Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

The Supreme Court opinion regarding presidential immunity from criminal prosecution is execrable and partisan. The victory lap that many MAGA supporters are taking, however, is premature.

In a Lawfare Blog article that Professor Adler has commented on, Jack Goldsmith boils the opinion of the Court down to its essence:

[The opinion] has three moving parts. First, a president receives no immunity for criminal prosecution for unofficial acts. Second, a president receives absolute immunity from criminal prosecution that would violate the president’s official conduct in exercising an exclusive presidential power, such as issuing a pardon or firing a subordinate. Third, a president receives “presumptive immunity” for other official acts, broadly construed, that can be overcome if the prosecutor shows that prosecution for the act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/broad-reflections-on-trump-v.-united-states

District Judge Tanya Chutkan can now move full speed ahead to determine in the first instance what acts by Donald Trump alleged in the indictment are unofficial and thus subject to prosecution and what acts are official. As to acts initially determined to be official, the District Court must analyze whether each act is or is not within the “core constitutional powers” of the presidency. As to presidential acts which are official but outside the scope of “core constitutional powers,” the District Court must determine whether the Special Counsel can show that prosecution for the act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”

Federal officials who seek absolute exemption from liability for unlawful conduct must bear the burden of showing that public policy requires an exemption of that scope. Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 506 (1978). As a general matter, “[t]he burden of justifying absolute immunity rests on the official asserting the claim.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 812 (1982). The initial burden of persuasion that conduct is official would accordingly rest on Team Trump, as would the burden of showing that Official conduct is within the “core constitutional powers” of the presidency.

Controlling D.C. Circuit precedent sets forth the analytical framework for distinguishing a president’s official acts from private, unofficial acts. Under Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F.4th 1, 30 (D.C. Cir. 2023), Trump must demonstrate his entitlement to immunity. That burden will be met if, based on an appropriately objective, context-specific assessment, his alleged actions can reasonably be understood as the official actions of an office-holder rather than the unofficial actions of an office-seeker. Per Blassingame:

When a first-term President opts to seek a second term, his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act. The Office of the Presidency as an institution is agnostic about who will occupy it next. And campaigning to gain that office is not an official act of the office.

Id., at 4 [italics in original.] The Court of Appeals elaborated:

It follows that, when a sitting President acts in his capacity as a candidate for re-election, he acts as office-seeker, not office-holder. The presidency itself has no institutional interest in who will occupy the office next. Campaigning to attain that office thus is not an official function of the office. Rather, an incumbent President's interests in winning re-election have the same purely private character as those of his challengers—i.e., "substantial personal interests as a candidate" to attain (or retain) the office. . . . Accordingly, a President acts in a private, unofficial capacity when engaged in re-election campaign activity.

Id., at 17 [italics in original.]

[Kazinski]

What's full speed ahead?

After Trump's sentencing in NY September 18th?

I think the prosecution is going to also work on the indictment to Incorporate the Obstruction decision too.

Then besides conducting the inquiry in the presumptively official and unofficial conduct they need to go through all the evidence and remove any sources that are from Official communications from Trump to other government officials, including Mike Pence.

[not guilty]

“Then besides conducting the inquiry in the presumptively official and unofficial conduct they need to go through all the evidence and remove any sources that are from Official communications from Trump to other government officials, including Mike Pence.”

Uh, no. SCOTUS did not rule on whether Donald Trump’s communications with Pence regarding the electoral count certification are ultimately subject to immunity. The Chief Justice opined at page 24:

With respect to the certification proceeding in particular, Congress has legislated extensively to define the Vice President’s role in the counting of the electoral votes, see, e.g., 3 U. S. C. §15, and the President plays no direct constitutional or statutory role in that process. So the Government may argue that consideration of the President’s communications with the Vice President concerning the certification proceeding does not pose “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”

* * *
It is ultimately the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity [as to Trump’s communications with Pence.]. We therefore remand to the District Court to assess in the first instance, with appropriate input from the parties, whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf?ftag=MSF0951a18

If Kazinski tells me “good morning,” I will stick my head out the window before believing him.

[Kazinski]

Sure, and its up to the government to rebut the presumption. There are going to be lots of hearings.

As Orin Kerr observed:
"“If my quick skim of the Trump immunity case is correct, there’s exactly zero chance Trump will be tried before the election. And, if Trump loses in 2024, it’s not clear on which counts he would be tried at all. It would take years to figure that out. (Quick skim, at least.)”

[Commenter_XY]

NG, what does this actually mean, then = We therefore remand to the District Court to assess in the first instance, with appropriate input from the parties, whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.

The way I understood it (consistent with what you wrote above), is that for each alleged act, Judge Red Diaper baby Chutkan has to determine 'core v not core', then 'official v not official', then 'danger to POTUS constitutional powers v not a danger'. That seems like a lot of analysis.

What am I missing? Is it really so straightforward? The whole reason it went to SCOTUS to the first place is because it is not a straightforward case.

[not guilty]

There are essentially three categories of presidential acts: (1) unofficial acts to which immunity from criminal prosecution does not attach at all, (2) official acts arising from exercise of the “core constitutional powers” of the presidency, for which the president enjoys absolute immunity, and (3) other official acts, as to which the president is presumptively immune from prosecution, subject to the prosecutor rebutting that presumption by showing that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”

Per Chief Justice Roberts, the first step is to distinguish official from unofficial actions. (Slip op., p. 14.) Prior SCOTUS decisions place the burden of persuasion as to entitlement to immunity upon the defendant claiming to be immune. See, e.g., Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 812 (1982) (“[t]he burden of justifying absolute immunity rests on the official asserting the claim.” ) The instant Court opined at p. 17:

Distinguishing the President’s official actions from his unofficial ones can be difficult. When the President acts pursuant to “constitutional and statutory authority,” he takes official action to perform the functions of his office. [Nixon v.] Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. [731,] 757 [(1982).] Determining whether an action is covered by immunity thus begins with assessing the President’s authority to take that action.

The Court opined at pp. 17-18:

[T]he immunity we have recognized extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.” Blassingame v. Trump, 87 ) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 755–756 (noting that we have “refused to draw functional lines finer than history and reason would support”).

The Court of Appeals in Blassingame placed the burden of showing an official act upon Trump. 87 F.4th, at 5:

[W]e hold only that, taking the allegations in the plaintiffs’ complaints as true as we must at this point in the proceedings, President Trump has not demonstrated an entitlement to dismissal of the claims against him based on a President’s official-act immunity. In the proceedings ahead in the district court, President Trump will have the opportunity to show that his alleged actions in the runup to and on January 6 were taken in his official capacity as President rather than in his unofficial capacity as presidential candidate.

I take these authorities to mean that the initial burden of establishing an official act to be on Donald Trump. Once that showing is made as to a particular act, immunity presumptively attaches and the burden shifts to the Special Counsel to show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” Upon such showing by the prosecutor, Trump is subject to prosecution for that particular official act.

I hope this is helpful.

[Commenter_XY]

Amazingly helpful, NG. I mean that. The detailed explanation and context help me understand the legal side of issues better.

[not guilty]

"I think the prosecution is going to also work on the indictment to Incorporate the Obstruction decision too."

There is no need to rework the indictment in light of Fischer. The fake elector scheme involved creating false evidence for use in an official proceeding. The opinion of the Court in Fischer states at pages 8-9:

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 [specified 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.

The existing indictment avers that Donald Trump is culpable under 18 U.S.C. § 2 for the conduct of the fake electors who violated § 1512(c)(2), and the indictment further avers Trump's conspiracy with others under § 1512(k) to violate § 1512(c)(2).

[Brett Bellmore]

"makes it a crime to impair the availability or integrity of records, documents, or objects used in an official"

But the fake elector scheme didn't do that; The certified electors were still presented to Congress, and easily distinguished from the fake ones. Literally nobody was confused about which electors were which. All official records retained every bit of their availability and integrity.

All the fake electors did was give Congress an option if they cared to exercise it. And they wouldn't have been confused, there was no effort to trick or mislead Congress, they'd have known exactly what they were doing.

[not guilty]

Unclear on what an attempt is, Brett? Actual obstruction need not be shown.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm perfectly clear as to what an attempt is. I think you're unclear as to what was attempted.

There was no effort to impair the availability or integrity of any record whatsoever. At least not in regards to the fake elector scheme. All they were doing was copying what happened in the Nixon-Kennedy election, where a state's outcome was disputed, and in addition to the certified electors, the losing slate of electors was also submitted as though it had been certified. Thus preserving the controversy long enough for the dispute to be resolved, and the proper slate determined.

Here's the memo outlining the plan.

Notice that the plan is, explicitly, just to buy time to get their allegations of fraud actually investigated: "letting matters play out this way would guarantee that public attention would be riveted on the evidence of electoral abuses by the Democrats, and would also buy the Trump campaign more time to win litigation that would deprive Biden of electoral votes and/or add to Trump's column."

Now, I think Trump was genuinely delusional about the prospects of that dispute being resolved in his favor, but that IS what they were attempting to do with the fake electors: Preserve the controversy while pressuring Congress to take up the investigations that the judiciary and some state officials had declined to, so that Biden would not already have been declared the winner before those investigations could find the fraud they thought they could prove.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That is clearly an illegal coup attempt!

[Davedave]

"the plan is, explicitly, just to buy time"

So, obviously obstruction. Glad you agree. I take it that means that now you'll be as happy as everyone else to see Trump jailed.

[Bwaaah]

Brett: Does it matter that Chesebro plead guilty to conspiracy to filing "false documents"? Especially if everybody knew the documents were false, does that not lend credibility to a theory that his purpose was not to mislead, but to obstruct a proceeding by knowingly messing with documents?

[Kazinski]

No, people plead guilty all the time to avoid more draconian penalties when they don't really think they did it.

It doesn't affect their co-defendants rights.

[not guilty]

Chesebro's plea in Georgia is not conclusive as to Donald Trump, who was not a party to the plea. Chesebro's writings in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy are admissible against Trump as nonhearsay under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E).

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"All they were doing was copying what happened in the Nixon-Kennedy election, where a state’s outcome was disputed, and in addition to the certified electors, the losing slate of electors was also submitted as though it had been certified. Thus preserving the controversy long enough for the dispute to be resolved, and the proper slate determined."

That is not in fact what they did, which is why they are being criminally charged for their fraud.

[tylertusta]

No, I don’t think that the electors are an attempt to buy time. They were nunc pro tunc. Should Trump have prevailed in his efforts to challenge the results in the states, he needed to have electors in front of Congress in order for Congress to choose his. That's what the ECA says.

…which is another reason why Smith’s prosecution in DC is ridiculous.

Smith seemingly is dead set on reenacting the Charge of the Light Brigade, and it will be entertaining to watch.

[Josh R]

Smith could prevail if he can prove to a jury that Trump knew his claims of victory were bullshit and thus his electors were fake. But now, he can't introduce at trial Barr's statement to Trump that it was all bullshit.

Also, I thought in Michigan the electors claimed to be officially endorsed. They are facing prosecution, although Trump is not. But perhaps that can be used as evidence against Trump even if Trump felt he won?

[Roger S]

Barr did not know whether Trump's claims were correct or not.

[not guilty]

Brett, the putative "alternate electors" in Pennsylvania and New Mexico explained in substance that their claimed status was contingent upon Donald Trump succeeding in his election challenges. I doubt that their conduct was criminal.

In six states, however, the bogus "electors" falsely claimed that they were duly elected and transmitted their false claims to Congress for use in certification of the electoral count. That constituted an attempt to create false evidence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). Trump is culpable for these "electors'" conduct under 18 U.S.C. § 2.

[Brett Bellmore]

I would never argue this strategy was skillfully executed. Trump has routinely, for a variety of reasons, been relying on third tier talent at best.

But a poorly executed strategy is still that strategy, not an attempt to do something else even less competently.

[not guilty]

Incompetently executed criminal conduct is nevertheless criminal conduct. Do you dispute that the claim of the bogus "electors" in six states to have been duly elected and certified was false? Do you dispute that these bogus "certificates" were transmitted to Congress in regard to certification of the electoral count? Do you dispute that the electoral count certification by Congress is an official proceeding?

[David Nieporent]

There are two problems with that.

(1) That was a memo by some people back in December. It was not the memo Trump was relying on.

This is that memo, and in fact it is not about "buy[ing] time to get their allegations of fraud actually investigated."

2. Even the memo you quote is not about "buy[ing] time to get their allegations of fraud actually investigated." Note what word does not appear anywhere in your memo? "Investigate." (Or any variation.) You are lying to yourself and/or to us when you pretend that a single person involved had any doubt about who won the 2020 election. 100% of people knew it was Biden, knew that his victory in each swing state was legitimate and decisive. Trump did not want to "find" actual votes in Georgia; he wanted to manufacture votes. These people knew that no "investigation" could reveal anything other than that Biden had won. They just wanted to use legal tricks to gum up the works so they could invalidate his victories and declare Trump the winner.

This. Was. A. Coup. Attempt.

[Kazinski]

It wasn't a fake electors scheme, it was The Hawaiian Electors Scheme as successfully used by Kennedy in Hawaii in 1960, when his alternate slate of electors replaced the original set after the original results of the election were overturned.

And it was endorsed by Stevens in his Bush v Gore dissent when he argued mother the Florida Supreme Court should be given more time to resolve the Florida recounts.

[Martinned2]

The 1960 presidential election result definitely shouldn't have been ratified without a lot of questions.

(I always like that Kennedy's grandfather rigged his 1918 House of Representatives election so badly that the House didn't just kick him out, but flat out gave the seat to his opponent.)

[Voize]

In 1961 Vice President Richard Nixon made a little speech in the joint session where the votes were counted. In part:

This is the first time in 100 years that a candidate for the Presidency announced the result of an election in which he was defeated and announced the victory of his opponent. I do not think we could have a more striking and eloquent example of the stability of our constitutional system and of the proud tradition of the American people of developing, respecting, and honoring institutions of self-government.

Richard Nixon, beacon of integrity. What would he think of the country today?

[Dan Schiavetta]

+1

[Frank Drackman]

Probably happy that his "If the President does it it's not Illegal" has been proven correct.

[John F. Carr]

Nixon: We could do worse.

I remember opinion pieces like that when Trump was elected. Liberals who had spent many years screaming "the sky is falling!" at every Republican victory recognized their prior cries as hyperbole.

[Martinned2]

Trump spent 4 years screwing up the US and its political system big time, and Biden hasn't even undone half of that damage.

[David Nieporent]

There was no "Hawaiian Electors Scheme." Setting aside all the many other differences¹ between 1960 and 2020, Hawaii had no bearing on the outcome of the election. Nobody was trying to use Hawaii's electors to switch the election from Nixon to Kennedy or vice versa.

¹ There was an actual bona fide dispute about the outcome of the election. A recount was ongoing before the electors met, and in fact it ended up finding that Kennedy had won the state. And of course it was the Republican governor of the state, not Kennedy, that certified this result and sent it to Congress.

[ReaderY]

Let’s look more closely at what is meant by “giving Congress an option if they cared to exercise it.” Official tribunals, which Congress in counting electoral votes is, must act based on evidence. Thus the only way to give Congress the option of acting is to introduce evidence supporting that action. Thus, by your own statements, you admit that the fake electors introduced material that they intended Congress to regard as evidence and to act on as evidence.

Perhaps an illustration might help. Suppose somebody arranges for a confederate to give perjured testimony in a case to provide a cover for a sympathetic judge to rule for him. It just doesn’t matter if the judge was in on it and knew the testimony was perjured. The very fact that the purpose of introducing the fake testimony was to give the judge the option of taking a favorable action, without the public becoming aware something is amiss, shows that the testimony was intended to be used as evidence.

And the very fact that you are sitting here seriously and with a straight face trying to argue to us that as long as the tribunal mambers are in on it and only the public is deceived, that somehow means it’s OK and isn’t tampering with evidence – your very argument itself illustrates just how low and corrupt and rotten your moral fibre has become. You are so far fallen you’re not even aware of what having integrity is like.

[not guilty]

Shorter Brett Bellmore:

IOKIYAR now!
IOKIYAR tomorrow!!
IOKIYAR fo'evah!!!

(Imagine that rant being delivered while standing in the courthouse doorway.)

[tylertusta]

Our friend NG is glossing over the serious difficulties that the DC case faces. The litigation over the immunity decision alone will not be swift.

It'll be more like trench warfare.

It'll be amusing to watch Smith order another frontal charge only to get mowed down again.

[not guilty]

tylertusta, I have supported my argument with relevant authorities. I don't posit that the resolution of the full scope of immunity will be swift overall. I said that Judge Chutkan can now move full speed ahead to determine in the first instance what acts by Donald Trump alleged in the indictment are unofficial and thus subject to prosecution and what acts are official.

What part(s) of my analysis do you disagree with, and on what authorities do you base such disagreement?

[not guilty]

Still waiting, tylertusta.

[tylertusta]

Thank you for impatiently waiting for me, counselor.

Perhaps you've checked today's date and noticed that today is a Federal holiday? You receive my replies on my timetable, not yours.

(I made some tasty food on the grill. Despite the heat and humidity, it was a nice day)

But you did ask a fair question, so I will be fair and give you a substantive reply:

What you've glossed over is that while Chutkan will attempt to move ahead quickly, she will find herself bogged down into a morass of evidentiary hearings, briefing, and likely witness testimony and cross examination. After she rules- and I have no doubt that she will rule largely in favor of Smith regardless of the strength of Trump's evidence- the case will be appealed to the DC Circuit and Chutkan will lose jurisdiction again. The immunity question must still be resolved before trial. See the DC cases of Rose and Durenburger in conjunction with Midlands Asphalt.

If Chutkan advances in a perfunctory manner, she will find herself on the receiving end of appeal that Smith will not enjoy. And if the DC Circuit continues to screw around in its handling the case then SCOTUS will step in again.

Perhaps Smith will try to reign in the excesses of Chutkan and the DC Circuit. Both courts seemed to be taking cues from Smith on how the case should be handled, so perhaps they stop being idiots if Smith gives them permission.

Then again, it's Smith that I'm talking about here. He's already steered this case right into a SCOTUS minefield twice. He also has a history of making boneheaded prosecutorial decisions with the objective of achieving an unsustainable conviction, so it's possible that he'll just be tilting at windmills for a while yet.

Finally, you are incorrect on the current status of the indictment. The indictment, as it stands today, cannot be presented to a jury as the indictment alleges facts that the Supreme Court has just ruled were absolutely immune and cannot be presented to a jury under any circumstance. At the very least, those absolutely immune facts must be removed.

[tylertusta]

For context on how you've discussed this in the past week, please refer to the below exchange:

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/07/01/monday-open-thread-60/?comments=true#comment-10624749

[not guilty]

I’m glad that you had an enjoyable holiday meal. Thank you for your substantive response.

I have no doubt that Judge Chutkan on remand will proceed expeditiously and will act carefully. Of course some of the language of the indictment as to which Trump is immune, such as his conversations with the Acting Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, will need to be stricken from the indictment. I have never suggested otherwise.

You seem to be glossing over the fact that, when the District Court rules on the pretrial issues regarding immunity and the indictment is adjusted accordingly, there will remain a heaping helping of unofficial acts as to which Donald Trump is not immune and for which he is due to stand trial. The unofficial conduct averred in the indictment provides ample factual support for each of the offenses alleged therein: 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 371, 1512(c)(2) (by operation of 18 U.S.C. § 2), and 1512(k).

The black robed wardheelers of SCOTUS will do what they choose to do, but I am not at all persuaded that a pretrial order granting immunity as to some official conduct while denying immunity as to unofficial acts (and such official acts as to which the prosecution has rebutted the presumption of immunity) qualifies as an immediately appealable collateral order under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949), and its progeny.

The collateral order exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 considers as “final judgments,” even though they do not “end the litigation on the merits,” decisions “which finally determine claims of right separate from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate jurisdiction be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.” Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 798 (1989), quoting Cohen, 337 U.S. at 546. To fall within the limited class of final collateral orders, an order must (1) “conclusively determine the disputed question,” (2) “resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action,” and (3) “be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” Midland Asphalt, at 799, quoting Coopers Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978). SCOTUS has interpreted the collateral order exception “with the utmost strictness” in criminal cases. Ibid.

The D.C. Circuit has entertained interlocutory appeals based on a defendant’s claims of immunity based on separation of powers in some cases, including the instant Trump matter. That Court opined in United States v. Durenberger, 48 F.3d 1239, 1242 (D.C. Cir. 1995):

In United States v. Rose, 28 F.3d 181, 185-86 (D.C. Cir. 1994), we joined three other courts of appeals in expanding the list of immediately appealable orders to include those denying a defendant’s claim of immunity based on principles of separation of powers. See United States v. Claiborne, 727 F.2d 842, 844-45 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 829, 105 S.Ct. 113, 83 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984); United States v. Hastings, 681 F.2d 706, 708-09 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1203, 103 S.Ct. 1188, 75 L.Ed.2d 434 (1983); United States v. Myers, 635 F.2d 932, 935-36 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 956, 101 S.Ct. 364, 66 L.Ed.2d 221 (1980). “Like speech or debate immunity, separation of powers immunity should protect legislators from the burden of litigation and diversion from congressional duties, whether the litigation be civil or criminal.” Rose, 28 F.3d at 186. “Like the right secured by the speech or debate clause in Helstoski or the right secured by the double jeopardy clause in Abney, the right [to separation of powers immunity] is the freedom from the obligation to endure a criminal trial which would be wholly deprived of meaning if [a defendant] were forced to undergo trial before he could assert it.” Claiborne, 727 F.2d at 844 (citation omitted).

In the cases cited in Durenberger, the defendants Sen. Durenberger, Rep. Rose, Judge Claiborne, then-Judge Hastings and Rep. Myers each asserted a claim of immunity based on separation of powers which, if resolved favorably to them on appeal, would have precluded their standing trial at all. Donald Trump asserted a similar claim in the lead up to this week’s decision. Since Monday, however, Trump can make no such claim of immunity as to avoiding trial for his unofficial acts. Chief Justice Roberts slammed that door shut at page 42 of the slip opinion: “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law.”

That means that going forward, Trump can no longer satisfy the third characteristic of an immediately appealable collateral order under Coopers Lybrand. A pretrial order recognizing immunity as to some official acts, denying immunity as to official acts as to which the prosecution has rebutted the presumption of immunity, and denying immunity entirely as to unofficial acts is not effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. As the Midland Asphalt Court opined:

the third prong of the Coopers Lybrand test is satisfied only where the order at issue involves “an asserted right the legal and practical value of which would be destroyed if it were not vindicated before trial.” United States v. MacDonald, 435 U.S. 850, 860 (1978).

489 U.S. at 800. Given that Trump must stand trial for the unofficial acts averred in the indictment, a denial of immunity as to some or all official acts can be reviewed just as effectively in a posttrial appeal as it could be on a pretrial appeal.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"I think the prosecution is going to also work on the indictment to Incorporate the Obstruction decision too."

This blog's comments section has two signature elements -- (1) old-timey bigotry in many flavors and (2) random capitalization (part of general disdain for standard English).

Georgetown, George Mason, Harvard, Case Western, Berkeley, Northwestern, Notre Dame, and Chicago must wince every time their names and reputations are associated with this flaming right-wing shitstorm. Most (but not all) of them are strong schools that deserve better. My sympathy for UCLA diminished when it erred a second time (by not insisting on removal of its name from this blog when negotiating the terms to remove Mr. Volokh from classrooms; tossing another "distinguished" on the pile would have been an obvious move.)

Tip for mainstream law schools considering -- inexplicably -- hiring Federalist Society members for faculty positions: Make keeping your names out of their mouths at the Volokh Conspiracy a condition of continued employment.

[Theendoftheleft]

AIDS, AIDS, AIDS.

How many times must we go through this? Most of the faculty at your ‘top’ schools are unqualified hacks. Most lack the necessary credentials or training to ever get hired in any other university faculty or department.

Their work is largely shit, too. Your mainstream American liberal-progressive legal ‘scholarship’ tends to be sophomoric partisan twaddle that COULD NOT make it through peer review at better journals. (It certainly wouldn’t suffice to earn them tenure in other faculties or departments.) Much of it also goes unread by scholars in other countries and respected universities not (just) because of its parochial content, but because of its extremely low quality and unreliability.

And if you knew anything about your ‘mainstream’ law schools, you’d know how many they don’t give a damn about the desiderata that normal departments or faculties do when hiring. Although to be sure, America’s large-scale, identity-based hiring has dented its more pedigreed institutions’ international reputations as well. Identity over merit, talent, and established quality in the name of ‘inclusiveness’ and pseudo-diversity is doing wonders for your unis! (It's doing good for ours too: we've been getting quality American refugees these last few years. They will never go back.)

Interestingly, though, since it’s now crystal clear that American law schools are entirely motivated by the power to shape and control legal and political discourses (especially whilst training future practitioners), and NOT AT ALL about genuine knowledge production and the pursuit of truth (so that ‘scholactivism’ is an inadequate diagnosis), it’s only a matter of time till they’re seen by both the public and the bar to not just be pseudo-epistemic authorities but outright threats to the legal system. Your ‘mainstream’ law schools are the antithesis of the very idea of a university faculty and of law being a wissenschaft.

Your liberals and progressives are third-worlding your better unis by ruining their core institutional norms (genuine knowledge production, pursuit of truth over political sensitivities, etc, letting a thousand flowers bloom).

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

TLDR... seethe and cope, doofus

[Martinned2]

Reading tip: Arguably David Allen Green is much better than I am at not overreacting, but he thinks the judgment is garbage too.

The majority opinion by the Chief Justice John Roberts reads as an exposition, almost a celebration, of executive power and why it should not be checked by the irksome nuisance of criminal law. He does not even refer expressly to the concept of the rule of law, let alone engage with it.

The only explicit reference in the judgment to equality before the law comes in one of the dissenting opinions. The seven references to the “rule of law” similarly come only in the dissents. Roberts does make a fleeting reference to “a compelling public interest in fair and effective law enforcement” halfway through one paragraph, but he briskly then asserts that such competing considerations do not prevent any immunity.
(...)
This omission is a shame, and it indicates that the majority judgment is weak. A robust and confident judgment would take on the doctrine of equality of law and show why there would have to be an exception in this instance. But instead, it ignores the point, almost acting as if it is not there.

The weak and one-sided nature of the majority opinion in turn suggests that it is partisan and the result of motivated reasoning. Such allegations are often made with politically appointed judges, but they are not always true. A look at the reasoning in a judgment can often dispel any unease at the bias of a judge.

And a case can be made out for immunity of a president, just as a case can be made out for the immunity of an ambassador or a soldier on the field of battle. Such immunities can and do exist, and they can often be justified one way or another.

But in each case there is a balancing exercise. The scales of Lady Justice weigh the competing interests of the rule of law and the need for a particular immunity. And we watch with anxious scrutiny to see if an imbalance is avoided.

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/67136/the-us-supreme-courts-weak-and-partisan-judgment

[NOVA Lawyer]

Thanks for the pointer. It's a good take.

Yes, the utter failure to engage with a core justification for our entire system, equality before the law, is shameful and does reveal partisan, motivated reasoning.

But they have green-lighted the selling of pardons and ambassadorships. That's insane.

[Riva]

No, it’s an unbalanced, warped opinion divorced from the actual Supreme Court ruling. Immunity is grounded in separation of powers inherent in the structure of the constitution. The constitution is the highest law. What is absurd is the constant refrain that “no one is above the law.” The constitution is the highest law and the president is subject to the constitution.

And your comment on green lighting the selling of pardons and ambassadorships is equally absurd. “T]he nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.” Do you think that selling pardons and ambassadorships, in other words bribery (something the constitution makes impeachable), is within the president’s conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority, or that the Court would countenance this as being just fine if it came before them? The left has become unhinged.

[tylertusta]

It's funny when lawyers pretend that political slogans are actual constitutional provisions.

[David Nieporent]

Like "separation of powers"? Agreed.

[Riva]

You don't even know what it means.

[tylertusta]

I didn't realize you felt that Marbury was wrongly decided.

[David Nieporent]

I'll take "Cases that don't use the phrase 'separation of powers'" for $500, Alex.

[Riva]

You really have no clue yet continue to post comments. Interesting, or pathetic? Maybe just plain ignorant?

[Martinned2]

Do you think that selling pardons and ambassadorships, in other words bribery (something the constitution makes impeachable), is within the president’s conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority, or that the Court would countenance this as being just fine if it came before them?

I don't think I said anything on that particular topic myself, but since you mention it: Justice Sotomayor seems to think that bribery "implicates official acts almost by definition", and I'm not sure why she'd be wrong.

[Riva]

Sotomayor’s dissent is a disgrace, written to fuel the insane unbalanced reactions apparent in these comments. I believe my response above demonstrates why the wise Latina is wrong.

[tylertusta]

Bribery is the agreement, not the official action that comes with it.

The agreement can be prosecuted.

[Voize]

Accepting bribes is not an official function of the President.
Granting pardons, however, is an official function, even an exemplar core power within his "conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority". Congress may not criminalize or regulate the issuance of pardons, but in addition "[n]either may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions."
So a President may face trial for selling a pardon, but the granting of the pardon may not be examined in the course of that trial. And that isn't just a question of whether Hope Hicks can be put on the stand, the granting of the pardon may not be examined at all.

[Riva]

Not so sure selling a pardon is an offical act but even assuming so, in such an egregious case, I would expect Congress to impeach and convict the offending president. That’s our constituional system. Then try away.

[Voize]

The permitted punishments after conviction are removal and disqualification from office, not loss of immunity.

[Riva]

You seem to be confused but yeah, yeah it is. There's really no dispute on that point.

[David Nieporent]

You MAGAts argued that a former president can't be impeached. So all such a corrupt president would have to do is either (a) hide the crime long enough for his term to be up before it was discovered; or (b) wait until he's on his way out the door to commit the crime.

[Riva]

Uh, what? So, in other words, Congress, within which such authority resides, decided not to excercise it when they had jurisdiction? That’s our system. Suck it up and accept it, amend the constitution, or better yet, move. (Assuming of course bribery in this context is an official act which is doubtful so the whole hypo is frankly stupid)

[David Nieporent]

Or, correctly interpret the constitution to say that there's no such thing as presidential immunity.

[David Nieporent]

Immunity is grounded in separation of powers

It isn’t. Separation of powers — a phrase not even found in the constitution — is not implicated by a president prosecuting a former president.

If this fake concept were relevant, then the Speech & Debate clause would be superfluous.

[Riva]

Uh yeah, it is. Separation of powers doctrine has been integral to constitutional jurisprudence since Marbury. That you would suggest it is not implicated here merely highlights your ignorance. The doctrine here takes into consideration the intrusion of a criminal proceeding into the unique position and authority of the president, vested with the executive power. And the conduct at issue here concerns acts during President Trump's tenure in office. Please stop with this nonsense.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You’re special. And you repeatedly lie in any conversation we have. But, for the sake of others, I’ll bite.

Do you think that selling pardons and ambassadorships, in other words bribery (something the constitution makes impeachable), is within the president’s conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority…?

If we can just frame any question as whether the President did something that is plainly within the President’s “conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority” (e.g., issue a pardon) for an improper purpose (e.g., receive money), then the Supreme Court’s immunity decision means nothing.

For it to make any sense, it has to mean that exercising the pardon power can never be criminalized, no matter how it is exercised. And, no, under this ruling, Congress cannot restrict the pardon power via the criminal law. Without impinging on the pardon power, there is no way to criminalize what you quaintly (given the recent change in the law) call bribery.

Do you think….that the Court would countenance this as being just fine if it came before them?

This Court? Yes. I believe this Court would. Else, they would have to overturn this decision. This decision puts things like the exercise of the pardon power beyond the reach of Congress.

Otherwise, all Jack Smith has to do, and has done, is say that Trump had an improper purpose in everything he is alleged to do and then, poof, no immunity! That’s not what this decision says.

I believe the Court just assumes that, at some point, enough Republicans would support impeachment. It gets less likely with each bootlicker elected to Congress and with the departure (forced or effectively forced) of each person of character (e.g., Liz Cheney, Kinzinger, Jeff Flake) from Congress.

This is a decision based on wishful thinking and betting the entire Republic on it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"For it to make any sense, it has to mean that exercising the pardon power can never be criminalized, no matter how it is exercised. And, no, under this ruling, Congress cannot restrict the pardon power via the criminal law. Without impinging on the pardon power, there is no way to criminalize what you quaintly (given the recent change in the law) call bribery."

What?!? Of course the exercise of the pardon power can't be criminalized, even if exercised pursuant to a corrupt quid pro quo.

But that doesn't mean that the quid pro quo itself can't be criminalized. By your logic, a convict could simply bribe the President not to pardon him, and then the President would be required to pardon him.

[NOVA Lawyer]

By your logic, a convict could simply bribe the President not to pardon him, and then the President would be required to pardon him.

What does that even mean? You’re seriously confused.

Nothing I said entails requiring the President to pardon anyone. The whole point is, under this ruling, the President can pardon anyone (or not pardon anyone) he wants for any reason, corrupt or otherwise.

He can pardon people to encourage them not to testify in criminal trials of his friends or associates. He can pardon people who donate to his campaign. He can pardon people (or friends/family members of them) who engage in favorable business deals with him. The opportunities for profiting off of the pardon power are endless.

And, yes, of course those sorts of things have happened before, usually in the last days of a presidency (except with Trump who pardoned criminal associates who might otherwise have testified against him) and never with an explicit quid pro quo (though, again, a Trump pardon or two came very close). But this ruling says the President can just announce anyone who donates a million dollars to the Trump Foundation (assuming it weren’t defunct because of his corrupt use of it as a personal piggy bank, so say the Clinton Foundation) can send me a name to pardon and there is nothing criminal, at least for the President, about it. And you can’t get the President’s papers because those are part of his core function. You can’t stop people from asking to pardon someone. You can’t stop them donating to charity or doing business deals.

It’s a green light for corruption and misuse of power.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But this ruling says the President can just announce anyone who donates a million dollars to the Trump Foundation (assuming it weren’t defunct because of his corrupt use of it as a personal piggy bank, so say the Clinton Foundation) can send me a name to pardon and there is nothing criminal, at least for the President, about it."

No it doesn't say that. Such an announcement isn't an official act.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Which gets you not very far. I mean, it's unlikely someone would go on TV and say such a thing, but they can make it known. And that's the problem. Just letting it be known, informally, that you'd look favorably on pardons from people who donated or did business or whatever will get the job done. And now what will you prove? The pardon is neither a crime and, under this decision, can't be evidence of a crime....nor can discussions of the pardon be evidence. There is no way to stop a President from issuing pardons for improper purposes short of impeachment which, per Mitch McConnell and other enabling Republicans, can't be done after January 20. Therefore, such conduct in the last days is unreachable.

But, back to the facts, even if an announcement was made, what's the crime? Making an announcement? At some point, you have to tie it either to the fact of a pardon or to the intent to pardon. And in either case, the absolute immunity for pardoning frustrates criminal prosecution of the president or former president.

And, if instead, you interpret the decision as saying core constitutional actions (or intent to perform actions within the core of the president's authority) does not prevent conviction if done for an improper purpose (i.e., accepting money, obstructing justice), then this decision means nothing whatsoever and absolute immunity is what Jack Smith argued. But everyone agrees the Supreme Court went further than Jack Smith wanted.

Either an improper purpose to perform actions within the sole discretion of the president coupled with overt acts that aren't part of the core responsibilities of the president can be prosecuted (which means trying to subvert an election is every bit as offensive as making an announcement to favorably consider pardon requests from large donors) or, as this Court appears to have said, they can't.

You all keep trying to say an improper purpose pierces the absolute immunity and, at least, the overt acts that are connected to the president's core responsibilities via the improper purpose can be prosecuted. I would it were so. That's not what the Court held. I think they are dead wrong on that, but that's not what they said.

[Josh R]

The crime would be bribery and a brazen announcement might be enough to gain a conviction, On the other hand, in the absence of such an announcement, it would be very hard to convict since you can't use the pardon itself or any discussions within the administration over the reason for the pardon as evidence.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But, back to the facts, even if an announcement was made, what’s the crime? Making an announcement?"

The crime would be bribery. Whether one actually carries out an official act has nothing to do with bribery, and rightly so.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Exactly what Josh R said. Only with an announcement, under any interpretation of this decision, "might" it be prosecutable. And Josh wisely concedes even that is not a sure thing.

Worse, as long as the President only discussed it in private, and even if the person getting the pardon said he got it by paying for it, the President wouldn’t be able to be prosecuted including because the fact of the pardon couldn’t be used as evidence nor could the discussions about it be used as evidence.

This opens the door to all sorts of abuse.

And the President isn’t bribing anyone, so the fact that you (Twelve) keep arguing for a bribery prosecution doesn’t address the President’s criminal liability. Perhaps you mean to invoke solicitation of a bribe, but then you run into precisely the issue Josh R raised and the fact that as long as the President didn’t communicate with anyone outside of his advisors, the President is immune. Absolutely.

It’s a bad, far-reaching decision that green lights corruption.

[Riva]

No, the Supreme Court opinion regarding presidential immunity was entirely consistent with the constitution, precedent, and history. What is execrable and partisan are the criminal prosecutions you support. The left really has had a meltdown. Cheer on the repulsive republic ending lawfare if you want. I think it’s rather sickening.

[Kazinski]

After reading the Chief's immunity opinion its easy to see why when Trump filed a motion to delay sentencing in NY Merchan immediately put off sentencing until Sept 18, and Bragg didn't object.

"In a brief response, Merchan approved the proposed schedule and wrote that he'll render a decision on Trump's motion on Sept. 6. He set a new sentencing date of Sept. 18, "if such is still necessary."

There are several elements of the NY case which conflict with the immunity ruling. One example is that there were tweets and other public comments by Trump as presidenf that were introduced as evidence.

From the Syllabus: "The President possesses “extraordinary power to speak to his fellow citizens and on their behalf.”
Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. 667, 701. So most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities. There may, however, be contexts in
which the President speaks in an unofficial capacity—perhaps as a
candidate for office or party leader. To the extent that may be the case,
objective analysis of “content, form, and context” will necessarily inform the inquiry.

No such inquiry was done.

However that seems somewhat trivial, and i'm not sure what weight any of the tweets had in the conviction.

The biggest problem, and it was something the prosecution put a great deal of weight on was Hope Hicks testimony, which would not be allowed under the ruling:

"Because the President’s “need for complete candor and objectivity
from advisers calls for great deference from the courts,” we held that a “presumptive privilege” protects Presidential communications. Id., at 706, 708. That privilege, we explained, “relates to the effective discharge of a President’s powers.”

Hicks testimony was directly about Trump's communication with her.

And: "Certain allegations—such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General—are readily categorized in
light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to
the office held by that individual."

Trump's communication with Hicks the Whitehouse communications director are also readily categorized as official acts which may not be introduced as evidence.

As to whether Hick's testimony was important to the result, Andrew Weissman certainly thought it was:
"“I’m not in any way suggesting that they sought it, but her testimony was a body blow to the defense here because she put the guilty knowledge of the hush money payments into Donald Trump’s mouth, and she recounted that testimony to the jurors.”

He went on to describe Hicks’ testimony as “devastating” in terms of evidence.

“There’s no question that her crying would underscore to the jury, in my view, that she was not there because she wanted to help the government, that she had all loyalty for The Trump Organization,” explained Weissmann, referring to the former president’s company. Weissmann also characterized Hicks as a “very, very difficult witness for the defense” to overcome."
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/ex-prosecutor-flags-hope-hicks-094804982.html

[tylertusta]

I wouldn’t be surprised if Merchan pretends that the inclusion of inadmissible evidence and testimony for immune acts was
harmless.

If that happens, we shouldn’t be surprised if a senior court disagrees.

[Kazinski]

He knows he is screwed, or he wouldn't have immediately postponed sentencing by 2 1/2 months when his is the only case that could still derail the Trump train.

[Roger S]

Maybe Merchan thinks that he can inflict maximum damage to Trump's election by sentencing him in September. We should not have a South American judge deciding who will be our next President.

[David Nieporent]

Merchan, like Aileen Cannon, is American. More so than the neo-Nazi Roger Schlafly, who hates America and all it stands for.

[jb]

You know that Merchan was accepting Trump's own request that sentencing be delayed, right?

[tylertusta]

He probably knows that the case is in serious jeopardy, but I won't take too much from him kicking things all the way to September. The immunity question is going to be a tough slog to work through even for a case like his.

I'm eager to see how Bragg pretends that on Hope Hicks' "devastating" testimony is actually no big deal at all.

[Theendoftheleft]

Such exciting times.

Will Somin take a selfie with the eight Tajik ISIS members and add the caption: ‘no one is illegal’? Will the ACLU fight for terrorists’ fundamental right to enter the country as undocumented migrants (even if they can be prosecuted afterwards)?

Will the American media continue to hawk tuah the Biden family, or is that over now? Can blue teamers now admit, to themselves if not to the rest of the world, that their preferred media outlets lied to them about Biden’s mental fitness?

Will, and can, American blue teamers begin to question what else the media, and their colour team, might have lied to them about over the last few years? Or are they going to instead double down in order to protect their senses of self (as the rational, critical, educated, discerning, worldly ones, the possessors of the correct values, etc) and their cultish ideology?

One wonders why the media didn't talk about the end of the petrodollar...

Will a sizable percentage of Tories vote Reform and abandon their blue team for the foreseeable future? Can Starmer stave off socialism?

Did Macron set Le Pen up to fail from the outset (given the two-round system in France), or is this the end of France’s long national liberal nightmare?

Will Rutte be another American puppet?

Is a massive war looming on the horizon?

If Trump wins in November, will Arthur Kirkland commit seppuku?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You seem remarkably cheerful for a guy who is still getting stomped by better Americans in the culture war. Steve Brannon was talking tough, too, as he went to prison. You wingnuts are so gullible and delusional you can’t even recognize when you are getting your asses kicked by better Americans.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Have you thought of what can be, unburdened by what has been?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A better America, built on science, education, reason, progress, inclusiveness, modernity, freedom, and the eradication of conservatism is our future. The holds of bigotry, ignorance, superstition, backwardness, insularity, shambling rural backwaters, and more right-wing bigotry on our nation diminish daily as the cranky old Republicans die off and are replaced by better people ( less religious, less rural, less bigoted, less backward, more diverse) in our electorate and populace every glorious American day!

[Theendoftheleft]

The ignorance and superstition of human equality? Of the equality of cultures?

The science which shows the IQ is partially a genetic inheritance?

The science which shows there’s no free will?

A proper education which shows that cultures are not equal?

The LACK of social scientific grounds for your social engineering project and pan-cultural genocide project? (Your liberal-progressive fake-it-till-you-make-it approach to basically everything?)

America doesn’t meet replacement AIDS, by a long shot. You need the mass importation of outsiders to do it for you BECAUSE they don’t believe what your populace does. Yours is an evolutionarily inferior meme and YOU ARE NOT EQUAL. If you didn't have outsiders, you would collapse. Your values are dog shit.

You’ve also shown the world now that your president is a vegetable, and that your blue teamers couldn't discern this until it was made blatant to them in the debate. (Education COULD NOT help them and you don't know or care why.)

Your American betters are sitting on their hands till the November election. God help you afterwards, AIDS. 🙂

[Theendoftheleft]

Oh, and education certainly couldn’t help you perceive the hypocrisy of your claims about ‘inclusiveness’ and your own post.

You’re a fraud, AIDS, and your invocations of science, education, and reason are mere posturing, since they’re all instead clear threats to your cultish politics.

I don’t care if you’re just a persona created for this site to drum up responses, if you’re Somin, or if you’re anyone else. The tide is turning against you globally, AIDS. Your side of the American culture war is the same one engaged in (who started) a global culture war, one it is losing on all fronts and shall continue to do so.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Are you an empiricist?

What do the data say about what citizens, while they are still free to do so, are choosing to do?

Who are filling the urban centers? 1776 style normal Americans? Or dirty illegals living on the dole?

Whose fleeing urban centers to live in more rural or conservative areas? 1776 style normal Americans? Or dirty illegals living on the dole?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Half-educated rural bigots and Bible-thumping white bread are no longer the norm in America.

[Theendoftheleft]

Impoverished Blacks and uneducated poor Aztecs and Mayans with large dropout rates, coupled with the wholesale importation of other groups of unskilled illiterate labourers, ensures that America’s underclass will grow and thrive.

Pray tell, HOW will you afford to provide them with better educations, healthcare, and opportunities given your demographic implosion coupled with a dependency on a progressive income tax scheme to fund such things? How will you help these groups get educated and rise when you cannot afford to do so? (Will America turn socialist? That won't help, since demography impacts socialism, too.)

Your ‘better’ Americans are an insurance policy to all but guarantee that Idiocracy becomes reality in America.

Perhaps you should have actually gained a real education, learned science, relied upon ACTUAL reason, and ENSURED that your preferred policies were grounded in credible social science rather than merely asserting as much?

You’re doomed, libtard. Your values are dying. Your American betters will no longer tolerate you, either.

[Frank Drackman]

Again with the "Asses", The "Stomping", The "Bettors", you're like a Gay Country Song

[Theendoftheleft]

Stomped??? The entire American culture is ridiculed in my country. Your American 'progressives' and 'liberals' are also correctly seen as frauds, hypocrites, ignoramuses., and totalitarians. Your reputational damage is irreparable.

Also, don't project: the delusional ones are those who only realised Biden wasn't compos mentis with the recent debate. You are fools.

As I've told you before, AIDS (Somin?): you will not be moving to our more civilised countries. You will not be tolerated here.

[David Nieporent]

You seem remarkably cheerful for a guy who is still getting stomped by better Americans in the culture war.

This is the Putin troll who pretends to be a Western European of some sort.

[Theendoftheleft]

Yes, because Putin trolls would really be concerned with the VC...

Happy 4th, Nieporent. May the better Americans restore their republican freedom and destroy your lot's totalitarian, imperialist program once and for all. Sic semper tyrannis.

[Dr. Ed 2]

China is looking at financial problems no one is mentioning.

[Michael P]

People objected to criticisms of Hunter Biden's various influence sales on the basis that Hunter Biden wasn't in the ballot. That theory was never very credible -- Joe Biden spent a lot of time and government resources helping lend Hunter the appearance of influence -- but it's now become totally untenable.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/hunter-biden-white-house-meetings-president-debate-rcna159975

[Kazinski]

Let Joe retire in peace.

Hunter may have a constructive roll here too, we know Hunter and Jill.are the main influencers on Joes decision about his future (besides father time).

And we know Hunter can be bought, probably Jill too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"probably Jill too"

It is not surprising that an antisocial, bigoted, disaffected right-winger holed up in an off-the-grid hermit shack with a mail order bride (couldn't hack it with an uppity American wife, so found someone who would put up with an on-the-spectrum Ted Kaczynski fan for an allowance and a chance at citizenship) would resent a successful, mainstream, educated, modern American woman.

Your wife is the one on the take, pal; you're too dense to understand it.

[Theendoftheleft]

That's not very inclusive, AIDS.

Your family is going to be Breiviked by those folks. You see that now, yes? It doesn't matter who wins your elections.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Every society has its fringe-inhabiting, disaffected losers. The Volokh Conspiracy is a magnet for them in the United States.

[Theendoftheleft]

That must be why you regularly post here.

You understand that the whole globe now (correctly) believes that you American liberal-progressives are villains, yeah? You’re going to lose everything you’ve built since WWII.

[David Nieporent]

You understand that you're full of shit and you don't speak for anybody except Putin, yeah?

[Theendoftheleft]

Nope. You're just a parochial ignoramus. You need to accuse me of being a Putin troll to deflect from confronting the real world.

[jb]

What's the theory here? Who's Hunter convincing to do what at this point?

[not guilty]

Rudy Giuliani has now been disbarred in New York as a result of his shenanigans in regard to Donald Trump's unlawful attempts to remain in office following the 2020 election. https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad1/calendar/List_Word/2024/07_Jul/02/PDF/Matter%20of%20Giuliani%20(2021-00506).pdf

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

No one cares what corrupt partisans do in 3rd world shitholes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think it is really sad -- something happened to him.

[Commenter_XY]

Are 70% of Americans crazy when they indicate Drooler Joe POTUS Biden doesn't have the cognitive ability to be POTUS?

Like the MSM, how many VC commenters here confidently assured us that POTUS Biden was at the top of his mental game, for years. They were lies. And they are liars. Their absence for the last several days, post-debate, is conspicuous.

The assertion, "Oh, we just didn't know' is laughable. They knew. And they lied. Joe Biden is a cognitive mess that is barely functional between 10-4 daily. But they did not know? LOL, AYFKM?

How do you hold that many people to account? What is the appropriate sanction for people who deliberately deceived the American people about this...legally? Morally? Socially? Politically? For instance, Bob Bauer and his wife Anita Dunn, senior advisors to POTUS Biden...they did not know? And chose to say nothing? And that is not sanctionable behavior.

For the good of the country, Drooler Joe has got to go POTUS Biden should step down, or be removed by 25A.

The American people will not elect a developing cauliflower. We saw what we saw, one week ago. Subsequent appearances by POTUS Biden have not dispelled any doubts and made a sad situation even more disquieting. The rationalizations I am reading are astoundingly stupid, and hilarious.

If Drooler Joe POTUS Biden remains on the ticket, this election is over, and we will be looking at an electoral blowout. Rightly so.

Q: Does Team D run Kamala for POTUS?

[not guilty]

Joe Biden IMO should withdraw his candidacy for re-election and release his convention delegates. A wide open nominating convention in August as to both presidential and vice presidential nominations would be riveting.

I see no need for Biden to resign as president prior to the end of his current term. If Kamala Harris took office, Republicans in the House of Representatives could frustrate nomination of a new vice-president, and Mike Johnson would stand an assassin's bullet away from the White House. That might prove all too tempting to a nutjob.

[Commenter_XY]

Do convention rules allow for that = after voters chose candidate, the convention-goers pick a new candidate

Why would VP Harris just step aside? She ran for the job of POTUS.

[not guilty]

Yes, the rules allow that. A candidate is permitted to release his delegates from their pledge of support.

Kamala Harris ran for the job of POTUS, but not this year. The Biden delegates are not pledged to Harris. She could offer her name in nomination at the convention, but so can anyone else.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Kamala Harris ran for the job of POTUS, but not this year. The Biden delegates are not pledged to Harris. She could offer her name in nomination at the convention"

She can also start a race riot and likely would. She's got a powerbase of radical Black Left Coast women -- I don't think Michelle Obama wants to challenge her and she's the only one who could.

Look at the staff Harris has burnt through -- she has a reputation for being mean....

[Frank Drackman]

Oh give me a break, I’ve “burned through” alot of Gas Passers in my practice, OK, maybe my “Glengarry Glen Ross” inspired “motivational” speech plays a role. “First Prize for best earning new Doc? A Cadillac Eldorado, Second Prize? Set of Steak Knives, Third Prize? you’re fired!’ (HT “45”)
That’s the first thing about Common-Law Harris-Willie-Brown that I sort of like

Frank “Always be Closing Surgeons, Always be Closing!"

[Brett Bellmore]

I would personally love to see Trump wake up for a moment, realize that in that debate he was looking at his own near future, and present an offer to Biden that they BOTH drop out of the race in favor of younger candidates.

I mean, he's got too much ego to do it, and Democrats have seen to it that he needs to regain control of the DOJ just to stay out of prison. The only reason Biden's even considering it is that his campaign is collapsing. But a guy can dream.

Again I'll suggest that it's time for Republicans and Democrats to agree on a constitutional amendment to put an upper age limit on federal public office. If necessary have it kick in a decade from now, so that current elders wouldn't be giving up their own ambitions or forced into immediate retirement.

[Moderation4ever]

I think you have hit on one important point. Joe Biden will not be the Democratic nominee and the minute the new nominee is selected Trump's age will become an issue. All the scrutiny heaped on Joe Biden will immediately fall on Trump. There is plenty of evidence that Trump himself is too old and all that evidence will move into the spotlight.

[ThePublius]

"There is plenty of evidence that Trump himself is too old...."

I say there isn't. Tell me, what evidence do you detect?

[Brett Bellmore]

In Biden's case the question is whether Biden is even fit to be President today. In Trump's case the question is how likely he is to be fit to be President four years from today. Only TDS sufferers see any indication that Trump is actually suffering from dementia now, but the odds of him falling prey to it within four years are distressingly high.

[Moderation4ever]

I thought Trump had early signs of mental decline in his first term. You can check my past comments. First, he has difficulty putting together anything other than simple sentences and his off the cuff remarks often sound like word salad. Second it is clear he has very little attention span. Briefing had to be oral as he cannot read long complicated passages. He tends to be angry a lot a common feature of people with dementia. I would add that there is a family history of dementia.

[ducksalad]

The counterargument is that he’s always been like that, so you can’t really call it cognitive decline.

Perversely, he also gets the reverse benefit of the doubt on the malice vs. incompetence thing, We call Trump a liar, if it was our elderly bachelor uncle we'd just call him crazy.

[Davedave]

Well, there’s his own words – he’ll be older than Biden is now by the end of the next Presidential term.

There’s also the whole shitting himself in public on a regular basis thing. There’s a good chance he’ll shit himself to death on stage like Schnorbitz before we get to the election.

[Moderation4ever]

Donald Trump has made plenty of mistakes confusing this person for another. He can certainly talk without a teleprompter, but he doesn't make a lot of sense. Trump also does better because he tends to speak in generalities and doesn't get caught up by facts.

[Martinned2]

Trump also does better because he tends to speak in generalities and doesn’t get caught up by facts.

🙂 There's the understatement of the day!

[David Nieporent]

I say there isn’t. Tell me, what evidence do you detect?

The fact that he's incoherent about 90% of the time and gets basic facts mixed up like who people are?

[Michael P]

Trump already served one term as president. He's not going to be running for re-election in 2028, so the fact that Biden muddled through the last four years is evidence that Trump could muddle through the next four.

An amendment imposing a retirement age for elected officials would be good.

[Gasman]

Except that:
1) the DNC plans to hold a nominating vote weeks ahead of the convention to circumvent that happening. Ostensibly it is to sidestep issues with Ohio ballot access. But really they knew that they had to defuse the convention as a possible point of rupture of the unity behind Joe.
2) All of the hundreds of millions in funds for 'reelect Joe and Kamala' are tied up with Joe and Kamala. Joe bows out, and that means Kamala is the controlling party for all that money.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Mike Johnson would stand an assassin’s bullet away from the White House. That might prove all too tempting to a nutjob."

As opposed to all the other nutjobs?!?

We'll never know how many nutjobs are successfully dealt with but I imagine it's a lot.

[David Nieporent]

1) There is not going to be a wide open convention. If Biden drops out for any reason, Harris gets the nod. It's just delusional to think otherwise.

2) If Biden isn't strong enough (mentally or physically) to campaign, he's not strong enough to be president, either; he should resign.

[Josh R]

I disagree with you on the second point because ampaigning requires different skills than governing.

At this point, it is clear Biden isn't an effective campaigner because he cannot quickly express himself, causing him to have senior moments. At the same time, it's quite possible he can govern because he is given more time to think and can overcome senior moments. It's also possible he is too far gone and perhaps likely he will be before another 4 years go by.

[David Nieporent]

it’s quite possible he can govern because he is given more time to think and can overcome senior moments.

I mean, "it's quite possible" he can overcome his lapses is not exactly the argument I'd lead with in favor of him finishing out his term.

Most of what a president does, of course, doesn't require snap decision making. But the things that do are by definition important things.

[Josh R]

I'm fine with what Sanjay Gupta suggested.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, great idea, which he has reacted to in the past with a level of hostility which suggests that he knows damned well that he has a problem.

[Brett Bellmore]

As an argument for finishing out the remaining few months, it's not horrible. As an argument for giving him another 48 months, given the progressive nature of dementia, it is terrifyingly bad.

[Theendoftheleft]

'I see no need for Biden to resign as president prior to the end of his current term'.

This man has some control over a large nuclear arsenal.

[not guilty]

I haven't seen evidence that Joe Biden is incapable of discharging his duties as President.

I do have doubts, developed in recent days, about Biden's ability to defeat Donald Trump in this year's general election. That is why I suggest that he should release his delegates from their pledge of support and allow the Democratic National Convention to nominate someone else.

A second Trump term would be catastrophic.

[Theendoftheleft]

You're not fooling me. So why are you trying to fool yourself?

It's OK, you needn't reply. Perhaps you're overdue for some soul-searching questions, though.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I will try to remember comments such as this one when I am savoring that bacon cheeseburger, shrimp cocktail, crabmeat Hoelzel, and lacquered bacon. The reckoning approaches. But look at the bright side, XY . . . Unlike Netanyahu and Trump, you probably will not die in prison. And Israel’s demise won’t affect you personally if you have enough sense to stay in the United States.

[Commenter_XY]

Cry harder, Arthur. More tears, please. You're just not whining loud enough. Go easy on the cheeseburger, the lactose might be irritating to your bowels. 😉

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Cry? America will get stronger (by defeating its bigoted right-wing assholes) and Israel will be demolished (because it has become a bunch of theocratic, bigoted, immoral right-wing belligerents).

I will celebrate both victories. You will learn to live with even more anger about all of this damned progress.

You will be so sad I might even invite you to share a bacon cheeseburger and some shrimp cocktail. Homemade cocktail sauce!

[Theendoftheleft]

America is falling apart, AIDS. It CANNOT get stronger from here.

And, again, your American liberal-progressive values are dog shit. The secular left, the religious left, the secular right, and the religious right ACROSS THE GLOBE are united in solidarity against your American liberal-progressive values and norms. YOU are losing badly, and you will not recover.

You liberal-progressives have been exposed as totalitarian imperalist fuckwits. No where will be safe for you.

You're doomed, AIDS. Better Americans will also not tolerate you any more. You probably won't even have time to simply die off, and you will not be tolerated abroad if you attempt to flee.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Remember when this guy claimed he wasn’t an antimsemite?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are you genuinely unable to distinguish disdain for bigoted, superstitious, violent, war-criming right-wingers from bigotry, or are you just a flailing conservative attempting to score some partisan points for stale, ugly thinking?

[Theendoftheleft]

AIDS, do you remember the last time you didn’t lie?

Your very mandate now is to try to normalize a bigoted, superstitious, violent, warmongering, imperalistic normative order in America. You accuse others of being ‘phobic’ when its incongruence with modern Western values is pointed out on the merits. You want to MASS import people who harbour exactly such beliefs.

Of course, your secret mandate is to try to secularize, undermine, and destroy that normative order. That, of course, makes you the REAL, MORTAL enemy of all that order's adherents globally.

Regardless, that doesn’t mean that you yourself cannot be called out for pretending to really be opposed to Group A based on its beliefs when you’re desperately trying to normalize and promote inclusion for Group B (which clearly harbours those identified traits).

How will you try to normalize this in America, pray tell:

https://www.counselling-directory.org.uk/memberarticles/the-truth-about-first-cousin-marriages-in-pakistan

[Frank Drackman]

You’ve played too much Foo-Bawl without your helmet, Revolting. I’m a Hebrew and I love me some Bacon, Pulled Pork, Pork Rinds (You can have the Chit’lins and Pig’s Feet)
Just because I had my genitals mutilated and don’t worship a Zombie doesn’t mean I have to be crazy about it, it’s like all the Baptists who think they’re not Homos because they’re the one fucking the guy up the Ass, the Moose-lums who somehow are the drunkest fucks at the Casino, and Catholics who are fine with killing babies (saves them from getting raped by Father Drinian, or umm Jerry Sandusky) and Priests raping Altar Boys,
Don’t worry about my Tribe, Revolting, we’ve beaten tougher fucks than you.

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Your "tribes" have been getting their asses kicked (unless being rescued and subsidized by others) for so long as memories survive.

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, thanks Revolting, what’s your next obvious observation? July in Texas is Hot? Black People have Kinky Hair? Mick Jagger has Big Lips? Parkinsonian Joe has Parkinson’s? Jeez, I’m beginning to think maybe you are Jerry Sandusky. Like that “Twillight Zone” Episode (24hr marathon today on SciFi) where the guy goes back in time to stop John Wilkes Booth, only it’s Booth that stops him. (“Back There” with “The Professor” from Gilligan’s Island playing umm a Professor (talk about being typecast) Remind me to take Penn State off my "Campus Visit" List

Frank

[Theendoftheleft]

Do you think the 6-7 million Zios will flee to New York and turn that state permanently red?

[Don Nico]

Dear C_XY,
Especially if Mr Biden has dementia, it is cruel and unnecessary to call him Drooler Joe and a cauliflower.

As for what he should do do now, I am somewhat ambivalent about his remaining a candidate. However, I am convinced that he should not resign from the Presidency. I have far more confidence in Joe Biden as he will be for the next 6.5v months than I have in Kamela Harris.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Especially if Mr Biden has dementia, it is cruel and unnecessary to call him Drooler Joe and a cauliflower."

You refuse to refer to him properly as President, so who gives a fuck what crocodile tears you shed?

[Don Nico]

Jason,
Mr is his name, fuck off. We don't have royalty or nobles in the US. And lay off the mind raping.
No one cares what you think.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These Volokh-class assholes refer to Mr. Biden and President Trump -- because they're worthless, shambling, bigoted culture war rejects.

Getting their asses kicked by better Americans for more than a half-century has made conservatives cranky, antisocial, disaffected, and for some reason illiterate.

[Life of Brian]

Why, they're just following long-established precedent laid down by our self-proclaimed betters, Artie. One example of many here:

First, NPR's David Greene begins our coverage from the White House.

DAVID GREENE: The president called the nuclear agreement with North Korea unique, although in many respects it parallels another reached in 1994 by President Clinton. In exchange for shutting down its primary reactor, North Korea will be getting economic aid, as it did after the 1994 agreement. But Mr. Bush insisted that what sets this agreement apart is that he's brought other countries, like China and South Korea on board, to help hold Pyongyang accountable.

Seethe harder. And happy 4th!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Perhaps Greene made a mistake. Maybe he was following a convention that uses "President" for a first reference and "Mr." thereafter. Either way, it does nothing to rescue the illiterate, polemically partisan, right-wing assholes who are the target audience of the white, male, downscale Volokh Consspiracy.

[Life of Brian]

Hey, in the spirit of desperately flailing around for some angle to preserve your original talking point, maybe it's Maybelline! LOL

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm sure that you similarly refuse to refer to someone as "Doctor," or "Professor," or "Senator," etc.

None of those things are titles of royalty or nobility. What a pathetic excuse.

[Commenter_XY]

Don Nico, you are right. I have been properly upbraided; I apologize. I will call POTUS Biden by his title.

Neither is a good option; Kamala is least worst now (incredibly).

[Dr. Ed 2]

"The American people will not elect a developing cauliflower. We saw what we saw, one week ago. "

The American people didn't the last time -- it's just that no one is going to believe the rigged results this time because they KNOW that no one voted for the cauliflower, or the bitch.

I was in Maine last weekend, the state is *hurting* in a way it wasn't four years ago and I can see the state (as a whole) voting Trump.
In Southern New England, another retail chain (Bob's Stores) has gone under but it is more noticeable in small-town Maine where the gas station/convenience store has closed and now you have to go to the next town to buy gas. Likewise the local bank.

And this is Central Maine, not Northern Maine.

[John F. Carr]

I liked this piece at Politico for the way it painted everybody as totally selfish and only worried about getting reelected: Governors Undermine Efforts by Congressional Democrats to Nudge Biden Aside. Democratic Governors who want to be president can't have Kamala Harris as the incumbent or heir apparent in 2028. She needs to be on a losing ticket in 2024. Congressmen, on the other hand, can't have a weak top of the ticket dragging them down this year.

I can not speak to the accuracy of Jonathan Martin's assessment. I am sure he has more sources than I do.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Am interesting aspect of the Karen Read Lynching that I wasn't aware of -- she was so distraught upon learning of the death of her purported victim that the police carted her off to the psych ward for an involuntary psych commitment -- that's the reference to "Section 12" that one of the police officers made in his testimony.

Technically, it is 123 MGL 12, the involuntary psych commitment statute, and it is routinely referred to as "Section 12" as the officer did -- here is the statute: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVII/Chapter123/Section12

Now there was a great debate about if she said "I hit him." or "Did I hit him?" -- but if you consider her mentally ill to the extent you are worried about her committing suicide,how is anything she said admissible?

Conversely, and this may be part of what the FBI is pursuing, it appears that the psych ward didn't keep her and hence was this an attempt to discredit the testimony of the person the police intended to frame?

And why couldn't the jury be told that the FBI was paying for her expert witnesses? Personally, that strikes me as a fairly relevant fact, along with rising the question of "why" they were.....

But back to the Section 12 -- if you want to charge vehicular homicide on the basis of her being drunk and operating the vehicle which caused the *unintended* fatality, fine -- if you can prove that her car actually hit him, which is another story.

But (as I understand it) they went with Second Degree Murder -- that she intentionally killed him -- wouldn't Mens Rea apply? And not only did she try to perform CPR but she was so distraught that she's suicidal -- that's intent???

Of course, it's 95% of Massachusetts police officers that make the other 5% look bad -- and you really don't want to be on the roads of the Commonwealth after 8 PM with all these drunken cops about.

[Dr. Ed 2]

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

[not guilty]

"Now there was a great debate about if she said “I hit him.” or “Did I hit him?” — but if you consider her mentally ill to the extent you are worried about her committing suicide, how is anything she said admissible?"

I haven't followed that trial, but was it anything like William Gambini exclaiming "I shot the clerk"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCoRww3Px-g

[Frank Drackman]

The real crime is a babe like her was with a creep like that, wow, now I’m sounding like Reverend Revolting. Not sure what it is with the attraction to Cops/Firemen, my 2 Daughters, Military Pilots, well paid, attractive, tall, athletic, and who do they date? other Pilots? Military Officers? Lawyers?(OK, happy on that one) Doctors? and No, Haters, they're not Rug Munchers (although I'm still holding out hope)
Nope, it’s Manny/Moe/Jack from Pep Boys (OK, that was a one time thing, getting her car fixed, and I guess he was good looking)
it’s always Cops, Motorcycle Mechanics, Firefighters……..
Common Denominator? they’re as close as you can get to “Real Men” now a days

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Getting "blackout" drunk every night is not my definition of manhood. Not beyond age 19 or so....

[Frank Drackman]

Your Ed-jew-ma-cation is showing, Doctor, so who are the ones getting “Blackout” (man, such a dated term, I’ve got to watch “The Lost Weekend” again) Drunk?? In my admittedly skewed experience it’s way more likely to be Doctors, Lawyers, Indian Chiefs(it’s Genetic with them) and yes, “Educators”, working with a hangover than the “Real Man” professions, Cops, Firefighters, Mechanics, and not a character flaw, it’s just much easier to pass gas, file an appeal, conjugate a verb, than put out a 5 Alarm Fire or drop the Tranny on an F-350 when you're "Blotto" (see, I can use archaic terms too)

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

The difference is that cops can drive drunk, apparently every night, with impunity.

[Frank Drackman]

and murder unarmed Veteran’s exercising Constitutional rights in the fucking Capitol, proving that Tommy the J was a Seer, Soothsayer, and Sage, (and also a Slaveowner, watta ya gonna do? it was 18th Century Virginia)

Frank

[ThePublius]

There are several tragedies here. First, it's clear to anyone paying attention to the testimony and evidence that she didn't, she couldn't have killed him with her car. Second, it's abundantly clear that evidence was fabricated to frame her - take the tail light as just one example. Then the destroyed cell phones, the testimony of plow driver Brian “Lucky” Loughran, the text messages and voicemails, and just the timeline.

Then there's that no other suspects are being investigated or pursued for the murder.

What I, and many others think, is that he was beaten and killed in the house and his body dumped outside, and then Karen was framed for this. Period. Evidence was destroyed and planted; the carpets were ripped out of the house and disposed of; then the house was sold; the taillight, which was observed as simply cracked after the car was impounded started magically appearing as first a small amount of fragments at the scene, and then later, more and bigger fragments. No bruises on the body, despite her supposedly going 24mph in reverse(!) when she hit him. Dog bites on his arm. Dog magically disappeared. And on and on.

What a travestry.

[Don Nico]

It is not inconsistent with what MA police have done in the past.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Kinda makes you wonder if O'Keefe stumbled into something -- if this was a deliberate murder and not just a drunken brawl gone bad.

[bernard11]

No. It's not.

They don't just need a new commander, they need a major overhaul, which probably involves firing a lot of people.

[Noscitur a sociis]

First, it’s clear to anyone paying attention to the testimony and evidence that she didn’t, she couldn’t have killed him with her car.

Since you didn’t even pay close enough attention to figure out who the witnesses were, why is it you feel so confident in opining about the ultimate issue?

[ThePublius]

You know, you keep beating that drum, which is inaccurate, and you add zero, materially, to the discussion. I haven't said anything that's not factual. It has, indeed, come out that the FBI paid for some of the witnesses. What's your problem with that, or with me? How about adding something substantive to the conversation, instead of just trolling me?

[John F. Carr]

In Massachusetts there are exceptions to the rule that murder requires intent to kill. I can think of two precedents that apply to hitting somebody with a car.

1. Defendant intentionally ran over the victim but denied specific intent to kill. On appeal the court ruled there was a "plain and strong" likelihood of death and the murder conviction could stand even if the defendant did not subjectively intend to kill.

2. Defendant killed a person while fleeing police. The Appeals Court ruled running a red light during a police chase was enough proof of "malice" in the legal sense. I think this conflicts with other precedents, and with past practice in deadly police chases. It does demonstrate that a traffic accident can be charged as murder.

[Noscitur a sociis]

And why couldn’t the jury be told that the FBI was paying for her expert witnesses?

What is your basis for this claim?

[ThePublius]

Howie Carr's column:

"These expert witnesses were hired by the FBI, and they were being paid, not by Karen Read, but by the feds. Employed by the feds to testify for the defense in a murder case where the victim is a police officer."

[ThePublius]

Boston Herald story:

"The Karen Read murder trial defense team rested their case after a day of three witnesses, including two hired originally by the FBI, said the injuries sustained by victim John O’Keefe and the damage to Read’s SUV were inconsistent with a pedestrian strike, regardless of other evidence."

https://www.bostonherald.com/2024/06/24/karen-read-murder-trial-defense-rests-after-3-witnesses-said-science-does-not-show-vehicle-strike/

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I wonder what day my children will celebrate as their Independence Day from the Democrat/Globalist Deep State Menace?

[Longtobefree]

The twelfth of never?

[Martinned2]

When you read about Labour's landslide victory in today's General Election, remember that they are on track for a vote share that is lower than what either of the main US parties got in pretty much any nationwide election in recent history. They might get about 40%.

However bad first past the post is in the best of times, it's even worse when there are lots of smaller parties running who still take a substantial share of the vote. At the moment we have four parties polling in the double digits (Labour, Tories, Reform, and the LibDems), with a bunch more who take big shares but only in the parts of the country where they field candidates (SNP in Scotland, Plaid Cymru in Wales, and all of the main Northern Irish parties).

[Davedave]

No surprise you support the far right Reform party gaining seats. Scum.

[SRG2]

Owing to the distribution of votes, it is likely that the Reform partei get relatively few seats. What makes you think that Martin wants Reform to do well?

[Martinned2]

Other estimates are available, but you can put Reform down for 15%-20% of the vote, and a maximum of 5 seats: https://electionmaps.uk/nowcast

[Davedave]

Yes, that's right. FPTP doesn't let Reform win seats. He wants a different system to be used, because he wants Reform to win seats, because despite his frequent protestations to the contrary, he's fucking fash.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you actually believed in democracy, rather than just thinking it a system you could get power under, wouldn't you think that Reform should have seats proportional to their public support?

[Martinned2]

I don't know what Davedave said, but for the record I absolutely do, and I think it's outrageous that the Labour leadership ignored the motion at their party conference in 2022 which called for proportional representation.

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/labour-party-conference-backs-proportional-representation/

[Davedave]

The Labour party in 2022 was no longer controlled by Corbynite nutwingers, so obviously opposed their attempt to enable the fash.

[Don Nico]

Easily said but then what candidates are awarded seats. You and I know that will be manipulated by the inner elite of the party. I prefer the transparent method despite its flaws to the partitocracy that is suggested. Italy had that system for decades after 1945, and how did that work out? Not so well.

[Martinned2]

You make a list, before the elections, and candidates get seats in order of their place on the list. Party members can put individual candidates higher or lower on the list, that is the equivalent of a primary in the US, and in the Netherlands voters can vote on any candidate on the list and get them elected directly if they don't like the people higher on the list.

The question is whether the UK would be willing to give up the pastoral care part of the MP's job, which I think is utterly nuts but which Brits are rather attached to. Every MP, up to and including the prime minister, is expected to spend their Friday in their constituency holding court, listening to the complaints of confused people with big stacks of papers who have problems that may or may not have something to do with the government and that the MP may or may not be able to fix.

In many countries they have a halfway solution of some sort, where the constituencies are larger and elect multiple MPs. The UK had 2-MP and 3-MP constituencies too in the past, but got rid of them for some reason.

[John F. Carr]

The USA also used to have multi-member Congressional districts.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not after 1789....

[John F. Carr]

Until the Uniform Congressional District Act of 1967.

[Don Nico]

Martin,
To be sure any system can be made to work.
What you describe is like the old Italian system in which the party elite picking the ordering. My experience seeing Italy "work" makes me disposed not to like that system. So were I in the UK, I'd prefer the first-by-the-post system.
I'd by a ranked-choice system if it was limited to 3 rounds. In Oakland we had an incompetent mayor chosen in round 8. And the counting lasted more than a month. I find that a terrible system.

[Martinned2]

Here in London we used to have a system of first and second choice, until the Tories abolished it.

How did Oakland managed to spend a month counting votes? That's ridiculous. The Irish have an STV system and usually count their votes faster than the Brits do.

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

[Don Nico]

Martin,
The Oakland system required that the electron board would keep taking candidates off the ballot until someone had over 50%. They would only meet a couple of times a week so to get to 9 counts, it took a month. The eventual winner came to the top after the 8th ballot, but it took one more round to get her over 50%.

[Davedave]

What a loony question. FPTP is democracy. There are lots of voting systems. FPTP results in relative sanity compared to PR, which is beloved of extremists who know they have no chance of gaining any seats if they have to persuade normal people to vote for them, and regularly causes chaos in countries that use it.

It's no surprise Fashy Martin supports it.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

It's also no surprise many commenters have you muted, as I do now as well.

[Davedave]

What, because I'm telling you what the mainstream believes? Not surprised Volokh commenters don't like hearing just how batshit insane their beliefs make them.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Gray box says what?

[SRG2]

Do you apply that argument to the US as well?

[Don Nico]

I think that your analysis is correct. Evidently Labour can get 70% of the seats in Parliament. And yet, some commenters (K_2, for example) complain about undemocratic the EC is.
Every system has flaws. One has to live with it and stop whining that the EC and US Senate are undemocratic.

[Martinned2]

Every system has flaws, but some systems have more flaws than others. So arguing that the flaws should be fixed is exactly what we should be doing, and then the question is whether the proposed alternative is better or worse than the status quo.

[Davedave]

No-one except the unelectable thinks there are flaws with FPTP. PR is for people who believe that if you can manage to find a few thousand malcontents and useful idiots out of a population of almost 70 million, you should get a seat in Parliament. FPTP is the mainstream choice precisely because it prevents that, as you well know. But, gotta lie to fash.

[Don Nico]

I don't argue with that except that the fixes might be difficult if not practically impossible to implement.
But the most important thing is for voters to get off their asses and work for their preferred candidates.

[Martinned2]

The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. In this delicate and important circumstance of personal, the President of Confederated America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New York, and upon worse ground than the governors of Maryland and Delaware.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Wow, you can quote things and stuff.

That's a good boy, I give you an A for today's "quoting things and stuff" assignment!

Good boy.

[darkknight9]

What a debate!

#TeamCashew

🙂

[darkknight9]

We haven't had a presidential pardon for a president since I was a kid. Now that the presidential cycle of people looking the other way so the next guy doesn't come after you is broken, do you think we're going to see another pardon so our nation can 'heal'?

[Commenter_XY]

No.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Why would Biden undo all this work his handlers have orchestrated?

[Frank Drackman]

Milhouse was pardoned before he was indicted for anything, I can see the same happening for Comatose Joe, if by some miracle he's still producing CO2 on January 20, 2025. That open mouth expression Joe had during the debate? sure sign of a CO2 retainer, which is nearly as good an Anesthetic as Nitrous Oxide.

Frank

[Michael P]

Yes. I think Donald will pardon Joe so that Joe can live out his remaining months with the skilled nursing help that he clearly needs.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sharing a room with Jimmy Carter?

[Dr. Ed 2]

BOP is building nursing facilities for its aging population.

Seriously...

[PaulS]

Isn't the bigger question whether presidents will start issuing blanket pardons to all their cabinet and advisors prior to leaving office

[Frank Drackman]

62 years ago today, Yours Truly arrived kicking and screaming (actually sleeping, they still used General Anesthesia for Childbirth in 1962) at Crawford Wong Hospital in Hot-lanta Jaw Jaw, inspiring “The King” to his first top 10hit after his "Comeback Tour" in 1968
As the Crow flies
On a not and gray Atlanta mornin’
A poor little baby child is born
In the ghetto
(In the ghetto)
And his mama cries
‘Cause if there’s one thing that she don’t need
It is another hungry mouth to feed
In the ghetto
(In the ghetto)
People, don’t you understand
The child needs a helping hand
Or he’ll grow to be an angry young man some day

Frank “is all of this for me? you shouldn’t have”

[Moderation4ever]

It is interesting that the song was written by a Texan Morris Mac Davis and not necessary about a minority child but rather a look at the life of a poor person growing up. I think when Elvis covered the song we thought of some poor black youth, but it could be anyone in poverty. Not my favorite Elvis song, but it has been made into some good covers.

BTW - Happy Birthday

[Davedave]

Ghettos are overwhelmingly populated by
minorities - that's what makes them ghettos, by definition. Your attempt to pretend that's not what the song is about speaks about you, not about the song.

[Frank Drackman]

Actually the "Ghettos" in Atlanta were more intergrated in 1962 than they are today, only white peoples there now are the suckers (mostly Homos) thinking they're going to "Gentrify" the place.

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These bigots are your target audience, your fans, and your defenders -- and the reason your latitude has changed in UCLA's favor.

[Frank Drackman]

Changes in Latitudes, Changes in Attitudes
Nothing remains quite the same, With all of our running and all of our cunning If we couldn’t laugh we would all go insane.
Yeah, Fuck your Limey Stones! more Philosophy in any random Jimmy Buffet (Auburn Student (for a year anyway) BTW) Lyric than the “Worlds Greatest Rock & Roll Band(really? Exaggerate much? better than the Beatles? The Doors? Deep Purple? Blue Oyster Cult”)’s entire Discography. (OK, I do like "Sympathy for the Devil" Guns N Roses version, it's literally "One in a Million")

Frank “She’s a real beauty, This Mexican Cutie, How she got here I haven’t a Clue” (for years I heard it that way, I think it’s better actually, but Jimmy B never asked me)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I liked Jimmy Buffett. Had a couple of his CDs; enjoyed a Cheeseburger in Paradise singalong while eating cheeseburgers and driving through Paradise (which doesn't even have so much as a hamburger stand) with my children as much as I enjoyed singing Route 66 with the family while driving along Route 66 and pulling into the Route 66 Diner.

The guy had a few enjoyable hits but was mostly a money-making machine strumming baby chords to the beat (4/4, of course) for crowds of drunks. He was a brand -- and a hell of a brand, although his family might have been as important to that front than he was; I know someone who negotiated a huge branding deal involving Buffett, whose involvement consisted of signing the documents --- more than a band, and he'll be replaced soon enough by the likes of Kenny Chesney, the Zac Brown Band, or some other twanging hillbilly, bringing an even more downscale crowd to the sheds for a blackout singalong each summer.

Buffett entertained many people, had a few nifty songs, and earned piles of cash. I hope he enjoyed a good life. But he wasn't fit to tune a real guitarist's instrument -- I would expect to learn Keith Richards' guitar tech is a better player -- and does not belong in any sentence with the Rolling Stones that involves artistry rather than earnings.

[Frank Drackman]

“Few Nifty Songs”? Yeah, and Hemingway had a “Few Nifty Stories”, Sandy Koufax could pitch a bit, Tom Brady can run a 2 minute drill, Comatose Joe doesn’t say something stupid every single sentence…
OK, Revolting, this doesn’t mean we’re going to take long, passionate showers together, but on our Nations (and more importantly My) Birthday I guess I can share a virtual Margarita with you (Mine really is Virtual because I substitute Bourbon for Tequila) Anyone who likes JB (I like to listen to JB while drinking J&B) can't be all bad

Frank

[Bwaaah]

Frankie and...I can't...I avert my eyes.

On your birthday?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Appalachia...

[Frank Drackman]

Me and my Uncle Sammy, give us a few hundred billion Somalians and turn us loose in Atlantic City?, Fuggedaboutit!

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

Happy Birthday Dr. Frank (belated)

[Stephen Lathrop]

I think it ought to be evident by now that attempts to try Trump at any time, let alone prior to the election, will never be permitted by this corrupt Supreme Court. No legal principle will stand against the Court's determination to protect Trump, whatever comes. No evidence strong enough to convict Trump will be admitted for consideration by the justices. No deference to any case from below will be forthcoming. The justices will permit to be subpoenaed no witnesses with insider knowledge competent to prove Trump guilty. Any particular objects argued by the prosecution will be answered with SCOTUS rulings that all the privileges and immunities belong to Trump, and none to prosecutors acting on behalf of People of the United States.

Having begun by ignoring precedent and the Constitution itself, to make up out of whole cloth a doctrine of immunity for Trump, the Court has committed itself to keep making stuff up until Trump has prevailed against every challenge. And that is what these lawless justices will do if left unchecked by law.

Hence, the Court itself is corrupt. The only remedy left to the People is to prosecute the corrupt Court majority which violated its oaths of office, and traduced the Constitution for the corrupt purpose to support Trump in his attempted insurrection against the United States. The law against insurrection at 18 U.S. Code § 2383 states:

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

The corrupt members of the SCOTUS majority—including at least Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh—have announced in public cause to prove they assisted Trump's attempted rebellion against the authority of the United States. A federal grand jury is empowered to take notice of that on its own initiative, and to indict accordingly.

If a grand jury indicts, it will require the cooperation of the Biden Justice Department to complete a prosecution. No other legal course is left open. The stakes for the nation not only to let these crimes go unpunished, but also to let ongoing insurrection continue, are too high.

If the members of the corrupt Court majority are convicted, they can be removed from office and replaced. From the moment of their indictment they will become ineligible to sit in judgment on any case regarding either Trump or themselves. The balance of the Court will have to decide any legal questions which arise in the course of Trump's prosecutions, or the prosecutions of indicted justices.

The following excerpts are from the Handbook for Federal Grand Jurors, found at http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov. They explain an institutional basis which permits a grand jury to initiate a prosecution against members of the SOCTUS majority. As noted both above and in the excerpts themselves, to complete any prosecution would require cooperation from the Biden Justice Department. Here are the excerpts which explain for the benefit of newly recruited grand jurors the independence of a federal grand jury from government control:

Over the years, the hallmarks of our modern grand jury developed in England. For example, grand jury proceedings became secret, and the grand jury became independent of the Crown. As a result, a grand jury is able to vote an indictment or refuse to do so, as it deems proper, without regard to the recommendations of judge, prosecutor, or any other person. This independence from the will of the government was achieved only after a long hard fight.

When the English colonists came to America, they brought with them many of the institutions of the English legal system, including the grand jury. Thus, the English tradition of the grand jury was well established in the American colonies long before the American Revolution. Indeed, the colonists used it as a platform from which to assert their independence from the pressures of colonial governors. In 1735, for example, the Colonial Governor of New York demanded that a grand jury indict for libel John Zenger, editor of a newspaper called The Weekly Journal, because he had held up to scorn certain acts of the Royal Governor. The grand jury flatly refused.

The grand jury as an institution was so firmly established in the traditions of our forebears that they included it in the Bill of Rights.

The grand jury is not completely free to compel a trial of anyone it chooses. The government attorney must sign the indictment before a party may be prosecuted. Thus, the government and the grand jury act as checks on each other. This assures that neither may arbitrarily wield the awesome power to indict a person of a crime.

As stated above, the federal grand jury’s function is to determine whether the person being investigated by the government shall be tried for a serious federal crime alleged to have been committed within the district where it sits. Matters may be brought to its attention in three ways: (1) by the government attorney; (2) by the court that impaneled it; and (3) from the personal knowledge of a member of the grand jury or from matters properly brought to a member’s personal attention.

It is number (3) in the list above which explains that a grand jury enjoys capacity to act on its own initiative to investigate, deliberate, and hand down an indictment against anyone, including a Supreme Court Justice, who the members of the grand jury have determined has likely committed an infamous crime. Neither the justice system, nor any other part of government has authority to prevent that.

As noted above, the language, "Thus, the government and the grand jury act as checks on each other," states clearly the independent position, outside of government and independent of it, which the Fifth Amendment decreed for the grand jury.

No doubt the argument above will strike many readers of this blog as dubious, or even outlandish. Insofar as modern experience is concerned, there may be cause for that inclination. In more-recent times independent action by grand juries has been uncommon, and perhaps even suppressed by government. In the longer historical context of this nation—as the Handbook makes clear—there is nothing dubious about it. It lies squarely in the nation's legal tradition—recognized as a bedrock principle of sovereignty, and of American constitutionalism, by America's founders. The present ongoing constitutional crisis is an appropriate circumstance to renew that older tradition.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

These tears are so yummy

[ThePublius]

You are truly unhinged. Wow.

[Brett Bellmore]

No kidding. He basically wants to extend lawfare to the judiciary, in order to have a pretext for a coup against them when they refuse to cooperate.

We're definitely living in 'interesting times', but I don't think they're quite that interesting yet.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Who better than a Supreme Court justice to understand that when someone resists an indictment, what happens next is not called a refusal to cooperate. It is called an arrest.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is he unhinged enough to be kicked off campus?

[ThePublius]

"The present ongoing constitutional crisis is an appropriate circumstance to renew that older tradition."

There is no "present ongoing constitutional crisis," unless someone decides to create one by an executive usurpation or takeover of the judiciary.

[John F. Carr]

The post reminded me of the grand jury investigating Rocky Flats.

Ultimately, [grand jurors] decided that eight individuals should be indicted for environmental crimes — five from Rockwell and three from the DOE. But in November 1991, then-U.S. Attorney for Colorado Mike Norton told the jurors that he wouldn’t sign any indictment naming a DOE or Rockwell employee.

https://www.westword.com/news/rocky-flats-nuclear-plant-shut-down-thirty-years-ago-but-is-still-a-hot-topic-11437949

[Martinned2]

That's a tricky one. In criminal law the system should be biased in favour of *not* prosecuting people. So the fact that the prosecutor and the grand jury both need to agree to prosecute someone is basically OK. But there does need to be some kind of safety valve.

In the UK, it is (theoretically) possible to bring a private prosecution. In the Netherlands, the code of criminal procedure includes a procedure where by victims (or other interested parties) can ask the court of appeals to order a prosecution, which seems to be used about the right amount. (I.e. a fair bit, but not so often that the whole court system grinds to a halt.)

I'm not sure how the US states' and federal criminal justice system handle this issue.

[John F. Carr]

In my state the limit of my rights is having an application for a criminal complaint decided by a magistrate. The prosecutor can not be forced to try the case.

In a few states people have the right to act as private prosecutors in misdemeanor cases. I remember a story about somebody charging a cop in (or near) Oregon and getting tripped up on a technicality that the court might have overlooked if it was a police officer going after a civilian. I think Pennsylvania also allows or allowed the practice.

[Martinned2]

In the UK private prosecutions have lots of hurdles, including the cost and the fact that you need permission from the magistrates (as any prosecution would, except somehow in practice private prosecutions are held against a higher bar).

The only real example is the private prosecution of Boris Johnson for misconduct in public office in 2019 (i.e.. while he was prime minister). In that case the district judge agreed to issue a summons, and but Johnson got the summons quashed on judicial review in the High Court: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2019ewhc-1709-admin-johnson-v-westminster-mags-final.pdf

(Misconduct in public office is, of course, the opposite of US v. Trump, insofar as it's a crime that can only be committed by people who hold public office. But after that 2019 judgment I don't think we have to worry about too many prosecutions in that area going forward.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Can't you appeal that though?

[John F. Carr]

In Massachusetts a private complainant may not appeal. The law giving persons the right to request a criminal complaint has been construed to give no more than the right to request a complaint. The last precedent I remember involved a business out near Worcester trying to prosecute customers for writing bad checks. The magistrate refused to let the cases proceed. There was no problem with the facts or the law. The magistrate didn't want the cases in his court. A court of last resort, whether it be a magistrate in Massachusetts or the Supreme Court of the United States or the Nuremberg Tribunal, has the power to act arbitrarily.

[ducksalad]

This is all fantasy, but just to play along, let’s say you managed to do enough public incitement and mischaracterization of SC rulings to persuade a runaway grand jury to issue an indictment.

Step two is that a US attorney has to take up the case. This attorney will be well aware that federal judges are at the very top of the immunity stack; their immunity makes anything they’ve granted the POTUS pale by comparison. This attorney will also be well aware that his own immunity is part of the package, and that abrogating it would leave him personally at risk of being counter-arrested right after the next election. But just to play along, let’s say you find some US attorney who is so corrupt and/or lacking in self-awareness that he is willing to take up the case.

Now you get to Step 3, the hardest of all. Persuading a US district judge to rule that US district judges can be imprisoned for making decisions people disagree with. The judge is well aware that roughly 50% of the people appearing in his court disagree with his decisions. You won’t get past Step 3, but let’s just say you shopped for that one rogue judge. Then you get to Step 3A, in which you need to convince a whole panel of circuit court judges of the same thing. Good luck with that. And Step 3B, when the issue gets to the SC itself. Sure, they should recuse, but part of your fantasy is that they’re irredeemably corrupt so by your own logic you’d lose at Step 3B.

But let’s just say you got to Step 4, the trial. You’re trying to prove some kind of vast conspiracy to overthrow the government. Frankly, even though it’s nonsense, this step is not the hardest since you can engineer the jury selection. Let’s give you a pass on this one.

And now Step 5 – they’re convicted. So what? Removal from office is not automatic, there would have to be an impeachment. If you had the votes for an impeachment, all your preceding grand jury scheme is unnecessary, if you don;t have the votes, it’s irrelevant. The most you could do is imprison the Republican appointees (let’s be clear about what you want here), but then there is no quorum.

With no quorum, their prior decisions can’t be overturned. Plan failed.

——–

Postscript, Step 6 – after the failed attempt, you yourself are arrested for inciting an insurrection with the intent to overthrow the SC, which is just as serious as going after Congress or the POTUS.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Ducksalad — The part about the impeachment I don't get. Why doesn't conviction under 18 U.S. Code § 2383 take care of that?

Otherwise, this all happens in the DC circuit. Where the judges seem not to think the way you do. Including the DC circuit panel, which has already been corruptly overruled in the Trump case.

As for me, of course I understand that we now verge on a corrupt, no-justice, retribution-for-you, immunity-for-me world. That implies we all take a bit of a chance even to post comments here. The notion is to do what we can to make that better, by confronting with constitutional and political institutions the abusers trying to wreck American constitutionalism.

What kind of American are you, by the way? One in favor of ditching the Constitution, like the corrupt 5 on SCOTUS just did?

But risk aside, it would take appalling legal malfeasance for an oath-sworn Article III judge to suppose he or she had any criminal jurisdiction at all over a grand jury. Literally 8 centuries of English and American jurisprudence stand against that notion. Did you just skip over the excerpts from the federal grand jury Handbook?

I get that some judges in Texas might not hesitate. I doubt such atrocious abuse would happen in the DC circuit.

[ducksalad]

The part about the impeachment I don’t get. Why doesn’t conviction under 18 U.S. Code § 2383 take care of that?

I assume you’re referring to the disqualification clause in 2383, and assuming it just executes itself. While you’re free to (ineffectually) disagree, the general consensus is that the constitution allows only one method to remove a federal judge, and that is impeachment. Congress can’t evade that by writing a law that supersedes the constitution. And therefore, in the case of a federal judge, that clause has to be read as merely creating a cause for impeachment. BTW, that’s a completely different issue from criminal immunity.

Going back to your more general idea, you seem to have a very expansive view of what a grand jury does and its importance. You seem to believe that the most vicious partisans, unfazed by the constitution, the law, or public opinion, will suddenly cower with awe at the prospect of a grand jury indictment. In reality many politicians (e.g. our own Ken Paxton) hold office and operate at full throttle while under indictment…..for years at a time.

I sort of admire the underdog spirit that wants to believe some small group of sovereign citizens can singlehandedly bring down the Supreme Court. But (a) there are good reasons we don’t do it that way, and (b) if it was going to work somebody it would have invoked it in 1803, 1857, 1942, 1973, etc when SC decisions way more controversial and important than this one were made.

What kind of American are you, by the way?

Happy Independence Day to you, too.

[Stephen Lathrop]

While you’re free to (ineffectually) disagree, the general consensus is that the constitution allows only one method to remove a federal judge, and that is impeachment. Congress can’t evade that by writing a law that supersedes the constitution. And therefore, in the case of a federal judge, that clause has to be read as merely creating a cause for impeachment. BTW, that’s a completely different issue from criminal immunity.

Got anything to show you are not just making stuff up?

Making stuff up on my own, I note that constitutionally justices serve on good behavior. That cannot be read as a presumption of good behavior regardless of conduct. 18 U.S. Code § 2383 defines a particularly egregious form of bad behavior.

[not guilty]

A federal grand jury does have the authority to find a presentment on its own initiative. Prosecution of any such presentment would be the responsibility of the Department of Justice.

That having been said, the members of SCOTUS issuing a judicial decision, even one which is demonstrably wrong, is not a federal crime.

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty — I do not suggest the corrupt SOCTUS 5 should be charged criminally for their decision in the Trump immunity case. As mentioned above, the federal criminal statute posited for the charge is 18 U.S. Code § 2383.

The question whether the Justices have been sufficiently in league with insurrectionists, or have become insurrectionists themselves, would be a question for the grand jury to deliberate before bringing an indictment. Whether the justices would be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt after a trial in which most of the evidence was not blocked by a bogus immunity claim—a claim which presumably Trump might continue to benefit from, but not the justices themselves—would be a question of fact for the jury to decide. Presumably any justices who were convicted might appeal to the Supreme Court, where the balance of their colleagues would be positioned to lend a sympathetic ear.

[Michael Ejercito]

Unless you have SCOTUS justice unambiguously caught on video giving a bag of cash to Hamas, none of them will be prosecuted for insurrection.

[ducksalad]

Even that wouldn't insurrection. Merely aid to a terrorist organization.

[not guilty]

Such a hypothetical charge would likely not survive a motion to dismiss. In fact, it would not surprise me for the government to move to dismiss under Fed.R.Crim.P. 48(a).

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty — Do you suggest that a motion to dismiss would be granted on the basis of law alone, without regard for the strength of the case made by the indictment? If so, how would that differ from a court nullification of the grand jury power announced in the 5A?

Please help me with information about the standards and presumptions at play when a judge considers a motion to dismiss.

[not guilty]

On a motion to dismiss an indictment, the allegations of the indictment must be taken as true. Boyce Motor Lines v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 343 n.16 (1952). The same requirement would apply to a presentment. An indictment or information must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged and must be signed by an attorney for the government. Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(c)(1). Except for the signature of an attorney for the government, these requirements would apply to a presentment as well.

If the facts averred in the charging instrument, taken as true, do not make out a violation of a federal criminal statute, the court should grant a motion to dismiss.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Thank you. That was what I expected hear. So if I understand you, the likelihood of success for a motion to dismiss an indictment which was signed by an attorney for the government would depend on the strength of the indictment.

[not guilty]

No. The strength of the indictment is not a consideration. If the facts, taken as true, make out the essential elements of the offense — whether those facts are strongly supported or marginally supported — the indictment stands. If not, the court should grant a motion to dismiss.

A court will not second guess an indictment by examining the reliability or competence of the evidence presented to the grand jury, See United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 54 (1992). "An indictment returned by a legally constituted and unbiased grand jury, like an information drawn by the prosecutor, if valid on its face, is enough to call for trial of the charge on the merits." Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363 (1956) (footnote omitted).

[Stephen Lathrop]

Thanks again.

Then on what basis suppose a grand jury indictment of a Supreme Court justice would be lucky to survive a motion to dismiss? Anything but pure legal cynicism?

[David Nieporent]

1) Because what you've been proposing is not a "legally constituted … grand jury."

2) Because what you're describing doesn't fit the statute. On a motion to dismiss an indictment (as with other motions to dismiss), the court considering the motion assumes the factual allegations are true; it does not assume the legal conclusions are.

[not guilty]

“Then on what basis suppose a grand jury indictment of a Supreme Court justice would be lucky to survive a motion to dismiss? Anything but pure legal cynicism?”

Because there is not a federal criminal statute prohibiting what the Supreme Court justices have done. You cite to 18 U.S.C. § 2383, but that statute doesn’t fit the justices’ conduct that you describe.

And when the Court in Costello referenced "a legally constituted and unbiased grand jury," it included a footnote (which I omitted upthread) citing a case wherein blacks had been systematically excluded from the grand jury list. I surmise that that is the (illegally constituted) exception that illustrates the rule.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

If Trump was on the bench, y'all would figure out an creative interpretation to make it a crime.

Trump Law 101.

[Kazinski]

They didn't have evidence to charge Trump with insurrection, how are they going to charge the Supreme Court?

And remember the Supreme Court in Anderson said quite plainly that Trump could be charged and disqualified from office under 18 U.S. Code § 2383.

Your question should be: Why did Smith and Garland charge Trump in 2021 with insurrection?* Why did they wait until the middle of 2023 for to file charges that wouldn't even disqualify Trump from office?

* I think its because they didn't have any evidence, but if you want to go full conspiracy then its because they figured Trump would be the easier GOP candidate to beat if he were encumbered by multiple criminal charges in 4 jurisdictions.

They are the ones that should be prosecuted if anyone.

[Stephen Lathrop]

They didn’t have evidence to charge Trump with insurrection, how are they going to charge the Supreme Court?

Kazinsky — They would charge the justices on the basis of any evidence they can turn up during their investigation. Given that 5 of the suspects under examination would not be former-POTUS Trump, and given that no bogus immunity claim exists to shield the corrupt SCOTUS 5, I expect the investigation would have access to more insider evidence than the special counsel succeeded in getting previously.

Of course if a grand jury cannot get evidence to justify an indictment, they should not bring one.

But note the standard for a grand jury indictment is lower than the standard the Justice Department has typically used to sign off on an indictment. Whatever the Justice Department might previously have thought was a likelihood of criminal conduct—but not up to the standard necessary to prosecute an ex-president—would get opportunity for reconsideration in light of new evidence and changed circumstances.

For instance, could it not make a difference if one of the suspect justices decided to cooperate with the grand jury, and had notable tales to tell of cooperative legal planning among the Trump campaign, and one or more justices of the Court? Or perhaps evidence of communications via a spouse of a justice?

Could you rule out that Ginni Thomas might have occasion to consider whether her conduct to promote the Capitol insurrection created legal vulnerabilities for her husband and his associates that the grand jury should know about? That seems not to be an avenue of investigation the special counsel was bold enough to explore.

We can only speculate. It would be a new investigation, recast in a different context.

My personal belief is that the former charges were in some measure an expression of frustration that too many witnesses had been bribed to silence, would not cooperate in expectation that presidential power would shortly rescue them, or were empowered to hide behind executive privilege to dodge subpoenas. That might not continue to be true in the changed circumstance where Trump was joined under investigation by 5 justices with their own stakes in the outcome.

There would also be the question whether outsiders with money to offer, including those paying off Thomas and Alito, could shed light on their cases, and also on Trump’s case. So far as we have been told, I do not recall any hint of special counsel examinations of the various masters of the various money machines which apparently played roles in the Capitol affair. Perhaps the money machine masters were themselves nexuses of communication between the Court and the sprawling Trump effort to retain power. That seems almost likely to me, but who knows what could be proved.

I thought the Justice Department investigation and charging decisions showed all along less energy and determination than the situation warranted, and I said so all along. I have never thought your assertions that weak prosecution implied a weak case got support from any evidence I could see. I still do not think that. I think bad tactics and reluctance to be called too political accounted for both the delay, and the weak and too-complicated charging decisions.

As we see now, all that made the government’s case vulnerable, instead of securing it. On that I think we agree.

I will just mention in closing that I do not think Trump’s right wing defenders who comment on this blog are nearly as convinced he has been unjustly attacked as they say. I think most of them, like nearly everyone else, expect fair trials would convict Trump. If his champions had thought all along Trump was innocent, their advocacy would logically have been on behalf of early trials, and deserved acquittals. We have seen none of that.

[Kazinski]

I might ask why they would be investigating without any credible allegation of a crime?

It seems you want to investigate them because you don’t like their opinions.

But impeachment at least is always on the table.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I think it ought to be evident by now that attempts to try Trump at any time, let alone prior to the election, will never be permitted by this corrupt Supreme Court."

Maybe next time try not transparently delaying charging a candidate in order to make sure the trial occurs while they're running for the highest office in the country? All of Trump's present legal difficulties could have been imposed a year or more earlier, and already be disposed of, if it hadn't been intended to handicap him as a candidate.

"Having begun by ignoring precedent and the Constitution itself, to make up out of whole cloth a doctrine of immunity for Trump,"

Now, to be fair, I agree about the "and the Constitution itself" part; Immunity for anybody but members of Congress, (And quite limited for them!) is totally atextual. OTHO, 2 1/2 centuries of NOT engaging in lawfare against Presidents present or past does sort of look like precedent.

The real problem here is that the Court has a great deal of difficulty seeing a problem, and not wanting to fix it, even if fixing it is somebody else's job.

We saw that in 2000, when the Florida legislature was preparing to send the legally certified slate of electors to Congress regardless of what their rogue supreme court was doing, (And making preparations to start impeaching those justices.) where Congress would, by Constitutional design, do the work of deciding to go with the slate elected on election night, or the slate the Florida supreme court was busy trying to engineer.

They just can't let things work themselves out and be solved by others.

But they're not wrong that lawfare is becoming a very serious problem in American politics.

So, now you want to subject the Court to that lawfare, too. So as to have a pretext for packing the Court.

I doubt they'll cooperate in that, is the next step an executive coup against the judiciary?

[Michael Ejercito]

In order to have gotten a purely textual ruling in Trump v. United States, the Department of Justice would have to argue for the overturning of a large swath pf precedents recognizing immunity for various officials- including prosecutors.

It would take a very principled prosecutor to argue that the Supreme Court's immunity jurisprudence was all wrongly decided, and should be overturned by the Supreme Court (as federal prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity)

[not guilty]

"In order to have gotten a purely textual ruling in Trump v. United States, the Department of Justice would have to argue for the overturning of a large swath pf precedents recognizing immunity for various officials- including prosecutors."

What do you surmise such precedents to be? Judges and prosecutors have never been held to be immune from criminal prosecution. See, e.g., Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 31 (1980); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 429 (1976); O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 503 (1974).

[SRG2]

At least we'll never again hear conservatives criticise a Constitutional interpretation as going against the text or the intent, right?

[Martinned2]

Indeed, or a President who acts with impunity without worrying about constitutional constraints.

[Brett Bellmore]

Um, haven't I done so repeatedly? I suppose you could say that I'm not really a conservative, though, just a right-libertarian.

[Martinned2]

We could say that, but your comments on this blog over the years don't really substantiate the "libertarian" aspect. "Right-authoritarian" seems more appropriate.

[Brett Bellmore]

OK, have I not repeatedly said that there is no textual basis for Presidential immunity, and that, so far as I am concerned, that settles the matter?

I can understand why the Court would want to create such immunity anyway, but that it would be a good idea isn't enough for me to override the complete absence of any textual basis.

I get the impression that you're confusing "authoritarian" and "refusing to create novel positive rights", and maybe "government is entitled to dictate government speech, even if government employees don't like it".

[Michael P]

No TRUE conservative believes that kind of thing, naturally. Clearly, Martinned has his finger on exactly what American conservatives really believe.

[Martinned2]

After 20 years on VC I understand American conservatives just fine. They are "conservative" in the same way that American liberals are "liberal". Y'all seem to have trouble with nomenclature.

[Davedave]

That's fucking rich coming from you, fash.

[Martinned2]

OK, have I not repeatedly said that there is no textual basis for Presidential immunity, and that, so far as I am concerned, that settles the matter?

Except that your writings (e.g. the very next thing you wrote below) seem to suggest that that doesn't settle the matter.

I get the impression that you’re confusing “authoritarian” and “refusing to create novel positive rights”, and maybe “government is entitled to dictate government speech, even if government employees don’t like it”.

You seem to be confusing "libertarian" with "the government should stay out of my business but otherwise the country can burn for all I care". The whole point of libertarianism, if the word means anything, is that the government should stay out of *everybody's* business.

[Ed Grinberg]

"The whole point of libertarianism, if the word means anything, is that the government should stay out of *everybody’s* business."
Sounds right. But, I don't get it: what did Brett ever say that contradicts this?

[Kazinski]

To Europeans staying out of everyone's business is modern fascism.

Its nanny statism to the max, they want to be treated like children and have all their decisions made for them.

If you watch the BBC or SKY news, their replete with stories about one hardship or another where the authorities "let them down'. They've lost all self initiative and responsibility.

Not that, I am saying we are much better, we just aren't as far a long on the curve.

Government expenditures by GDP:
United States 36.26
France 58.34
Japan 44.09
United Kingdom 44.3
Sweden 47.32
Spain 47.11
Italy 56.74
South Africa 32.47
India 28.62
Australia 38.08

[Martinned2]

Libertarianism is a perfectly coherent approach to thinking about the government and the individual. It isn't mine, and it isn't the ideology of most people who comment on this blog, but it is a thing that exists, yes.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Except that your writings (e.g. the very next thing you wrote below) seem to suggest that that doesn’t settle the matter."

Sure, it doesn't settle the matter so far as the Supreme court is concerned. Just me.

[Commenter_XY]

Well if we are talking about appropriate labels, martinned2...

[Moderation4ever]

I have to go with Martinned2 here Brett. Any libertarian is going to be concerned that more power is being given to the executive branch.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I am. I'm just not blinding myself to the fact that this is largely a reaction to a novel campaign of lawfare against a former President. The Court would never have gone there without it, they wouldn't have had occasion to.

[Martinned2]

QED

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — You have also blinded yourself to the fact there has been no novel campaign of lawfare against Trump. The evidence which indicted Trump repeatedly came almost entirely from his closest associates, from erstwhile Republican allies, or from Trump's own public utterances. After a president publicly exhorts and supports a mob which is actually in process of trying to hunt down and kill his vice president, lawfare accusations have long-since stopped making sense.

[Moderation4ever]

I have to agree with you. The evidence is there and if Trump sails free on what he has done it will be a technical acquittal and nothing else. Like the dealer who has his backyard shed full of drugs, but they can't be used as evidence because the warrant was for searching the house did not include out buildings.

[Frank Drackman]

Such Bullshit, that poor excuse for a “Gallows” wouldn’t have supported even Pencil-Neck Adam Schitt’s puny weight, much less Doughy Mike Pence, it’s a perfect example of jobs Amuricans can’t do anymore in the 1800’s a couple of guys could erect (haha) an elaborate Gallows in a few hours (at least on “Bonanza” or “Gunsmoke” why didn’t they just build one and maintain it?) but now? So next my “Garfield” stuck on the windshield ” will be Animal Cruelty?

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

...and like the Jan. 5/6 pipe bombs the the F(ucking) B(umbling) I(diots) haven't been able to determine who built it.

[Michael Ejercito]

When did Trump tell any mob to kill a vice president?

[bernard11]

I’m just not blinding myself to the fact that this is largely a reaction to a novel campaign of lawfare against a former President.

What is novel is the degree of criminality of Trump.

And as for the delays, an awful large part of them had to do with Trump filing absurd motions, and with utterly ridiculous delays imposed by Cannon in the Mar-a-Lago case, which began in early 2022 with the National Archives complaining that Trump was not cooperating in handing over documents.

(Yeah. I know. He was "negotiating" - one of many absurd defenses you like to bring out.)

[Brett Bellmore]

He couldn't file motions until the charges were brought, Bernard.

[bernard11]

Brett,

I am aware that you think all the charges against Trump are BS. You've said so often enough.

But the fact is you're full of crap. Your various defenses of your cult hero's behavior are laughable - "he was negotiating with the National Archives," "the fraudulent electors were just a contingency," "he has the right to have his own people "investigate" election fraud, based on crap for evidence and despite all sorts of recounts and lawsuits.

Look. You have your head miles up Trump's ass. Nothing you say about the charges against him can be taken seriously. Get over it.

[Kazinski]

Perhaps, but lets not forget legislatures can be a totalitarian as monarchs or chief justices. Lets not forget Cromwell's
Long Parliament nor the French Red terror.

And it was a pure democracy than passed sentence on Socrates.

[Frank Drackman]

Funny how the D's have finally caught the Cat but are too big of Pussies (get it?) to put a bell on him

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Happy Independence Day.

(Also, Happy Birthday to Dr. Frank)

[Mr. Bumble]

Forgot to thank FJB for high gas prices. Locally prices went up $.10/gal. overnight.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"high gas prices. Locally prices went up $.10/gal. overnight."

We did that only in the Republican backwaters. In the modern, educated, productive communities, gas prices were reduced by a dime a gallon.

I didn't get the memo yet on whether this was precipitated by something the clingers did or perhaps just a random slap at the bigoted and worthless among us, which we occasionally do simply because he can.

Winning a culture war has advantages.

[Frank Drackman]

Of course Gas is cheap in your "Neighborhood" Revolting
https://www.pa.gov/en/agencies/cor/state-prisons/sci-greene.html
Only thing you're "Driving" is your Brogan's down to your job in the "Law Library" (AKA Shitter) and your PD's crazy with your endless Writs for Habeus Corpus

Frank

[SRG2]

Re British elections: IIRC Rousseau observed that the British are free every five years, and the use they make of their freedom makes them richly deserve their slavery…

I am none too dismayed. My LibDems look set to do very well (though in the days when I campaigned for them, I cannot say I was unduly impressed by the calibre of many of the candidates we had). Starmer seems moderate and pragmatic, is significantly smarter than the current presidential candidates (then again, so is the average Yorkshire pudding), and seems to have purged the Labour party of most if not all the anti-Semites.

The Tories have given up in London, AFAICT. In the words of Sergeant-Major Williams: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4uivPpzCGo

[Martinned2]

The Tories have given up everywhere. Their main campaign pitch for the last few weeks has been "someone has to be in charge of the opposition, and surely you can't let it be Farage or the LibDems". No one's spoken seriously about the possibility that the Tories might win since somewhere last year.

[SRG2]

BTW a friend of one of my brothers went to Dulwich with Farage, and in those days his name was pronounced as to rhyme with "carriage". "Fararzh" is a later affectation, possibly following Norman Lamont's example.

[Martinned2]

Of course. How else can he communicate that he's a man of the people, who can be trusted to fight against the evil elites?

[Mr. Bumble]

Sorta like Hyacinth Bucket pronounced "bouquet" from Keeping Up Appearances" ?

[Martinned2]

Exactly like that. And we laughed at her too.

[Davedave]

Traditionally, it's pronounced to rhyme with garage...

[SRG2]

Except "garage" can be pronounced "garidge" or "gararzh" so we're none the wiser. I speak the RP and hence would say "gararzh" but I wouldn't condemn someone who pronounces it "garidge". Farridge changing how his name is pronounced is not exactly the same, though as I respect pronouns, I supposed I am required to accept his repronunciation.

[Davedave]

Whoosh.

[Davedave]

What on earth are you on about? The election looks set to be the final nail in the Lib Dem coffin. If they can't even pick up seats this time round, that's it. For what it's worth, I haven't had a conversation about the election where the LDs were mentioned without it provoking laughter and comments like 'oh, are they still going?'

Also, Starmer has very much not 'purged' Labour of antisemitism. That's what the nutwing antisemites have claimed, but it's their usual dishonesty. He's mostly swept it under the carpet - arguably justifiably, because it's more important to win this election comfortably before dealing with the racist infiltration from a position of strength. If Starmer had actually dealt with it, Diane Abbott wouldn't even be a member of the party, let alone a candidate in a safe seat. At this time, Labour is still the party most antisemitic conspiracy theorists would claim to support.

[SRG2]

What on earth are you on about? The election looks set to be the final nail in the Lib Dem coffin.

Not what the projections show. We shall see.

[Martinned2]

The nowcast website I linked to earlier has them on 68 seats. If they get that, that would literally be their best ever general election result. (Previous record: 62 seats in 2005.)

More realistically, the last More In Common poll has them on 52 seats, which would still restore them to the lofty days of Charles Kennedy and Nick Clegg. https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1808501142856360199

[John F. Carr]

SNP is projected to lose 2/3 of its seats. Is that disillusionment over poor leadership or tactical defection to Labour to be in a majority government?

[Martinned2]

Disappointment with the SNP's record in government.

For a while it looked like Scotland might make a big difference in the likelihood of Labour winning a majority, but Labour has been polling so high for so long now that nobody in Scotland is worried about who is going to win. The Scots feel free to vote for the SNP or Labour as they please, secure in the knowledge that they will be get a Labour government regardless.

[ducksalad]

Martinned, I realize that formally they adopted their current name in 1988, but aren't they essentially direct descendants of the old Liberals, who in turn were direct descendants of the Whigs?

If you look at it that way their "best ever" result was holding an absolute majority for years at a time,

[Martinned2]

The LibDems are descendants of lots of things. Most recently, they are a merger of the liberals and the Labour offshoot SDP. So it's not just that they changed their name in 1988. It's when the present party was founded out of the merger of two previous parties.

[Davedave]

The projections I've seen suggest the LDs are due for a relatively high vote share - compared to the preceding elections - but are unlikely to win many seats, because LD voters in marginal constituencies will vote Labour to ensure the Tories (or worse, Reform) don't sneak in.

There seem to be some algorithmic predictions that aren't taking into account that in many seats people voted LD last time round due to Corbyn making Labour an unacceptable choice. Those seats are going to swing away from Tory, but not towards LD.

[SRG2]

Me: My LibDems look set to do very well

Davedave: The election looks set to be the final nail in the Lib Dem coffin.

Davedave: The projections I’ve seen suggest the LDs are due for a relatively high vote share – compared to the preceding elections – but are unlikely to win many seats,

At time of posting they’ve gained 32 seats. I guess Davedave isn’t quite as well-informed as he would like us to believe.

[Martinned2]

All time LibDem record (i.e. since 1988) of 71 seats. For the first time ever their share of the seats almost matches their share of the vote.

[NOVA Lawyer]

For small government types and those who support civil rights and equality before the law, this is an essential read:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/07/03/lexington-mississippi-police-justice-abuse-julian/

One day in 2022, according to a recording reviewed by The Post, Dobbins assured Hooker he would cover for him if Hooker killed “in cold blood.” Dobbins used the n-word and a homophobic slur, bragged that he’d killed 13 people in his career, and seemed to relish the notion that Lexington’s Black residents feared him, the review showed.

[SRG2]

To my observation, many small government types approve of small government as it applies to them, but are quite happy to accept big government as it applies to "those people".

FWIW it's noticeable that whenever there's a police abuse article on the main Reason pages, many of the "small government" /"libertarian" posters either conspicuously forebear from commenting, or, when they do, defend the police.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've been burned by too many Reason police/legal abuse stories where, if I look into it, I find they've omitted very relevant details. At this point I expect that, if I read such a story, I'm being misled.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Well, here you have a police chief on tape bragging about killing 13 people. Saying he would protect an officer if he kills someone “in cold blood.” There really isn’t anything you could find if you looked into it that would justify that.

Add on top the retribution for anyone monitoring or claiming abuse and you aren’t small government (or a decent human being) if you aren’t appalled by the goings on in Lexington, Mississippi.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

People who have been given special grant to govern or police others and abuse that power are vile, evil monsters who deserve more than what this Earthly world can give them.

From every politician and civil servant in and around Washington DC, down to that garbage police chief. May they all suffer in this life and the next.

[ducksalad]

Meh, depends on what you call relevant.

My experience on clicking through the links is that the police abuse is usually real enough. What’s often left out of the Reason summary is that the victim (allegedly) wasn’t behaving particularly well either. But the BoR has no exception for bad guys, losers, or illegal immigrants, so I’m not sure leaving that out invalidates the Brickbat.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Birther Brett feels misled!!!

[NOVA Lawyer]

It is noticeable. For those that ignore police abuse, it gives lie to the idea that they are against government oppression generally.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

They're garden variety bigots, authoritarian right-wingers, and faux libertarian phonies,

[Stephen Lathrop]

NOVA — Apropos of political prospects looking forward in the US, it is depressing to recall that repressive–authoritarian–totalitarian governments have always enjoyed support from considerable fractions of their populations. They were people who supposed they were safe, and inflictions visited on others were deserved, or at least convenient. I watch that bloc shaping up now in anticipation of a Trump victory, and my stomach turns over.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This is, unfortunately, quite the case. The cruelty, for many of them, is the point.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"Dobbins used the n-word and a homophobic slur,"

This indicates we should be able to look forward to Mr. Volokh and a couple of other Volokh Conspirators entering pro bono appearances on behalf of the Lexington defendants.

[SRG2]

Radley Balko on Trump and MAGA:
Trump and MAGA haven't been mistreated by the criminal justice system. It has favored them.

Donald Trump and allies have complained, over and over again, that the former president and his allies have been targeted, singled out for abuse, and deliberately humiliated by the criminal justice system. They’ve claimed that there are “two tiers of justice” — a strict, unrelenting one for MAGA, and a loose, deferential one for the migrants, rapists, and killers that George Soros-funded prosecutors refuse to punish. Or something like that.

In some cases, they’ve blown mundane, benign stuff into bizarre, sometimes dangerous conspiracies, such as when Trump and right-wing figures claimed boilerplate language on the Mar-a-Lago search warrant about the FBI's authorization to use lethal force was evidence that the Biden administration was trying to assassinate him.

In other cases, they’ve cast recurring, long-existing problems — such as the immense discretion granted to prosecutors, FBI abuse of the FISA system, and the myriad ways the criminal justice system routinely degrades and grinds people down — for abuse and degradation specifically targeted at them. That isn’t uncommon among people who paid little attention to the criminal justice system until it came for them. But few people have the platform Trump does.

...

MAGA’s beef with the system isn’t that justice has been weaponized, it’s that it has been weaponized against them. Their answer isn’t to insulate the system from politics, it’s to ratchet up the politicization, then aim it at their enemies.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, yeah. Their position is that the only way the other side will consent to stopping the weaponization is if they suffer from it, too. So long as only one side is on the receiving end, it will keep up.

Basic tit for tat game theory.

[SRG2]

Basic tit for tat game theory.

🙂

However, the MAGA and right-wing in general have shown little to no interest in justice reform, from the SC down, and only when their oxen were gored did they care,

[not guilty]

Whenever I see the phrase “tit for tat,” I invariably think of Dennis Miller’s three questions:

What is tat?
Where can I get it?
How can I exchange it for the other?

[Frank Drackman]

Loved his Radio Show, don't tell anyone, but I'm really Dennis Miller

Frank "Wat's up Hiroshi? Let's light this candle!!!!!!"

[Jerry B.]

https://babylonbee.com/news/we-cant-let-a-convicted-felon-in-the-white-house-biden-tells-hunter

[Mr. Bumble]

"Cool" Cal on the Declaration of Independence July 5, 1926:
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/speech-on-the-occasion-of-the-one-hundred-and-fiftieth-anniversary-of-the-declaration-of-independence/

" About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers."

[Dan Schiavetta]

Good speech.

[Mr. Bumble]

Probably one of the best about the Declaration. As noted on another thread it is too bad that it wasn't incorporated into the Constitution.

[Dan Schiavetta]

One can’t very well incorporate “all men are created equal” etc. into a document that protects slavery.

[Brett Bellmore]

Which clauses do you think did that?

[Martinned2]

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

[Brett Bellmore]

Notice that it doesn't actually say "slave", expired 21 years after the Constitution's ratification, and nothing in the Constitution actually requires any state to make slavery legal?

I think you'd have a stronger point citing, "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

Which also doesn't mention slavery, and was deliberately worded so that it only prevented slaves from being freed on account of state laws, not federal. But did at least result in some escaped slaves being returned to slavery.

I'd say that, rather than protecting slavery, the Constitution failed to adequately attack slavery. Slavery COULD be abolished under it, but only as a result of state actions. But then, most things could only be the result of state action at the time, as most matters were still reserved for the states.

Of course, they'd thought that slavery was on its way out, and that if they kicked the can down the road, it would go away on it's own. Turned out they were wildly optimistic about that.

They also thought that if they didn't kick the can down the road, they'd end up "hanging separately" on account of the federation falling apart and being reconquered by England. I'm not so sure they were wrong about that one.

[Martinned2]

But it does *protect* the institution of slavery at the moment the constitution was drafted and ratified, which is what we were talking about.

[Frank Drackman]

So the founding fathers were for "Open Borders" and $10 per Slave, I mean "Immigrant" was a Bargain, even in 18th Century dollars.

[Frank Drackman]

It was understood that it was "all White men"

[Z Crazy]

I did see a lot of caterwauling over this ruling.

What I do know is this.

There's absolutely NO chance Dubya or Obama would be tried for war crimes, REGARDLESS of how this case was decided.

Why should anyone care if Trump whined about a stolen election, or even did forgery or perjury?

It's like having your panties in a knot over the "misogyny" of Alec Baldwin yelling at his daughter, while giving Brian Mitchell, Scott Petersen, and Richard Speck Presidential Medals of Freedom!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Meanwhile, Israel continues its long history of being the aggressor while calling itself the victim:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/04/middleeast/israel-largest-west-bank-land-seizure-three-decades-intl/index.html

[Martinned2]

Well yeah, but Spain, Norway, Malta, etc. have to be punished somehow for recognising Palestinian statehood.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/30/middleeast/israel-west-bank-settlements-international-condemnation-intl/index.html

[Davedave]

No-one cares what Holocaust deniers like you have to say about Israel, fash.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How long until bacon cheeseburgers?

Carry on, clingers. So long as your betters permit.

[Davedave]

Whut kind of loony antisemitism is that supposed to be? You aren't even pretending now.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I don't like right-wing bigots, theocratic war criminals, or selfish terrorists anywhere, anyplace, or any time. The Israel of Netanyahu, Likud, Smotrich, the Haredi, and ben-Gvir are no better than than the superstitious, worthless right-wing assholes in Saudi Arabia, Mississippi, India, or Idaho. Its fall -- after Americans stop providing the skirts Israel has been hiding behind for decades -- will be something to celebrate in several respects.

I hope decent Israelis emigrate, ideally to the United States, before the collapse occurs.

[Davedave]

What does that have to do with you replying 'bacon cheeseburgers'? Naked antisemitism, which gives the lie to the rest of what you have to say about Israel. Whoops.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That's how I plan to celebrate the comeuppance of one group of right-wing losers. They -- and their supporters -- deserve everything that is coming to them, including the celebratory menu.

[not guilty]

A former client of mine, a Jewish man disbarred from the practice of law, was convicted and sentenced to prison for the murder of his wife, among other offenses.

After going to prison he filed a pro se lawsuit complaining that the food he was served was not kosher. His complaint survived the prison officials' motion to dismiss. When I read about that ruling, I remarked that I could imagine him arguing to an upper East Tennessee jury, complaining that he had been served a cheeseburger. The thought gave me a chuckle.

He wound up dropping the lawsuit when the Department of Correction agreed to serve him the halal meals available to Muslim inmates.

[not guilty]

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2017/02/15/notorious-nashvillian-perry-march-sues-over-prison-food/97862910/

I had forgotten that when the suit was filed, the inmate had been moved from the prison in Mountain City to a prison in Morgan County. Had a jury trial been required, it would have been in Knoxville rather than Greeneville.

[Frank Drackman]

You gotta cut Revolting "Arthur" some slack, he did too many "Oklahoma" Drills without a helmet.

[Davedave]

Meanwhile, Jason Cavanaugh continues his long history of pretending to be upset about things Israel does, while really wishing to finish what Hitler started.

In reality, Israel has not seized any land, despite what is being claimed. They have designated it as land owned by the _Palestinian_ state (such as it is), not Israel.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What kind of asshole supports the theocratic, bigoted, immoral, violent, corrupt, selfish, right-wing war criminals of Israel?

The Volokh Conspiracy answers that one regularly.

[Frank Drackman]

Did you just call me an Asshole? Well, you certainly are they expert in them. Well Suh, considuh yo face slapped, with my spotless white glove!
I heretofore challenge you to a Duel, a trial of Honor, on the front poach of Funk & Wagner's, at the break of dawn,
as the Challenged Party, you have the choice of Weapons, suh!!!
Um, a "Swordfight"?? OK, but no way I'm turning my back to you.

Frank

[Davedave]

In what world is debunking antisemitic lies about Israel the same as supporting them? Oh, wait, in your delusional antisemitic world, of course it is.

At least you don't pretend to be pro-Palestinian. Just anti-Israel.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Israel's right-wing assholes were caught explaining the truth of their theocratic terrorism, bigoted genocide, war crimes, and land theft. Defending them on any grounds other than "right-wing assholes are my assholes" is no longer available.

Decent Israelis had several chances to rein in their bigoted, superstitious, vile clingers. They failed. Israel shall fail, too, and deserve it. I hope the better Israelis leave while they still can, ideally bound for America. The others? Fuck 'em all.

[Commenter_XY]

More tears, Arthur, cry some more. Sniff, sniff.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Your side is losing in America and in Israel, XY. You may be too dumb to recognize it, though . . .or perhaps you're countin' on a miracle?

There are no miracles. And no fairy tales come true. The reality-based world is going to deliver some terrible judgments to right-wingers in America and Israel. Not in that order, though.

[Bwaaah]

Your honor has been ceremonially smitten on the field of valor. Choose a weapon, or hang your head in shame, you insolent worm.

In the realm of words, you are not even a man of letters.

Smitten by Him, shamefully, on His birthday.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You clingers should try to be nicer. There is no guarantee your betters will be gracious in victory in the culture war.

[Frank Drackman]

I've tried being kinder/gentler with you Revolting, and all we get are Bettors and Klinger Ass Stomping, and on the rare occasions you break your lip lock on Mick's shriveled scrotum, interminable Stones posts, I'll invite you to my "47" MAGAA(Make Amurica Great Again Again" Victory party November 5, but I'd rather have someone less Revolting, like P. Diddy or Woody Allen

Frank

[John F. Carr]

An Australian MP has been forced out of her party because she supports Palestinian statehood. I don't have much of an opinion on which ethnic group the government of Australia should be working to exterminate. The story got my attention because of the primacy of party over individual, which has traditionally been more of a problem in partliamentary systems than in America's Congress. In recent years, since Southerners were allowed to vote for Republicans, American parties have grown overly powerful too. I like Dave Barry's description of the 2020 Republican convention as saying the party platform is "whatever is in Trump's latest tweet." People used to use the expression "big tent" for a party that did not require toeing the line.

Sample coverage: https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/rebel-senator-fatima-payman-quits-labor-party-after-exiled-claim/news-story/817b76f59723f7a821270c7705032af1

[Martinned2]

I'm not sure that I agree that's a problem. At least in a system that allows for the existence of more than two parties, like in Australia, it is important that the party can enforce its views against individual politicians. That is the only way that bottom-up democracy within the party is possible. The party participates in an election based on a manifesto, ideally approved in some way by its members, and the politicians that are elected on the party's ticket then work to implement that manifesto.

The alternative is a system where you expect voters to carefully study individual candidates, and to vote for them or not regardless of which party they represent, depending on their individual views. And I don't think that's ever worked in the history of the world, due to (in Somin terms) rational ignorance.

[David Nieporent]

In recent years, since Southerners were allowed to vote for Republicans, American parties have grown overly powerful too.

TF? American parties are far weaker than they have ever been. (Indeed, if they were strong, Donald Trump would never have been nominated in 2016.) The well-meaning reform to eliminate earmarks in budgeting was basically the death knell, since it removed any ability of the parties to enforce party discipline.

[ThePublius]

I don't know how they can report this story without mentioning Darwin.

Rhode Island: Man Dies After Firework Set Off on His Head

[Moderation4ever]

Independance Day seems to be special in bringing out the crazies. Certainly, Darwin had a part in this as likely did a little too much alcohol.

[ThePublius]

It actually happened in May, not July 4th.

[Davedave]

He has a son, so isn't eligible for a Darwin award.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Prof. Magliocca at Balkinization points out that the decision in Trump v USA quotes Justice Jackson's Youngstown concurrence a lot, but seems to have left out this part:

"I cannot be brought to believe that this country will suffer if the Court refuses further to aggrandize the presidential office, already so potent and so relatively immune from judicial review, at the expense of Congress."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY
RACIAL SLUR SCOREBOARD
(Northern California edition)

This white, male, conservative blog
with a thin, misappropriated academic
veneer — dedicated to creating and
preserving safe spaces for America’s
vestigial right-wing bigots -- has
operated for no more than

NINE (9)

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

THIRTY-ONE (31)
occasions (so far) during 2024
(that’s at least 31 exchanges
that have included a racial slur,
not just 31 racial slurs; many
Volokh Conspiracy discussions
feature multiple racial slurs.)

This blog is outrunning its
remarkable pace of 2023,
when the Volokh Conspiracy
published racial slurs in at least

FORTY-FOUR (44)

different discussions.

These numbers likely miss
some of the racial slurs this
blog regularly publishes; it
would be unreasonable to expect
anyone to catch all of them.
This assessment does not address
the broader, everyday stream of
antisemitic, gay-bashing, misogynistic,
immigrant-hating, Palestinian-hating,
transphobic, Islamophobic, racist,
and other bigoted content published
at this faux libertarian blog, which
is presented from the disaffected,
receding right-wing fringe of
American legal thought by members
of the Federalist Society
for Law and Public Policy Studies.

Amid this blog’s stale, ugly right-wing thinking, here is something worthwhile, one everyone can appreciate (liberals and libertarians can appreciate the nuanced insights and complex ironies; conservatives can mumble along emptily with the "U.S.A." parts).

This one is good, too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling GemStones, holiday edition:

First, one that may resurface soon, courtesy of fan voting (this version is a Mick Taylor sparkler, complete with holiday hat).

Next, a lead guitar master class.

Enjoy your section of the tour, West Coasters!

[Frank Drackman]

On the 53rd Anniversary of the death(?) supposedly of Jim Morrison, who had more talent in one of his pubic hairs than in Mick Jagger and every Mick Jagger impersonator in the Universe, OK, I know the Lizard King (supposedly) died on July 3rd, 1971 it wasn’t reported until the next day, YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!!!!!(HT J. McEnroe)
OK, mom was a big Doors fan (and Jimi Hendrix, and Janis Joplin, Mark Bolan (T Rex), Karen Carpenter, and Mama Cass, if you’re a singer you really don’t want my mom as your fan, because it mean’s “you gonna die!” (HT J Cash)) Actually she liked the “Man in Black” too, the exception that proves the rule

Frank “Mother, I want toooo
wish you a Happy 4th of July, All day long! and All night long!, a good long and hard 4th! “

[Roger S]

So says Kirkland who regularly posts slurs against me based on my ancestry.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Just one deplorable element of it. For all I know the others in your family might have been decent, even admirable, Americans.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Do you want to survey their lifestyle choices orinspect their melanin levels or genitals to verify?

[Davedave]

This really loses its weight when you've posted a racist slur in this very thread. Previously you've said antisemitic things, but it's the first time you've just gone for nakedly antisemitic abuse. Were you feeling left out?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

No racist slurs, dumbass. I despise all bigoted, superstitious, obsolete right-wingers, especially the violent, war-criming, parasitic ones. Not to mention the ones I have been subsidizing for decades.

[Frank Drackman]

Well that's your problem, Revolting, they make thing called a "Dildo", buy one and you won't be "Subsidizing" your "Bettors" for decades anymore

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

A funny book which begins with a Fourth-of-July theme: John Dough and the Cherub by L. Frank Baum (yes, that L. Frank Baum).

[Michael Ejercito]

I have a few thoughts on this.

Core presidential powers (signing, vetoing, pardoning, commutating, nominating, firing) are absolutely outside the control of Congress.

As such, arguing that a President’s pardon is obstruction of justice, or signing legislation later found unconstitutional is conspiracy against rights, is foreclosed by Trump v. United States. And this is right.

But what about other official acts, which are presumptively covered by immunity. What sort of test should courts use to determine if the alleged act overcomes this presumption?

I believe the proper test is the one enumerated in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982). In Harlow, immunity applies unless the alleged conduct violates “clearly established” law id. at 818. The lower courts did not decide what kind of test to use, and it was proper for SCOTUS to vacate and remand so the lower courts will have a chance to decide what test is appropriate.

As such, to quote an example posted by Z Crazy (verbatim, including misspellings) , an argument that the President ordering “the Army to round up Gazan girls and confine them in rape camps like the ones that existed in the Yugoslave Civil War” violates the law of war would pass the Harlow test, because setting up rape camps does violate clearly established laws of war.

However, an argument that arming an allied state makes the President complicit in any war crimes committed by that allied state is in no way clearly established, and fails the Harlow test. And this is important. I am sure there is a Hamasshole fanboi serving as a prosecutor somewhere who would charge FJB for complicity in genocide.

Ordering a law enforcement investigation does not violate clearly established law, while ordering perjury or forgery most certainly does.

[ducksalad]

Core presidential powers (signing, vetoing, pardoning, commutating, nominating, firing) are absolutely outside the control of Congress.

I think it's misleading to even call this category "immunity" - it's simply that the laws, if applied so as to control those acts, are unconstitutional. And everyone - not just the Prez - has "immunity" from laws that violate the constitution.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ducksalad — With that remark you join a crowd making the same mistake. You equate immunity for presumably legal acts (in the sense that no one should be charged for doing what’s legal), with immunity for presumably criminal acts (in the sense that everyone who does them ought to be prosecuted and punished.) It is entirely possible, and happens all the time, that someone doing something legal—driving down the highway, obeying the traffic laws—is also doing something criminal—smuggling a trunk full of fentanyl.

The conflation you deliver offers no insight, only confusion. The legal conduct associated with the crime offers not a speck of justification to ignore the crime, or to empower it with immunity.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Bush armed Hamas in 2006…hilarious!!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Rumor has it that Biden has asked his paymasters in China to not stir up any trouble after 8pm EST. That's his bedtime.

[Sabedi1]

Liberals think the following is a perfectly legitimate, moral argument.

"Abortion and child support are two separate issues. Abortion is a medical decision between a woman and her doctor. A father should have no say, because the fetus isn't in his body. But if a baby is a born, it needs financial support. Therefore, it's reasonable to make a man pay child support, even if he didn't want the baby. They're not connected."

[NOVA Lawyer]

Sabed1 is confused between an embryo and a child.

So, yeah, a man who had sex with a woman doesn’t get to make decisions about the woman’s body. Full stop.

Children need support. Society believes both people who participated in creating the child should support it. If a child is born, the biological father is morally and legally responsible for it.

I understand that you think the two are connected and, perhaps, the father should have an opt-out. But good luck getting the pro-life side to agree that a father should be able to either (a) force the woman to abort or (b) disclaim any financial responsibility for the child if the woman doesn’t abort (i.e., financially pressure her to abort the child). I’m not sure your barb is aimed at just liberals (Except to the extent you think this is a clever argument to outlaw abortion entirely. It isn’t.).

[Frank Drackman]

Birth Controls readily available and cheap, Used to get a years supply of Medroxyprogesterone for both my Daughters (OK, I’m a Doc, so I have “Connections”) for less than one of their Tennis Rackets (what a “Racket”, Tennis Rackets)
For a few years thought I was raising the next “Williams Sisters” younger one even made the Junior Orange Bowl one year, and no expensive lessons, “tennis camps” just taught them the game I learned in the 70’s.
OK, probably for the best, those chick Pro players are psychos.

Frank

[ThePublius]

There should be a legal protocol for this. The pregnant woman should be required to notify the father in a timely fashion that she's pregnant. If not, he's not responsible for support. Once notified he can ask for an abortion. If she declines, he's not responsible for support. If he wants her to deliver, he not only has a financial obligation, but some degree of shared custody. And so on.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I would imagine this proposal has the support of about 10% of the population. Good luck with that.

Virtually no one is going to be onboard with the father being able to either have the woman abort or not be financially responsible. Child support is not for the mother, it's for the child. And we live in a time when prospective fathers already have a way to not have children if they don't want them. You make it, you bought it.

[Frank Drackman]

Just checked out the "Comatose Joe" IMDB page (Warner Bros, Comedy-Horror, 2021)
under "Goofs"
"Incorrectly Claimed as Goof" "Women are being raped by their Sisters!"
with current "Gender Transition Therapy" many "Sisters" have the "Equipment" to rape their (real) Sisters"

Frank

[Martinned2]

UK exit poll, for those who care but haven't looked it up yet:

Conservatives: 131
Labour: 410
Liberal Democrats: 61
SNP: 10
Reform UK: 13
Plaid Cymru: 4
Greens: 2

This result would be the worst election result for the Conservatives since they got crushed by Earl Grey in the 1830s. (And, on a more personal level, none of my bets came through except the one on Reform getting one or more seats.)

[Roger S]

The Conservatives deserve it for appointing an Indian as prime minister, and letting him ruin the party.

[Moderation4ever]

Don't forget Brexit. Of course, the Brits don't have the people in Brussels telling them what to do, but then they are also forced out of many markets they used to enjoy.

[SRG2]

The party was already well in decline before Sunak - Liz "Lettuce" Truss ring a bell?

[David Nieporent]

Sunak is British, not Indian.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Every bad day for conservatives is a great day for our world.

[Don Nico]

The Tories did better than I expected.

[Martinned2]

The mapping of votes to seats is absolutely shocking, even if you make allowances for the fact that the system does not incentivise trying to get the biggest possible national vote share.

At the time of writing:
- Labour 412 seats with 33.8% of the vote
- Conservatives 121 seats with 23.7% of the vote
- LibDems 71 seats with 12.2% of the vote
- SNP 9 seats with 2.5% of the vote
- Sin Fein 7 seats with 0.7% of the vote
- Independents 7 seats with 2.9% of the vote
- DUP 5 seats with 0.6% of the vote
- Reform UK 4 seats with 14.3% of the vote
- Green 4 seats with 6.8% of the vote
- Plaid Cymru 4 seats with 0.7% of the vote
- SDLP 2 seats with 0.3% of the vote
- Alliance 1 seat with 0.4% of the vote
- UUP 1 seat with 0.3% of the vote

The system obviously looks weird for parties that only run in one of the nations (Sinn Fein, DUP, Plaid, SDLP, Alliance, and the UUP), but for them it would at least make sense if you looked at how they did only in the places where they ran. But the difference between Labour, the Tories, and Reform in terms of votes and seats is absolutely bonkers, while the LibDems did unusually well out of having Reform around. (Usually the LibDems are the big losers of the First Past The Post system, but now they've got 11% of the seats with 12% of the vote, which is basically what you'd want.)

[Don Nico]

It is indeed shocking that a party that got one third of the vote got two thirds of the seats. Also that the Reform UK which got more votes than the Liberal Democrats won only 4 seats to the Liberal Democrats 71 seats.

It makes the Italian system look almost sensible.

[Martinned2]

The Italian system has, from time to time, been pretty sensible. The problem was what the Italians did with it. (Or didn't.) Meloni's solution is pretty old-school and on-brand, and will make the system much, much less sensible.

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

[Don Nico]

Yet remarkably she has become the darling of European politicians. Strange, very strange.

[SRG2]

Rishi Sunak: "Today, power will change hands in a peaceful and orderly manner, with goodwill on all sides."

[David Nieporent]

Weird how he didn't yell that the election was stolen.

[Bwaaah]

Why is that weird, David?

[Don Nico]

You can't do that when you are trounced! Of course he could have whined that the election was grossly undemocratic.
Some of our commenters here might make that complaint.

[Josh R]

Trump would do it even if he was trounced.

[David Nieporent]

Trump has claimed he won California, so… yeah.

[Brett Bellmore]

A little late, but I hear the latest effort in California to undo Prop 209, the ban on affirmative action in government, failed, at least for this election cycle.

This is not to say that Prop 209 isn't routinely being violated on the sly, just that they have once again failed to enable openly violating it.

[Bwaaah]

Sarcastr0 still away, as he indicated he would be, and not a word from Nige during that same period. (Did I miss a Nige comment?)

[Bwaaah]

I think they may be in a hot tub together, sipping Chardonnay, trading opinions that never portend disagreement, and rating the stank of each other's fart bubbles on a scale of 1 to 10. Neither has yet scored the other as less than a 9.

I, for one, still believe in romance.