just the senility issue, but also the fact that Trump’s supporters have a higher tolerance for screw-ups by their man.

[Estragon]

“senility”

Risible.

“Trump’s supporters have a higher tolerance for screw-ups”

Heck, he could probably shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue!!

Yes, the brainworm anti-vax candidate who is a J6 truther is certain to pull many Biden voters. Please, keep talking this up. I beg you.

[Estragon]

The whole candidacy is a Stone and Bannon ratfuck that is now blowing up in their faces. Keep fuckin that chicken! As Sun Tzu said (probably)… never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. I hope he gets mountains of free press over the next few months.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, that was Napoleon.

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

Formally, because he did not meet the parts of the criteria that CNN chose to enforce. RFK only had 3 polls over 15% and the criteria required 4 polls. Neither Trump nor Biden formally met the ballot access in states with 270 electoral votes test, because they haven't even been nominated, but CNN decided they "presumptively" would meet the criteria in the future.

In reality, the criteria and selective enforcement were engineered to get only Trump and Biden, because at least one of them made it a condition of participating.

[David Nieporent]

Why the hell is there a debate more than 5 months before the election?

Early voting starts in September, so it's not 5 months.

[Mr. Bumble]

Better question is why is there any voting in September?

[Brett Bellmore]

That's preferred by a party that fears October surprises?

[Frank Drackman]

Debate location is an hour drive from where “Lincoln Riley”(HT Parkinsonian Joe) was murdered, “45/47” should answer every question with the name of an Illegal Alien murder victim, and ask Sleepy when he’s going to Laken Riley’s grave.

Frank

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Chase Bolling!! 45 allowed the fentanyl into America that killed him. Say his name!!

[Frank Drackman]

Most of the Ill-legal Fent-a-nol comes in on Chink Cargo ships, not like every one can be inspected, and anyway, where would you get your studded Dildos?

[Bob from Ohio]

Time for some good news:

"25+ Years of Daily Show Clips Gone as Paramount Axes Comedy Central Site
By Jed Rosenzweig
June 26, 2024 2:37 PM ET"

[Bwaaah]

That's like a snark holocaust.

[Commenter_XY]

Sniff, sniff. Buh bye. 😉

[Sarcastr0]

Why is this something you all care about? You don't watch the show.

Weirdoes.

[Bwaaah]

For many years, many young people considered the Daily Show to be their primary source of news. I don’t blame the show for dumbing down those people. I blame those people for dumbing themselves down with comedy in which they saw truth, comedic truth that was shallow, half-assed, well-written snark.

For various reasons, I had the misfortune of having seen way too much of the Daily Show. It was certainly funny, and informative in a very warped way, for lazy thinkers. I found it to be interminably obnoxious.

That’s why I care. Why are you so bothered about people talking about the Daily Show?

[John F. Carr]

There is the danger in not owning things. Decades of Dilbert vanished from the free internet when Scott Adams was cancelled. In the news today, Spotify is removing some Russian singers. Twenty years ago you could go buy a CD if your radio station boycotted Natalie Maines and the Dixie Chicks. For some bands today streaming is all there is.

[Frank Drackman]

“Her name is Laken Riley”
“45” should say that as part of every statement he says tonight

Frank

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

His name is Chase Bolling!!
45 should take responsibility for allowing the fentanyl into America that killed him!

Douche

[Frank Drackman]

I thought your name was "Sam", you're saying it's "Douche"?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Chase Bolling!! Say it!!

[Frank Drackman]

Chase Bolling, you happy now? There's a little difference between killing yourself with Chink Fent-a-nol and getting raped/murdered by some Ill-legal Alien, although you'd probably enjoy both.

[ThePublius]

What do you make of people who are genuinely undecided in an election - any election, but this one in particular. Are they thoughtful, or brainless?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Yes, we're overloaded with accurate information about public policy, we should all have made up our minds by now.

[Thefifthrules]

Brats with the Justices

This past weekend we had a cookout with lots of suds on ice. Sitting back in my rocker I found myself alone with Justices Alito and Kagan. I asked Sam if he knew any place to hunt deer. He had to decline. To answer would require he abstain from any Second Amendment cases, Animal rights, and he would have to hunt alone in case he accidentally shoots someone. Turning to Justice Kagan I began to ask her about sports. She sighed. Big Sunday ticket case, NCAA definitely has cases coming, Red Sox not going anywhere, no comment, sports is off limits. Turning to Sam I asked about his grandchildren. Again he declined. Someone from their school may use the wrong restroom or may be asked to address them by their binary name, or puberty blockers. All that could come before the court. Grandchildren we definitely cant discuss, with Kagan nodding in agreement. Asked Elena if politics on the court were any worse or better than when she was Dean of Harvard Law. Rolling her eyes, Gaza protests, First amendment, and anything Harvard. She would probably end up being asked to resign like Dean Gay. Going nowhere I went for it all. What did they think about seventeenth Russian poet Pushkin. Surely I found something they could discuss. They both sat up in there seat and began to explain to me that Pushkin was a white aristocrat. That I was showing my white privilege. Didn’t I know we were wading into European Imperialism! Subject was verboten. Asked if there was anything they could discuss that would not require recusal, show bias? At the same time they responded “brats”.

[Mr. Bumble]

Trying out a creative writing assignment?

[Frank Drackman]

Jeezus, Sleepy's stuttering like "Spider" in Goodfellas, waiting for Tommy to pull out his 45 and put him out of his misery

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Gaslightr0 is going to be busy the next few days insisting we didn't see what we all saw.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Oh come on. You guys are falling for this?

That was obviously a 90-minute cheap-fake video.

[Sarcastr0]

As thrilled as I am to be part of your personal VC Cinematic Universe, I'm going to be on vacation till the 8th and phoneposting at best.

Have an angry and miserable time, you insincere antisemite.

[Bwaaah]

Right. This is a morning for smart people to focus on antisemitism.

I feel the mean readability score of VC comments going up already. It could go even higher if your phone stops working.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, Trump showed up unfortunately for Biden.
Spin it however you want but that was difficult to watch.
That sound you're hearing is Gavin Loathsome licking his chops.

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

Even MSNBC using words like “disaster”, “we’re f**ked”, “panic”.

Personally I thought they both sucked but it appears that objectively this was a major defeat for Biden – it’s his supporters that are saying it was a bad night.

[Frank Drackman]

RFK Jr has a worm in his brain, what’s Sleepy’s excuse?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Syphilis is a bacterial infection…so that’s Trump’s excuse. Herpes is a virus but everyone that went to Studio 54 has that.

[Frank Drackman]

Thanks SBF, your HIV-Dementia seems to be doing well.

[Josh R]

Biden is too old to think quickly on his feet, fight back, and make his points. To me, that isn't disqualifying (a president doesn't need those qualities). But what I think is not important. And while I expect his poll numbers to take a hit in the next week, perhaps a mortal one, I expected the same after Fetterman's debate performance. I will wait and let time tell the tale.

It was Trump classic tonight. Lie after lie after lie. He was however helped by having the muted mics and no audience. Those rules helped to keep him wihtin the outer limits of normal human control.

[Kazinski]

"Biden is too old to think quickly on his feet, fight back, and make his points. To me, that isn’t disqualifying (a president doesn’t need those qualities). But what I think is not important."

Do you think it's going to get better in the next four years 7 months, or are you thinking he only has to last 7 months and let Kamala take over?

[Josh R]

Better, of course not. But, I think he would be fine for what the office requires.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I think this debate will end up like 1960 where people that viewed it on different mediums had different opinions about who won…so those that watched it on TV will think Trump won, while those that were in a coma won’t know who won.

[Michael P]

Josh R, it's the Presidency, not the Residency. The American people didn't elect Edith Wilson, and did not elect whoever actually makes the decisions for Joe Biden.

[Josh R]

I think that's unfair. In spite of his decline, Biden is calling the shots. But after rereading Kaziniski's comment, it is not unfair to ask if he can call the shots four years from now.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's quite likely that Biden is calling the shots on one or two issues. It would explain, for instance, why his administration is so hot for gun control; He's been a fanatic on that topic going back decades, and his decline has hardly mellowed him.

But given his conspicuously low energy levels and limited attention span, it would be fair to say this administration probably features more delegation of policy making than your average Presidency.

[Frank Drackman]

I knew it! the "Muted Mikes" is a Repubiclown conspiracy, and am I the only one who noticed Sleepy again said Bo Biden "Got Glioblastoma in Iraq" when he actually "Got it" in Delaware. Of course with his raspy stuttering (Made RFK Jr sound like William F. Buckly in comparison) most viewers probably didn't understand what the fuck he said.

Frank

[Bwaaah]

I thought he was trying to say he funded a VA benefit that provides post-mortem treatment for people who died from Agent Orange. And how dare you say his son isn't dead!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Biden vanished for a whole week to prepare for that debate. We saw Biden after a week of intense preparation.

Yikes

[Commenter_XY]

Democrat reacts this morning to POTUS Biden's debate Debacle last evening. 🙂

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UerhqPf3JBA

[Vryedni]

Well, we had a good run.

(For the avoidance of doubt, yes, by "we" I mean the American constitutional experiment.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Post-debate it's an all-hands-on-deck moment for the Ds.

Incredible as it may seem to MAGA types, I think Biden demonstrated that he could get over the pitifully low bar to look more presidential than Trump. And you could charitably suppose Biden had been awakened just before the debate, at the wrong point during his sleep cycle, to discover he was suffering the onset of a bad cold.

But even that does not get the job done. I think Biden disqualified himself with his debate performance. The big problem is that you could actually see Biden's thought processes ever-so-slowly at work—too slowly to leave confidence that two years hence he could still perform the job of President.

Biden thus presented as a guy who no responsible political party ought to chance backing, lest he win, and sometime before the end of his term put the nation in jeopardy for lack of mental acuity. If Biden's opponent were not Trump, the nation would be aghast at the prospect of Biden's candidacy. Against any non-crazy, non-treasonous, non-felonious candidate, Biden's candidacy would be inexplicable.

To me, that means the Ds have no choice. They have to take a long shot, and find someone, somewhere, who could beat Trump.

Can it be Harris? I don't think so. Her political chops have improved notably in office, but the fact is distrust of her capacity to do presidential politics was a big factor in why the Democrats settled on Biden, and shunned her. She also seems to be a black candidate peculiarly unpopular among black voters.

Newsome? Sure, without the electoral college. Newsome could probably beat Trump in the popular vote. But Newsome looks like a sure thing to fall just short in battleground states, where urban blacks are too likely to stay home, instead of to come out for some plain vanilla Californian.

I have a personal regard for Sherrod Brown. There is a lot to be said for a liberal Democrat with a proven record of winning red state support. The guy has genuine political talent. But he has also already shown reluctance to run previously, when it seemed like he might be an outstanding choice. It makes me wonder whether something in Brown's biography, or a troubled family situation, might have been holding him back. Also, Brown is 71 years old. My ideal choice would be not just not-old, but actually young enough to interest at least millennials, and maybe Gen Z as well. A great risk for the Ds is that a high percentage of those will stay home, especially the educated ones.

Rather than list a bunch more Ds, who also look to me like fair prospects to fall not-much short of Trump, I will offer a name from the stable of dark horses: Colin Allred. I think he's a guy the Ds ought to vet—and if he can get through rigorous scrutiny—back with everything they have to beat Trump.

If you haven't heard of him, Allred is a Texas Rep from the Dallas area He is apparently politically ambitious; he is currently trying to take down Ted Cruz for the Senate.

Curiously, Allred preceded his public service with a 5-year career in the NFL, as a linebacker for the Titans. He evidently escaped without brain damage. He is quick on his feet in interviews, comes across as forthright, practical, and sensible, and remains unmarked by any scandal I know of. Allred is 41 years old, black, and might have the biggest chin in Congress.

If anyone from the Dallas area wants to fill me in on anything adverse about Allred I ought to know about, please help me out. I may not be voting for Biden. I think Allred might be a genuine talent, at a political moment when youth is likely to go far toward excusing only-modest experience.

[David Nieporent]

I will offer a name from the stable of dark horses: Colin Allred. I think he’s a guy the Ds ought to vet—and if he can get through rigorous scrutiny—back with everything they have to beat Trump.

The last person to move directly from the House to the presidency was James Garfield, 144 years ago.

[Vryedni]

Say what you will, nobody ever accused Garfield of trying to overstay his term in the White House.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — I was born in the Garfield Memorial Hospital. Seems recent enough to me. Come to think of it, Garfield Hospital is long gone. And so is the high school from which I was a member of the first graduating class.

Two big political problems for Ds. They need younger voters, and they cannot do without blacks from urban areas in key swing states. What better-known candidate do you think can mobilize that combination?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Can it be Harris? I don’t think so. Her political chops have improved notably in office, but the fact is distrust of her capacity to do presidential politics was a big factor in why the Democrats settled on Biden, and shunned her. She also seems to be a black candidate peculiarly unpopular among black voters."

Even taking into account that Biden had pre-committed to picking a black woman VP, picking Harris was somewhat inexplicable unless she was a classic "life insurance" VP, chosen just to protect Joe from any prospect of the 25th amendment being invoked. (Nothing people weren't saying at the time, of course.)

Whoever he picks better be obviously capable of actually doing the job, because the odds of them ending up having to if he wins are pretty high. But this being the Biden administration, intersectionality criteria come first. A pity Sam Brinton is so white, otherwise he'd be a shoe in.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Her political chops have improved notably in office,..."
Lingering nitrogen narcosis?

[Brett Bellmore]

Only if Lathrop was diving, I was quoting him.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sorry, I missed the quotation marks.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"“Can it be Harris? I don’t think so. Her political chops have improved notably in office, but the fact is distrust of her capacity to do presidential politics was a big factor in why the Democrats settled on Biden, and shunned her."

Um, they didn't shun her, they placed her "next in line" for the Presidency. So if the Dems pass her over, they have to explain why they mad a black woman Vice President, but changed the rules when it came time for her to actually be President.

[David Nieporent]

unless she was a classic “life insurance” VP

There has never been a time in history where this has happened. It's either a stupid conspiracy theory or a stupid partisan jab, or both.

[Don Nico]

Unless Mr Biden withdraws, he will be the nominee by present convention rules.
If the D’s change the rules to dump Biden, that plays right into the R claims that the D’s manipulate the rules for political advantage.
Therefore, the best course for the D’s is for Biden to dump Harris and replace her with a person who has demonstrated that s/he can govern.
Gavin Newsom certainly fits the bill as he governs 39million people and the 5th largest economy in the world. He would be a true insurance candidate.

[Mr. Bumble]

Insurance to turn the whole country into California; the Golden Showers state?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Therefore, the best course for the D’s is for Biden to dump Harris and replace her with a person who has demonstrated that s/he can govern.
Gavin Newsom certainly fits the bill as he governs 39million people and the 5th largest economy in the world. "

That's racist.

As we've heard over and over again, at this level the top candidates are all equally qualified, so there's no reason to pass over a diverse woman to nominate a white man.

[David Nieporent]

If the D’s change the rules to dump Biden, that plays right into the R claims that the D’s manipulate the rules for political advantage.

That is gibberish. What kind of accusation is that? Of course a political party sets (not "manipulates") its own rules for the benefit of that party. What other motive could there be for party rules?

[hobie]

Mayor Pete, baby! Hyper intelligent, kind and likable. The polar opposite of Trump. His mere presence will make Trump's inadequacies as a man glare.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hahahahahaha.....

[hobie]

Can't argue the merits? Shows fear.

[Mr. Bumble]

There are NO merits to argue. Run Mayor Pete and watch the first 50 state blowout.
RFK jr. would get more votes.

[ReaderY]

The Purdue Pharma case was an interesting line-up, Gorsuch joined by Thomas, Alito, Barrett, and Jackson in the majority with Kavanagh joined by Roberts, Kagan, and Sottomeyor dissenting.

I find myself astonished that both Kagan and Sottomeyor dissented. What the Sacklers attempted to pull would seem a big problem for traditional liberals as well as conservatives. Enabling billionaires to effectively get the benefits of bankruptcy - indeed, more benefits than an actual bankruptcy would entitle them to - while avoiding its obligations and costs through the manouevre the Sacklers tried to pull would surely raise the hackles of a Brennan or a Marshall.

And I completely agree the bankruptcy code doesn’t authorize it. Moreover, permitting bankruptcy judges to extinguish claims against non-parties as part of the bankruptcy would raise serious constitutional concerns.

The Kavanaugh objection - we’ll delay people getting their settlement money - sounds like shilling for the Sacklers. If the judicial system had had more teeth and fewer holes, the Sacklers would have realized earlier thst bankruptcy would be their only option and declared bankruptcy and settled their claims with victims for considerably more years ago. It is the hole in the judicial system, the provisions for judicial discretion that enable the rich to use creative arguments and delaying tactics of the sort the Sacklers used, that is responsible for the delay.

Closing this particular hole will make it less likely that future rich mass tortfeasors will try these sorts of tactics and more likely that their victims will be able to obtain more of their ill-gotten gains sooner.

The Sacklers allegedly milked Purdue Pharma for $11 billion during the course of the litigation, are are only offering to pay a fraction of it back.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Absolutely agree with this, including it being inexplicable that Kagan and Sotomayor dissented (and Roberts too) and completely on board with your point that Kavanaugh's lament "sounds like shilling for the Sacklers." I mean, it sounds like what he's saying is it's not important for the Supreme Court to get the law right and it's more important to quickly get some people a fraction of the money they likely deserve than to allow, as the law requires, those that want to go after more to go after more. Nothing but Sackler talking points cloaked as concern for the Sacklers' victims.

This was an easy case. It should not have been 5-4.

[Bwaaah]

Chevron is toast?

LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES ET AL. v. RAIMONDO
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf

Am I reading that wrong?

[John F. Carr]

Chevron is toast.

I recall in the 1990s the EPA planned to regulate toast, or more specifically the smell of baking bread.

[Bwaaah]

Coincidentally, indeed, I worked in an industrial bakery in the 1990s. The fermentation of bread dough produces carbon dioxide, which only now is widely known to be toxic. Then, it was known as the smell of fresh baked bread. The EPA sued to force us to put pollution controls over our ovens, among other actions.

[not guilty]

The Supreme Court in Fischer v. United States has narrowly construed 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) regarding obstruction of an official proceeding:

To prove a violation of Section 1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or as we earlier explained, other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-5572_l6hn.pdf (slip opinion p. 16)

That is good news for hundreds of January 6 defendants. Donald Trump is unlikely to benefit, though. The Court opined:

When the phrase “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding” is read as having been given more precise content by that narrower list of conduct [listed in subsection (c)(1),] subsection (c)(2) makes it a crime to impair the availability or integrity of records, documents, or objects used in an official proceeding in ways other than those specified in (c)(1). For example, it is possible to violate (c)(2) by creating false evidence—rather than altering incriminating evidence.

(slip op. pp. 8-9.) Trump corruptly attempted and conspired with others to create false slates of electors, to transmit those bogus documents to Congress and to persuade Vice-president Pence to recognize the false documents in place of the legitimate slates of electors from various states.

[NvEric]

Reflections on Truth in Law
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3706100

There may be truth in Law, but Law is not Truth. Law is an amalgamation of the past used in the present, and only in the present, for the future is not, nor ever can be, written. The future may contain truth, but never will truth be forward in being, nor looking, to what has not been.

Law continues to be the past; law is prior in being. Law never is future, for it does not exist until time allows it to come into existence, and even then, law will fail being anything but a transition of what was and what may be "true" for the next segment of the "present". Law is always being "of the past" for some sort of petty altercation or pedantic triviality reasoned important to go to the extreme of a "legal proceeding". Being right or lawful belongs absent from such process !

Adjudicating life's trivial pursuits employees lawyers services.

NOTE: "services" , root being "vice(s)" , being an absolute failure to be both cognizant to duty within such society contained within such, and being held to standards contained within self as supplied by one's indoctrination within such society whereby same has never been properly, nor legally, nor allowed, to rightly confirm their place, position, or whatever allows ANY government to have "power" over "another".

Thus, "law" is an illusion whose life is not "real" for those who are "alive".