Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Martinned2]

Prof. Adler re-tweeted approvingly a short thread on tolerance and the opening ceremony of the Olympics. The problem is that that thread is so weirdly phrased that I honestly don't understand what the view is that the author (or indeed prof. Adler) is trying to express. I asked, but no explanations yet. Does anyone here know?

https://x.com/jadler1969/status/1817242371236430103

[Riva]

A profoundly sick display and national embarrassment.

[Martinned2]

Nobody made you watch it. There are other channels on your TV.

[Mr. Bumble]

Was it necessary to have watched it to have an opinion on it?

What if anything did it have to do with the Olympics?

[Malika]

What a truly dumb take. In the London Olympics the Spice Girls rode in black taxis bus singing. What did that have to do with the Olympics?

Opening ceremonies are not confined to athletic events goofus.

[Riva]

While the Spice Girls may be insult to music, at least it wasn’t a perverse mocking of Christianity tinged with satanic references and aimed at grooming young victims to feed the trans insane psychosis.

[Malika]

"tinged with satanic references and aimed at grooming young victims"

Where was that? Please be specific.

[Riva]

Why would you ask such a stupid ass question after an Olympic ceremony highlighting a gross gender queer perversion of the Last Supper that included a grown man posing with his testicle hanging out surrounded by children?

[Martinned2]

Why do you spend so much time staring at people's testicles?

[Riva]

WTF? It was an f’ing opening ceremony. Not some sick adult site. WFT is wrong with you?

[Sarcastr0]

I saw a still, but I wasn't on a testicle hunt so dunno if Riva's right, except that he's usually wrong.

[Riva]

Don’t know WTF you mean by testicle hunt. What you do in the privacy of your own home, in the dark at night, not something anyone wants to know. But the gross display at issue was a prime time opening ceremony of the Olympics. Apparently you’re having a difficult time understanding how grossly improper and offensive this was.

[Malika]

Please provide citations for "satanic references" and "a grown man posing with his testicle hanging out surrounded by children?"

[Riva]

We’re done here.

[Sarcastr0]

Riva's new flouncing away subroutine is still overtuned.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Just a reminder that a dude’s stockings had a tear in them exposing his inner thigh. Right-wing Internet sleuths zoomed in and circled the area and claimed it was an exposed scrotum. They then went into apocalyptic fits about it.

They made up a ballsack to be mad about.

[Drewski]

Honestly he could be describing a lot of church services in the US.

[Martinned2]

And Trumpist rallies.

[Mr. Bumble]

How so?

[Martinned2]

I can't insert images here, so a tweet with images will have to do: https://x.com/JohnShort70/status/1817477946346545440

[Ilya Snowman]

Do you think the Olympics' opening ceremony would have been more inclusive, and therefore superior, had it included:

A portrayal of the Prophet (PBUH) with his penis inserted into his nine-year-old child bride, Aisha?

Him mounting his Jew-bitch war trophy bride, Safiya bint Huyayy?

Him beheading scores of people?

His or his followers stealing other people’s holy sites and repurposing them, like the Kabaah from the Meccan pagans?

[Martinned2]

You lost me at "more inclusive, and therefore superior".

[Riva]

A choice many will now make instead of watching this crap Olympics.

[Martinned2]

So what?

[David Nieporent]

Nobody made you watch it. There are other channels on your TV.

Can confirm.

[Don Nico]

Martin,
While that is true, people are also entitled to have an opinion

[Martinned2]

They are. I'm just trying to figure out why these Trumpists are getting so agitated about a TV programme

[Ilya Snowman]

Because they were being fed mindless libtard propaganda. It’s their fault for not realizing yet that ALL major forms of Western information supply and entertainment have been dedicated to such ends. The conditioning/brainwashing efforts are comprehensive and incessant.

At least in France there will soon be a sizable Muslim voting bloc in a few years, and then eventually a Muslim (left) majority. Liberalism, and the ‘toleration’ of unequal, evolutionary dud homosexuals, will be over forever.

In France’s very near future, the visual presentation and insulting of the Prophet Isa (PBUH) will be met with nothing less than death.

Germany and England thereafter, inshallah.

You are doomed.

[Martinned2]

In the US there are whole TV channels devoted to "mindless libtard propaganda". I've never known you to be frothing at the mouth about them, because usually even you understand that this is balanced out by the mindless reactionary propaganda on other TV channels. So I ask again: why the sudden agitation?

[Ilya Snowman]

I'm not American, don't live in the US, and don't watch any their television channels, let alone their corporate news.

When you write that you've 'never known' me to X, to it's because you've never known me at all. Had you actually known me at all, you'd certainly haven known that about me (and you'd know it wasn't some sudden/recent development either).

Note also how I said all 'Western'.

I do appreciate your full stop placement, however.

[Martinned2]

You are doomed.

I'll take my chances. Either way, what does it have to do with you?

[Ilya Snowman]

What do the Trumpists have to do with you?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yup. Why would you have a gay parody mocking Christians to open the Olympics, any more than you would have a Christian parody mocking Gays?

[Martinned2]

Why not? It seemed like fun.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You think mocking gays seems like fun?

Maybe you should have paid more attention in kindergarten.

[Ilya Snowman]

Perhaps paying attention in a present-day American totalitarian kindergarten would lead one to that sort of brainwashing/conditioning. But normal kindergartens would teach the kids about the folly of bearing double standards.

What's wrong with mocking the gays, anyway? They want to celebrate and normalize peoples and cultures that wish to re-criminalize their sexual practices and push them right back into the closet---to say the least.

The gays are just as much of a self-sabotaging suicide cult as the dominant 'liberal'-'progressive' ideology, and they're just as imperialistic. The difference is that they'll be even more screwed if/when the West loses this new cold war. The ENTIRE gay rights movement will come crashing to a halt---forever.

That makes them entirely worthy of mockery and derision.

[Malika]

A gay parody mocking a gay man's painting?

[Don Nico]

Another of your profoundly vapid comments

[Mr. Bumble]

Funny that you mute Drackman and engage with this idiot.

[Noscitur a sociis]

In terms of things that are embarassing to France, I doubt this cracks the top 1000.

[Mr. Bumble]

Starting with their boy president; Mr. Macaroon.

[Ilya Snowman]

Don't forget that their 'first lady' is a child sex abuser.

[Frank Drackman]

Something must be wrong with my Cable (Damn Comcast!) I missed the Floats where they had Transvestites pretending to be Moe-hammed, and whatever happened to those Charlie Hebdo guys? Or the Roosh-un Ath-uh-letes?
Again, I'm just watching for the Women's Highjump

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

"Does anyone here know?"

He's apparently going for the paradox of tolerance. But it's a bit brief to get any meaning out of.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I honestly don’t understand what the view is that the author (or indeed prof. Adler) is trying to express.

I haven't watched it and don't plan to because I couldn't imagine caring less, but the inferences are pretty clear (please correct me if I'm wrong):

The ceremony expressed a viewpoint that (some interpreted as) reflecting positively on polyamory and the French Revolution, and negatively on Christianity; proponents of the ceremony defended it on grounds of tolerance. The tweeter is suggesting that these viewpoints display a lack of tolerance for people who believe in traditional Christian viewpoints. This is a fairly stupid opinion (other than the part about Imagine: playing that is indefensible), but I don't think there's anything particularly obscure about it.

[Martinned2]

How can a viewpoint be intolerant?

(And agreed on Imagine. That song is terrible.)

[Martinned2]

Meanwhile, I assume we all think it's hilarious that the elections in Venezuela were rigged so incompetently that the vote percentages added up to 110%?

https://x.com/RyanBergPhD/status/1817782358646411527

(And no, Trump did not say that he would end elections. But it's still a problem that the man can't speak two sentences without creating all sorts of confusion and/or opportunity to have his words misrepresented.)

[neurodoc]

He's pre-occupied with the thought of being the victim or a shark attack if not first electrocuted by a sinking boats electric battery.

[Michael P]

Unless it leads very quickly to Maduro's ouster, I will not consider that funny at all. If he stays in power even one more year, it will be a cruel joke at the expense of the people of Venezuela.

[Frank Drackman]

I understood “45” perfectly, I think it’s more of a comment on the basic Imbecility and Dishonesty of the Marxist Stream Media (on and on yesterday on National Pubic Radio about Ham-ass retaliating for “Israeli Attacks on Gaza” (NPR has “October 7, 2023 Neglect Syndrome)
and then on “Code Switch” What’s “Code Switch? I hope “45” "Switches" the Codes to NPR’s studios when he gets back in the Oval Orifice in January) Like with “Morning Schmoe” I listen to a little NPR the same way I used to watch Chickens Fucking, for the laughs.

“””””What’s CODE SWITCH? It’s the fearless conversations about race that you’ve been waiting for. Hosted by journalists of color, our podcast tackles the subject of race with empathy and humor. We explore how race affects every part of society — from politics and pop culture to history, food and everything in between. This podcast makes all of us part of the conversation — because we’re all part of the story. Code Switch was named Apple Podcasts’ first-ever Show of the Year in 2020.”

Frank

[Malika]

You have to love someone capitalizing "Imbecility" when railing against it.

[MoreCurious]

Drackman never tires of proving to us that he's stupid. His writing suggests no more than a middle-school education.

[Malika]

And, naturally, a big Trump fan.

[Frank Drackman]

Don't hate me because I speak more languages than you, am richer, better looking, and too smart to waste time on stupid grammar rules, it's like getting a Tatoo on your Scrotum, anyone that comments on it is already looking at your Scrotum.

Frank

[MoreCurious]

Pathetic. Anyone who tries to convince us that he is rich, good looking, and smart by writing stupid, insipid, nonsensical comments is merely proving how stupid he is.

[Don Nico]

*Yawn*

[Sarcastr0]

While that is true, people are also entitled to have an opinion

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It's a fortified election. The ruling power always stays in power in fortified elections to save Democracy.

Just like in the US.

[Riva]

Didn’t the democrats manage similar percentages in Pennsylvania? Or was that Michigan or Wisconsin? They cheat in so many swing states, hard to keep track.

[Malika]

"Didn’t the democrats manage similar percentages in Pennsylvania? Or was that Michigan or Wisconsin?"

Cite?

[Stella Link the dog]

A lawsuit in Michigan filed by world renowned kraken-head Sidney Powell included an affidavit which claimed a number of Michigan precincts had turnout rates that were too high including some that were over 100%. It was all a lie except for one that had 30 of 31 registered voters cast a ballot. Another claim listed votes from Minnesota in a Michigan lawsuit. Can't recall if it was the Powell lawsuit or another -- hard to keep all the lies straight. In any case, there were no vote counts in Michigan that exceeded 100%. None.

[David Nieporent]

In any case, there were no vote counts in Michigan that exceeded 100%. None.

Nor in Pennsylvania, nor Wisconsin.

[Riva]

Looks like they were wasting some perfectly good pizza boxes covering up all those windows in Detroit when hiding the count of all those unquestionably legitimate ballots.

[David Nieporent]

It's difficult to see how covering up windows can keep people who are already in the room — as Republican poll watchers were — from seeing what's going on in that room. But Bot hasn't been reprogrammed for new content since 2020.

[Brett Bellmore]

No. Through the miracles of election day registration, you got more votes than were registered the day before, but still not more votes than were registered a few seconds before they were cast.

[Stella Link the dog]

Can you support that claim or is it just made up?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's just logic; it doesn't need any further support.

Apparently, the "cheating" (Crimea) Riva is referring to involves comparing election day votes with pre-election day registrations. Brett was simply pointing out that such an "anomaly" is not evidence of cheating.

[Stella Link the dog]

If such an anomaly were to occur. My suggestion is that there were no cases, except, perhaps, in precincts/districts with a very small number of voters, in which votes cast exceeded pre-election day registrations. Perhaps I'm wrong and Brettmore is not just making shit up again. but I dount it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, my recollection is that it was isolated precincts.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't actually have enough tolerance for bullshit claims of election irregularities, (Which function as chaff concealing the few real ones!) to bother digging up a cite on that. Just my recollection that every such allegation I looked into involved contrasting PRE-election registration numbers to turnout, and ignoring same day registration.

[Stella Link the dog]

"(Which function as chaff concealing the few real ones!) "

So, who are these people covering up real election irregularities by promulgating bullshit ones? And, what are these bullshit irregularities that these people find so necessary to cover up?

[Brett Bellmore]

I said it functions that way. I really don't know if it's intended to function that way, or it's just a consequence of widespread stupidity. Or some mix.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I see how you skirted the issue of who is promulgating the bullshit irregularities....one of who is quite prominent and, if I'm not mistaken, you have supported and intend to support. You should remind yourself often of the quality of the person you are supporting.

[Zarniwoop]

I think this has now drifted to conflating two mathematically separate concepts:

1) Did the reported results for the votes actually cast add up to greater than 100% (the alleged scenario in Venezuela, as shown in the accompanying graphic of vote totals)

versus

2) the bat-sheet crazy allegation by parroting Sydney "Kraken" Powell that more than 100% of the registered voters cast a ballot in the first place.

Brett, you're correct that no example exists of #2 in the 2020 US Election, despite Ms. Kraken's lyin'-assed-lies and however much Riva wants to believe them, but that's a fundamentally different concept than #1.

The graphic in the link does not related to absolute number of votes relative to voter registrations (Riva's ongoing hallucination), but rather the percentage of votes cast that were received by each candidate (or, apparently, fraudulently assigned to them). Not even Ms. Kraken alleged that the reported vote totals in any US jurisdiction summed to ~110%.

I hope we can, at a bare minimum, agree about how math works.

[SRG2]

If one read responses to the X tweet, apparently the 110% is arrived at by failing to note that the smaller parties' combined votes were 4.6% and instead assigning 4.6% to each.

I've no doubt that the voting was rigged, though.

The best evidence that the US 2020 election was rigged was that Trump did much better than the last polls predicted. But evidently attempts by the GOP to rig the election were unsuccessful.

[Zarniwoop]

If one read responses to the X tweet, apparently the 110% is arrived at by failing to note that the smaller parties’ combined votes were 4.6% and instead assigning 4.6% to each.

Hm, interesting, thanks for diving into the responses to the allegation. That does indeed at up to 100.0%, and it’s why I used “alleged” … I didn’t look into it further, and one graphic does not conclusively demonstrate intentional fraud.

Something as simple as a cut-n-paste error, quickly corrected, could also have happened. And “graphic on a news site” =/= “official vote totals with actual numbers”. If the latter added up to more than the votes cast, that would be differently eyebrow-raising.

[Michael P]

The efforts to claim that the Olympics opening show was an allusion to Jan van Bijlert's "The Feast of the Gods" rather than da Vinci's "The Last Supper" are in amazingly bad faith. How stupid would one have to be to not understand that the former was itself an allusion to the latter? (That's how stupid they think we are.)

[Malika]

It's an interesting controversy for the Right. There's certainly nothing gay about Da Vinci's work!

[Michael P]

How many of your own accounts have you gotten banned to date? Your first QA one, your second QA one, Malika the Maiz, ...?

[Malika]

Only one banned (demonstrating VC's biased standards), just forget the password for some. But nice dodge! Continue raging at the idea of subjecting gayness into Da Vinci's work! Two minute hates don't have to make sense!

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/leonardo-da-vinci-gay-sexuality-b1831842.html

[Frank Drackman]

Forgetting passwords? How hard is it to remember "Cocksucker123"? man, that AIDS related Dementia must be a Bee-otch

Frank

[Malika]

"AIDS related Dementia must be a Bee-otch"

Thanks for sharing about your mother, but this is generally a law/politics blog!

[Mr. Bumble]

Starting with the yo' momma shit again?
Better work on another screen name.

[Malika]

Clutch them pearls BumbleeBeeman!

[Frank Drackman]

Yo Mama so Ugg-Lee her “Ugg” boots sued her for Slander!
don’t tell anyone, but I used to write material for Louis CK, but he got scared of my talent and dropped me, even after giving him some of his best bits….
the “White Trash bit”
After musing on a road trip through upstate New York, wondering if “a shit bomb” exploded over the entire region, C.K. moves on to discuss its native people. Why does he love white trash? “Because it’s the only racial expression you can use, and no one gets offended.”
“Ask anyone, point out a piece of white trash to even the most liberal hippie. He’ll go BAH HA HA—FUCK THAT GUY!!”

Frank

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The homo's have pink washed everything that was once good.

That's what real cultural appropriation looks like.

[Ilya Snowman]

Aids-stained everything that was once good.

Fixed it for you.

[Riva]

Interesting that you think this perversion is only a “controversy” for the right. But if you want the left to own this contemptible disgrace, go for it.

[Martinned2]

So what? There are many depictions of the last supper over the centuries, each influenced by the ones that came before, and each controversial in its own way.

David Allen Green was, as so often, right:

A long time ago I studied some art history at university and one of the artists I studied was Leonardo.

And one thing I can remember decades later was that his Last Supper and his Adoration of the Magi were likely to have been startling and novel to his contemporaries.

Instead of the dull earnest faces of those depicted as being present in early Renaissance paintings of both subjects, Leonardo depicted those present at those events with stark psychological realism.

In essence: what would have been the actual reactions of those present?

Odd in a way that his Last Supper is now seen as orthodox by religious conservatives - as is apparent by the Olympics opening ceremony news; it was not always so.

https://substack.com/profile/22568035-d-a-t-green/note/c-63663343

But of course I understand that reactionaries need a never-ending list of woke things to complain about. Otherwise someone might ask them what they're *in favour* of.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who knew that Christ and the Apostles were Olympians.

[Frank Drackman]

Remember the Controversy during the 24AD Olympics when the Roosh-un Judge gave Hey-Zeus a "9.9" on his Freestyle Routine?

[Michael P]

Yes, we know you're the type to deny blatant efforts to subvert and offend by dressing your denialism up in fancy words. We're still neither impressed nor swayed. Dressing up fat freaks as Christian holy men isn't 1% as brave as drawing Mohammed comics. The Olympics are punching down in a divisive way, and being not only offensive but tasteless was the whole point.

[Malika]

Lol!, it's totally terrible to have some gay people simulate the work of a gay painter!

[Don Nico]

You already made this inane comment. What does DaVinci's sexuality have to do with anything. It was not the content of the painting.

[Martinned2]

Why does any of this get you so excited? Some people in Paris had some fun. This does not affect you in any way.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Why does any of this get you so excited? Some people in Paris had some fun. This does not affect you in any way.

Absolutely no aspect of it...or the resulting controversy...affect you in any way. And yet here you are, running your suck-hole about it ad nauseum.

[Brett Bellmore]

You do know that the French Olympics committee gave up on pretending, and apologized for it, right? And took down the videos?

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, you take bowing to political pressure as an admission way more than you should.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm saying you lot are more determined to deny it was offensive than the people actually responsible for it were.

Look, in a SANE world, the Olympic opening ceremony would be PG 13 at worst. What the hell does any of this crap have to do with sports, or the host country's culture, or anything Olympic relevant?

No, somebody just decided they had a cool opportunity to stick their finger in a billion people's eyes, and went for it.

Never would have done it to Islam, of course, because the response wouldn't have been verbal complaints, it would have involved a lot of people dying.

[Don Nico]

"Never would have done it to Islam, of course"
Indeed. The french have already done that experiment with tragic results

[Sarcastr0]

No, somebody just decided they had a cool opportunity to stick their finger in a billion people’s eyes, and went for it.

You're just buying trouble via bullshit telepathy again.

Never would have done it to Islam, of course,
That says nothing good about a certain subset of Muslims. You want Christianity to be the same kind of fragile and violent?

[Bob from Ohio]

"You want Christianity to be the same kind of fragile and violent?"

Increasingly seems like the only way to get respect.

[OtisAH]

This is Bob admitting that, although he can’t cross the living room to change the tv channel without bringing his O2 tank along, he pretends to violence here and likely elsewhere because it’s the only way he gets anyone to interact with him. It would be sad if he wasn’t so pathetic.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Increasingly seems like the only way to get respect.”

Ah, yes, the school shooter ideology.

[Martinned2]

They apologised if anyone took offence, which is one of those classic non-apology apologies that you make when apologising is easier than dealing with a Twitter mob.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know art history of well enough to have any idea if what you say is true.

But the distinction between a direct reference and a reference to a reference seems very important to me? Unless I guess you're arguing "The Feast of the Gods" is offensive to Christains but they let is slide until just now?

That the right has been reduced to getting solidarity from old man yells at cloud nonsense seems pretty sad.

[Riva]

You apparently don’t know much about Christianity either. Or history. Or the law. And a Marxist to boot. I’m sticking with public school job of some kind.

[Sarcastr0]

Awesome namecalling. We're all very proud.

Any thoughts on my point about the distinction between a direct reference and a reference to a reference?

[Riva]

So you’re not a Marxist? I admit I’m guessing on the public school system thing. Seems to fit the “hallmarks,” so to speak.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not a Marxist.

Weird elitism re: public school.

[Riva]

Not elitism. The sad reality of the state of the public school system and their personnel.

And whatever fine line definitional games you’re playing, not buying your Marxism denial.

[Sarcastr0]

Not elitism. The sad reality of the state of the public school system and their personnel.
So that's still elitism - you think private school makes someone better based on some blanket generalization.

Just like someone who can't stop dropping that they went to Harvard, only even more petty.

not buying your Marxism denial.
Don't ask questions if you don't plan to listen to the answer.

[Riva]

I think the public school system does one thing quite well, it enriches a fat useless bureaucracy and union grifters.

As for Marxism, I guess, given your general ignorance of history, you might not know you're a Marxist. Could be the public school shining through?

[Sarcastr0]

There are smart well educated products of public school, and dumb ignorant incurious folks from private school.

And at this point it is very clear you don't know what Marxism means. It's actually quite silly, seen from nowadays.
Look up the 'withering away of the state.'

[Malika]

"And a Marxist to boot."

Riva-bot's programming is consistent!

[Riva]

If I were a bot, I’m sure I’d still be repulsed by that gross trans grooming perversion.

[Josh R]

Don't forget. Michelangelo was given the first crack at the Last Supper.

[Frank Drackman]

They smoked Crack at the Last Supper?

[SRG2]

I was unsure until I saw two specific details - the head-dress of Apollo/the fat lady, and the arm gestures.

See https://twitter.com/WSchoonenberg/status/1817470685339340968/photo/1

[JFree]

Biden proposes Supreme Court reforms

Term limits for justices
Binding ethics code
Constitution amendment eliminating Prez immunity

[Michael P]

The only thing Biden should propose at this point is his resignation.

[Frank Drackman]

In the Military they have a Phrase for what Parkinsonian Joe is doing (I mean besides fucking shit up worse than a Soup Sandwich)
"ROAD" (Retired on Active Duty)

Frank

[Malika]

Is capitalizing "Phrase" a sign of Parkinsons or just general stupidity?

[MoreCurious]

General stupidity, of course.

[Frank Drackman]

No, it's just some of us more Ed-jew-ma-cated speak more than one language, some of which capitalize Nouns, and it's a waste of brain power to spend much time worrying about it (Pretty sure it was one of Satchel Paige's "Rules for how to stay Young")
#13: "Don't worry about what words need Capitals, as long as the words know"

Frank

[Malika]

Remember, his first excuse for this was he was Left handed!

[Frank Drackman]

That too, sorry my Brain handles Spatial Concepts better than yours (And Lefties are Right Brain Dominant, so who are the real "Lefties"??)
Wow you remember my Handedness? I'm really taking up some space in that big Nappy Haid' of yours,
and no, I aint payin' no rent, no back rent, no front rent, you ain't gettin none of it!

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

…but can’t remember passwords and is too stupid to write them down.

[Kazinski]

A lot of people use excuses that don't make sense, like developing a stutter in one's 70's.

[MoreCurious]

Maybe you think you have opinions worth sharing, Drackman. But if all you ever show us is your stupidity, what conclusions should we be drawing other than that you're stupid?

[Don Nico]

Why do you belittle people with a serious degenerative disease?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Frank, in the civil service, it is RIP

Retired In Place.

[defaultdotxbe]

Wouldn't term limits also require a constitutional amendment?

[Krayt]

Some maintian they have clever trickies to work around it. Great constitutional defenders!

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, obviously so, and probably the "binding" ethics code, as well, depending on what sanctions would make it "binding".

But you may have noticed that Biden isn't big on admitting that anything he wants isn't constitutional.

[Sarcastr0]

Good lord you're looking for a fight. This says he supports stuff; doesn't say how he'd implement it.

You're mad at something he didn't even touch on.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Great comment!

[Malika]

Short bus rebel!

[defaultdotxbe]

The fact that he says a constitutional amendment to reverse the immunity ruling, but doesn't specify needing an amendment for the rest either means he hasn't thought it through beyond the soundbite stage, or doesn't think the rest requires an amendment. Neither one is a good look IMO.

[Sarcastr0]

If this were a legal document, that close reading would have weight.

It isn't, so it doesn't.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Au contraire.

Biden's actual words to members of the Senate were, “You won’t have to bother with late-term appointments and confirmation hearings anymore. In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not going to have to vote.”

(This is possibly a mixed metaphor.)

[Michael P]

Biden admitted that forgiving college debt was beyond his Constitutional powers. That didn't stop him from doing it anyway.

If Democrats had half the respect for the Constitution or consistency that they claim to have, they would have impacted Biden and removed him from office long ago. But not even they want Kamala Harris in the Oval Office.

[Malika]

"Biden admitted that forgiving college debt was beyond his Constitutional powers."

Cite?

[Frank Drackman]

Hey Queenie, long time, no sea, but hey (man!) Get a Compuserve Account, fire up that 386 with your lighting fast 14.4 modem and check out AlGores Interwebs!
Where I found this.  
Biden v. Nebraska
Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
22-506 8th Cir. Feb 28, 2023
Jun 30, 2023 6-3 Roberts OT 2022
Holding: The Secretary of Education does not have authority under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 to establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel roughly $430 billion in debt principal and affect nearly all borrowers.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 30, 2023. Justice Barrett filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Jackson joined.

OK, it’s not “Biden Admitting” he doesn’t “Admit” that Shit stinks either, but it sure does (oh yeah, Ebonics, "It sure do!")

Frank

[Malika]

"OK, it’s not “Biden Admitting”"

It's great that idiots are general idiots.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

C'mon. At least wait for someone slightly hinged to respond before reaching that conclusion.

[Michael Ejercito]

Absolutely.

[Zarniwoop]

Wouldn’t term limits also require a constitutional amendment?

Term limits in the sense of "this person is no longer and Art. III judge/justice"? That seems fairly certain.

There is an argument that S.Ct. justices could be congressionally moved to "senior status" (just as district and appeals court judges move to senior status) after 18 years, so a new active justice can be appointed every two years. In such a model model, senior justices would still receive their pay etc. (as required by Art. III, sec. 1) and could potentially sit when an active justice recuses, could ride circuit, etc.

There are various opinions on how that would pass S.Ct. muster, but it's a decent argument.

[Brett Bellmore]

Constructively removing somebody from the Court isn't likely to pass the laugh test so far as the Court itself is concerned.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

He could couple the senior status thing with an expansion of the Court without the need for a constitutional amendment?

Biden was never onboard with simply expanding the Court, but one additional appointment for each new "senior justice" could be within his tolerance level.

[Brett Bellmore]

Biden wasn’t onboard with simply expanding the Court, because he didn’t have the votes to do it, and knew that attempting it and failing would result in a huge political hit for no gain.

Now, of course, he has nothing to lose personally. And speculation is, won’t be terribly miffed if the Democrats do badly in November.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Not dead?

[Bob from Ohio]

"(just as district and appeals court judges move to senior status)"

That is a voluntary choice. A judge eligible to take it can choose not to do so and remain fully active.

[Frank Drackman]

It's like how Declaring War requires Congressional approval, just call it a "Police Action" or a "Conflict" or a "AUMF" and then Hillary Rodman can say she voted for it before she voted against it

Frank

[Josh R]

Jack Balkin argues it does not require a constitutional amendment.

[Brett Bellmore]

Jack Balkin is a self-proclaimed "living originalist", I wouldn't say he's the last person whose opinion I'd credit on that, but he's WAY down the list.

You can see that in how he's disingenuous about what is meant be "Court packing", pretending that you could swap out the entire Court for appellate purposes, and it wouldn't be 'Court packing'.

[Josh R]

It would only be packing for original jurisdiction cases.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yup, that's his disingenuous claim.

Of course, FDR would have been tickled pink if he could have replaced the entire Court for appellate purposes. He hardly cared about the original jurisdiction cases.

[not guilty]

Professor Balkin's proposal is intriguing:

The basic idea is this: The President appoints a new Justice in every odd-numbered year. Congress creates two en banc courts: The first is an en banc court for deciding cases under the Court's original jurisdiction, consisting of all the active Justices. The second is an en banc court for deciding cases under the Court's appellate jurisdiction, consisting of the nine Justices most junior in service.

https://balkin.blogspot.com/2020/10/dont-pack-court-regularize-appointments.html

I haven't thought it out carefully, but my first blush impression is favorable.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, it's 1992 and the nine most junior justices are:

Ford
1975
Carter
1977
1979
Reagan
1981
1983
1985
1987
Bush 41
1989
1991

That would be the same 6-3 (possibly 7-2) conservative court that you have today. It would remain 5-4 until 1995.

We would be living in a very different country. Or a Banana Republic if Clinton's four made it 2-7 and the Bush '43's four made it 6-3 again, with each new majority rewriting the law.

[Noscitur a sociis]

This is, at the very least, significantly more constitutionally plausible than what's being outlined in the op-ed, especially if it only applies prospectively (i.e. all the current justices sit on the appellate court until they retire voluntarily) and the chief justice always sits on the en banc court.

[Moderation4ever]

While I don't expect much action on these reforms, I hope they will stimulate some discussion. People are healthier and live longer and so a lifetime appointment seems too much. I think a reasonable time length of 18 to 21 years could be workable.

I like to add one additional reform. The Senate must vote on judicial nominations within 90 days of the Presidents making the nomination. Senators are free to vote against a nominee, but they can't avoid a hard vote. A vote must be taken at 90 days. The only exception is if the Senate's term expires and then the nomination must be remade to a new Senate.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've advocated a similar reform, with the nominee defaulting to being approved if the vote doesn't take place.

Just because I knew that what they did to Garland wasn't really unprecedented, doesn't mean I approved of it. They should have just voted him down.

[Moderation4ever]

I disagree with the part about nominee getting an approval with no vote. I can see a majority leader protecting his people by not holding a vote on a controversial nominee. I say make them vote at 90 days like it or not.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't see HOW you "make" them hold a vote, in a judicially enforceable way. Co-equal branch, and all that.

You're down to which you prefer, type A or type B errors, you can't exclude both at the same time.

[Moderation4ever]

Most of the judicial reforms President Biden has suggested would require a constitutional amendment. I would include the requirement for review.

"The President has the power to appoint justices to the Supreme Court and lessor Federal courts with the Advice and Consent of the Senate. The Senate must vote to provide consent or deny consent within 90 days of date of nomination."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why is something only bad when it hurts the left?

[Bob from Ohio]

"I hope they will stimulate some discussion."

It won't. So transparently partisan that it will roll back any possible GOP support.

[Malika]

JD Vance is certainly interesting. He was born James Donald Bowman. Later, when adopted by his mother's third husband, his mother changed his name to James David Hamel. Though he claimed to adopt his grandparents surname Vance when he got married (!) he actually adopted it when he graduated from Yale.

Also, his marriage was an "interfaith" one given his wife is Hindu. I wonder what he or his wife thinks of Josh Hawley's commitment to "Christian Nationalism?"

[Mr. Bumble]

By the way, congratulations on your new name.

[Malika]

It's actually one I used before Malika the Maize but the stupid site didn't "remember me" like you do Bumblebee man.

[Frank Drackman]

Do you remember Bumbles handedness like you do mine? (actually you can usually tell by whichever testicle hangs lower)

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

One word explains Hindu Indians: Pakistan.

Christians may laugh at them, Muslims will behead them.

That's not an insignificant difference.

[Sarcastr0]

This is not sufficient.

Hindus require more explanation!!

[Michael P]

What are the legalities involved in formally renaming Google to Minitrue?

https://hotair.com/david-strom/2024/07/29/more-1984-than-you-can-imagine-n3792410

[Joe_dallas]

On google – I typed in
“assassination attempt on ”
The autofill pulled up
Senator Hodgkins, then Truman, Lenin and Reagan in that order,
There was no autofill for Trump.

Unbiased google search engine – not

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

Woah, not that I wasn't aware of Google's bias, but that's impressive.

truman
reagan
ronald reagan
lenin
gerald ford
franklin roosevelt
andrew johnson
fdr
seward
john paul ii

Going further and typing "assassination attempt on t" gives:

truman
the pope

That's beyond nuts.

[Brett Bellmore]

Google, whistleblowers revealed some years ago, has an extensive system of white and black lists to modify search results and curate auto-complete.

So rest assured, this did NOT naturally emerge from the algorithm, it was a deliberate decision on somebody's part.

[Sarcastr0]

REST ASSURED.

Brett, you have no idea.

And neither do any of those above – Google has a user-specific contextual aspect to its autofill and search results.

The 3 above are just idiots. You’re a fucking engineer.

[Life of Brian]

Google has a user-specific contextual aspect to its autofill and search results.

Do tell. Too bad it returns exactly the same results as shown above in a private browser with no user signed in.

Takes about 10 seconds to check -- far less time than it took to post your under-informed reply.

[Brett Bellmore]

Over at Balkinization, an extended rant on progressives and the push for a constitutional convention. It's long, but at least worth reading for the 'progressive' take on actually using Article V.

Wishcasting and Personal Responsibility

"A convention with a comfortable Republican majority will have no interest in campaign finance reform, cleaning up the Supreme Court, dumping the Electoral College, reforming the Senate, ending gerrymandering, modifying the Second Amendment, or any other progressive cause. "

I think Super is in no position to talk about "wishcasting", if he thinks his list of progressive causes a 'democratically' staffed Convention would embrace is at all plausible. I count at least two amendments in the Bill of Rights he wants rid of, and he seems not to have read the final clause of Article V, or considered the need to actually ratify amendments.

[Sarcastr0]

I hear the First Amendment is about a lot more than unlimited contributions to politicians.

[Frank Drackman]

It's the one that allows American Fags to exercise their free "Speech" by burning an American Flag, but I can't exercise my free Speech by burning an American Fag burning an American Flag.

Frank "Going out to burn a Fag" (don't call the FBI, it's not what you think)

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, there are other parts of it that Democrats hate, too.

What Super means by campaign finance reform in this context is overturning Citizens United, the case in which some woman named Kagan argued that the government could ban books. That's pretty hardcore anti-1st amendment.

[Michael Ejercito]

Yeah.

I am surprised there was a dissent.

[Brett Bellmore]

And that the AG who argued for the government got nominated AND confirmed to the Supreme court?

When I decided it was time to give up on the LP, and align myself with one of the major parties, I concluded that, while there were a fair number of things to dislike about what the Republicans were saying, and like about what the Democrats were saying, about civil liberties, that when you got into the details the Republicans were actually better on civil liberties, due to the Democrats' tendency to claim to favor civil liberties by just redefining them so that they didn't get in their way.

I've never seen much clause to question that evaluation, sadly.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, you know what the Solicitor General’s job is. Don’t peddle that bullshit around here. I...well, I don't know that you know better than that, but you should.

You said: “I count at least two amendments in the Bill of Rights he wants rid of.”
And then the only example of the 1A is campaign finance reform.

You were being facile and exaggerating because demonizing Dems is deep in your psyche. It’s not needed.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Brett, you know what the Solicitor General’s job is."

Yes, and I know the limits to it when the Solicitor General decides that the government's position genuinely violates the Constitution. So do you, so right back at you.

I had to mention the 1st amendment because he didn't cite it by name, dipshit. He actually stated his desire to go after the 2nd. But you wanted more detail on the 1st, like the left's hostility to religious liberty, wanting to cabin it to the inside of your head? (At least until mind reading technology is available, anyway...)

[Sarcastr0]

If it was a Supreme Court case, it didn't genuinely violate the Constitution. BrettLaw remains only in your head.

You said *get rid of* the 1A.
That's still nothing like what you're complaining about in the Balkinization excerpt.

You ranting about how the Dems don't believe in BrettLaw won't go anywhere special or new, but it is a change of subject.

[Joe_dallas]

Sacastro - Always a prick comment
do you ever have anything constructive to say -

[Sarcastr0]

Reduced to empty name calling now?

[Don Nico]

Answer his question.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Or what? What exactly are you going to do about it should he not?

[Mr. Bumble]

Mute him?

[Sarcastr0]

Pretty sure Joe meant it to be rheotrical, Don. Don't be cute.

[Commenter_XY]

He does not.

[Kazinski]

His role is isn't so much to make or refute points, it's more tone policing, and trying to keep the discussion out of sensitive topics.

That's because once the topic gets outside his comfort zone he starts thinking about fucking chickens. That's probably uncomfortable especially at work sitting in your cubicle.

[Sarcastr0]

You make some odd choices.

[MoreCurious]

MAGA. As we all know, that's an acronym for Make America Great Again. But what does it mean? What does the phrase mean to the Trump supporters and MAGA enthusiasts who comment here on the VC? In other words, if America is no longer great, when was it? During which of our 25 decades was America great? Was it the 1950s when most women were expected to stay home, have babies, and take care of the house, and before the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, and when most immigrants were European, not Asian or African or Central or South American, and when almost no LBGTQ people ventured from the closet? Or maybe it was the 1930s when wannabe fascists like Father Coughlin, Henry Ford, and Charles Lindbergh spewed their antisemitic garbage? Or could it have been the 1890s when the Supreme Court upheld Jim Crow laws? Or perhaps it was the time before the Civil War when everyone seemed to know his or her place and fewer people made waves, whether or not they were satisfied with their situation? Or how about the decades of western expansion in the early 19th Century when we confiscated land belonging to others and killed the ones who got in our way? To what time period are MAGA people hoping to return, and why?

[Frank Drackman]

2017-2021

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that was pretty obvious, MoreCurious was really over-thinking it.

[Malika]

Given that Trump used the same phrase in 2016 it's not "pretty obvious" he's now referring to 2017-2021.

[Brett Bellmore]

I wonder what Reagan and Clinton meant by it?

The bit about the extorted donation to St. Jude's was amusing...

I think that America has improved on some metrics, and declined on others, and I'm not at all persuaded that regaining the losses requires sacrificing the gains.

[Malika]

Do you think it's tenable to say Trump means 2017 when he used the phrase in 2016?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's tenable to say that Trump means 2017 when he uses the phrase in 2024. "Make America Great Again, Again" would have been awkward.

[Frank Drackman]

He actually considered using that for awhile.

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe, but this way he gets to sell unsold merch. 😉

[Mr. Bumble]

Assumes he was "thinking".

[SimonP]

If you memory-hole the entirety of 2020 (COVID, COVID response, corresponding economic recession), selectively forget the House flipping to the Democrats in 2018, and give credit to Trump for presiding over the effects of Obama's policies, sure.

Trump's one and only legislative accomplishment was an expensive tax cut that's going to expire soon. He didn't repeal Obamacare. He didn't pass a legislative fix that would prevent the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide. He couldn't negotiate an infrastructure deal or money for his border wall. He brought us to the brink of war with North Korea and Iran. He laid the groundwork for our withdrawal from Afghanistan and Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Trump was simply the embodiment of MAGA's confused, self-deluded ideology, incoherent in the extreme, chaotic in practice.

[Frank Drackman]

There was also the Vaccine that they say saved billions of lives (I got it, and I’m still alive) produced in record time, which is a good and bad thing, if it’d been left to Parkinsonian Joe, they’d still be working on it. Oh, and just try getting the latest Vid' shot, they'll look at you like your asking where they keep the VHS tapes.

Frank

[SimonP]

The one and only reason Trump pushed the vaccine development was that he hoped it would help him win the election. When approvals weren't coming through in time for him to declare "victory," he lost interest. The entire rollout was left to the Biden administration to build from the ground up. During which time, Trump pivoted to playing to the anti-vaxx crowd.

Again, MAGA's ideology is confused and self-deluded. You'll sit here and extoll Trump's efforts on the vaccine. Then you'll also sit here and decry vaccine mandates, preferring "natural immunity" and unproven remedies as the best response to COVID. The MAGA mind virus is even spreading to vilify other childhood vaccines, to such a point that long-eradicated diseases are making a comeback.

[defaultdotxbe]

Impressive for Biden to build a rollout from the ground up and have that rollout begin over a month before he was sworn in to office.

[SimonP]

Trump was too busy in December 2020 trying to fight his election loss to focus on the rollout. The rollout didn't get meaningfully underway until Biden took over the shambles of a process Trump left him.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're just hallucinating at this point. Are you sure you're not an AI chatbot?

[SimonP]

Initial approvals and deliveries happened only in December 2020. What was Trump doing during that time, besides secretly getting the vaccine while convincing the public they didn't need it - or, as the Trump revisionist historians prefer to put it, "Urging calm"?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nobody is stupid enough to suppose Trump deserves credit for activities he actively opposed. Trump tried repeatedly to thwart vaccine effectiveness, at the cost of thousands of lives among his benighted followers.

[Brett Bellmore]

He actively tried to make the vaccine available, while wanting people to have a choice about whether to take it. That's a perfectly coherent position, and much more libertarian than your "Vaccine or bullet, one way or the other you're getting a shot" approach.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Removed. Not going to encourage Bellmore to spew more lies.

[Commenter_XY]

2017-19; we can leave off the pandemic.

[Malika]

Long time Balkin viewers will recognize that's clearly a shot at Sandy Levinson. Interesting.

[Brett Bellmore]

Misplaced?

But, yes, Levinson and Super have had an ongoing argument for some time over the advisability of a constitutional convention.

Super is right that Levinson is wildly optimistic about the odds of the progressive left’s constitutional program actually being advanced by a convention, unless it was blatantly gamed, and implausibly so, and then the proposed amendments would die during the ratification step; The progressive agenda just isn’t popular enough to make it into the Constitution by formal amendment, being smuggled in by judges IS it’s only hope.

On the other hand, Sandy is rather more realistic about how some of the right's Supreme court victories, such as Heller, were perfectly defensible on legal grounds. That IS his famous heresy from the left, admitting that, yeah, maybe the 2nd amendment really did mean something inconvenient to the gun control movement. Super is all in on every right wing ruling being utterly illegitimate...

[hobie]

That's the difference between the rubes and I. America is always great in my book. To think otherwise betrays a low opinion of your own country. Earlier this year when Kristi Noem was shooting herself in the foot, she had to pad her bonafides by pointing out that South Dakota's economy was the best it had ever been. And I thought to myself, 'Uh oh, that ain't MAGA. She done shot herself again.'

[hobie]

In fact what Republican-controlled state government would say, or even think, that their economy was MAGA-level shit? None. So how can you be MAGA when your state's economy is so darn good? Church Lady: "Mmmmmm...HYPOCRISY!!!"

[CountmontyC]

So was it great when Jim Crow laws were in effect? Or was there room for improvement? A more perfect union you might say.

[hobie]

Yep, it was great then too. But it had a Jim Crow problem at the same time. But, yeah, if you're suggesting we could expand further civil liberties for minorities, I'm right there behind you

[Sarcastr0]

CountmontyC - read some Frederick Douglass. His faith in American exceptionalism remains impressive and humbling to this day.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/RadioDerb/2018-08-17.html#02

[Dr. Ed 2]

"when most women were expected to stay home, have babies, and take care of the house,"

An amazing number of women want that.
They want a rich husband so that the CAN do this.

[Sarcastr0]

Thank goodness Ed is here to defend the tradwives.

[John F. Carr]

My Apple news feed has been offering me a series of articles over the past year attacking tradwives. They are oppressing themselves. They are going to break into your house and make you learn to cook!

[Sarcastr0]

Ok.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Amanda Marcotte has been on a roll lately:

"This is fascinating and a great illustration of what I feel is becoming the new patriarchal aspiration: To find a woman who is accomplished and ambitious, convince her to marry you, and then take it all away. It's a form of sexist conquest."

As if women don't make their own choices.

[Magister]

Depends on the choice, and whether she's in a state that bans abortion.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If you want to know What Women Really Want, look no further than a fabulist janitor incel who's never left northern New England!

[Kazinski]

Actually it was the 60's when Bikini's hit the beaches and no one over 130# wore one.

It probably ended when Disney bought Marvel and Star Wars 2009-10, of course it was foreshadowed with the release of the Phantom Menace in 1999.

But it's just sectors that have decayed, the American Bourbon industry has never been better, although the craft beer industry has plateaued.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY
RACIAL SLUR SCOREBOARD

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

ZERO (0)

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

THIRTY-FIVE (35)

occasions (so far) during 2024
(that’s at least 35 exchanges
that have included a racial slur,
not just 35 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, transphobic, racist,
Palestinian-hating, Islamophobic,
and other bigoted content published
at this faux libertarian blog, which
is presented from the disaffected,
receding right-wing fringe of
American legal thought by members
of the Federalist Society
for Law and Public Policy Studies.

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

This one is good, too.

[Frank Drackman]

Starting the week off with an Original Post? Who are you and what have you done with our Revolting Reverend Sandusky!!?!?!?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones gems:

First, a focus on Charlie.

Next, Charlie's old mate from the engine room, sitting in with some other mates (Ian, Ronnie, Roderick, Kenney . . .)

[Frank Drackman]

Revolting, for Jay-hey's sake man, take a breath already!
Like they've been saying about Texas for the last 25 years, you're "Turning Blue"
Remove:
Your Face:
From:
Mick's Scrotum:

Frank

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

boohoo hoo I want my username back boo hoo I'm going to post this big long report everyday until I do! Harumph!

That's my impression of you, lol, you thin-skinned little girl

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You whine as much as Eugene Volokh does.

Boo hoo, UCLA doesn't like my habitual use of vile racial slurs.

Boo hoo. Northwestern didn't hire me, maybe because of my racially stained Tourette-like behavior..

Boo hoo. America has rejected my stale, ugly, right-wing thinking.

You don't whine as much as Blackman does, though.

Nobody does.

Carry on, bitter clingers.

[Malika]

“I’m sure some will say now that I’m calling America a Christian nation. So I am,” Hawley, a Missouri Republican, said. “Some will say that I’m advocating Christian nationalism. So I do. My question is: Is there any other kind worth having?”

Friend of Israel!

[Frank Drackman]

I'll take a Christian Nationalist over Mullah Ill-hand Omar and however many Ham-Ass Terrorists she's concealing under her Turban and Hand-Hi-Job any day, It isn't Christian Nationalists murdering Jews

Frank

[Malika]

"I’ll take a Christian Nationalist over Mullah Ill-hand Omar and however many Ham-Ass Terrorists she’s concealing under her Turban and Hand-Hi-Job any day, "

DB, is that you?

[Sarcastr0]

Please, just let him do his bigoted misspelling gimmick into the void/RAK.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Great comment!

[Frank Drackman]

Please, get that Corn-Cob-ectomy already,
you probably didn't like how the "Beatles" spelled their name either
or Prince's "Lovesexy isn't a word!!!" "it should be "2010" not "20Ten"!!"
and I saw "Sign O' the Times" in the Theaters, 1987 (unfortunately no IMAX in 1987) did you?
do you even know what I be talkin' bout' Willis???
Fuck Revolting and his Stones (Although like Spicoli, I'd wing over to London to jam with them if I got the chance) can you beat this?
"My sister killed her baby 'cause she couldn't afford to feed it
And we're sending people to the moon
In September my cousin tried reefer for the very first time
Now he's doing horse, it's June"

OK, maybe a little overboard on the Marriage-a-Juan-A/Opiate link but hey, Prince probably was speaking from Experience,

and if I was POTUS, Prince dying from a Fent-a-nol (I've given up getting people to pronounce it correctly, it's Fent-a-nill, rhymes with "pill) Overdose would have been my Pearl Harbor, would have declared war on every Country who's Fent-a-nol kills Amuricans (OK, would mean fighting Chy-Na, May-He-Co, Ear-Ron, Off-Gone-E-Ston, Pock-E-Ston..... that's the Pentagons problem, I'm just the guy who sees the big picture)

If Prince was still alive (Like Jimmy Morrison, I'm not totally convinced he isn't) he'd have voted MAGA
he even had a Corvette (little Red one I believe) and it didn't go "Vroom! Vroom!"

Frank

[Malika]

"If Prince was still alive (Like Jimmy Morrison, I’m not totally convinced he isn’t) he’d have voted MAGA
he even had a Corvette (little Red one I believe) and it didn’t go “Vroom! Vroom!”"

I can't make properly formatted comments! Biden has The parKinsons!

[Frank Drackman]

Most of the great poets didn't write in Iambic Pentameter, in fact, now you can place a Crucifix in a jar of Urine and it's "Art" (My Version was a Photo of MLK Jr on top of a Dog Turd, didn't last 10 minutes (OK, it was Atlanta in August))
But I can go Old School, lets see....
"Dear queen, I urge you, choose that Fro' with care, And heed my words—be swift, no time to spare!
In your brain's hemispheres, the virus grows, It multiplies and spreads with rapid force. With urgency, we seek to halt its flow, To guard our minds against its fierce discourse!"

Frank

[Don Nico]

"Biden has The parKinsons!"
Of course, we don't know that. The dignosis is not as easy as some think.

[Frank Drackman]

Unless you've figured out a way to do a Substantia Nigra biopsy it's a "Clinical Diagnosis" fancy way of saying we look at you and know what it is, like we do with your daughter's Herpes.
Sorry, that was uncalled for, but with the hostility on this Homo-Erotic Blog, best to give a Pre-emptive Insult first, and apologize later.
So I'm sorry your daughter has the Herpes

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This level of commentary from this blog's target audience must be why Prof. Stephens Sachs decided to join the Volokh Conspiracy . . . and stick with it despite the incessant bigotry and ignorance published by his white, male, disaffected, right-wing blog.

To Prof. Sachs' soon-to-be law students: You likely could print a few random days of Volokh Conspiracy commentary, take it to the dean's office, and get moved to a non-clinger section.

[Frank Drackman]

Knew that mention of Herpes would get your attention Revolting, and you know what I did yesterday? I ate a Cheeseburger! (OK, not Bacon, no Religious concerns, but I do have to keep a watch on my outrageously sexy bod) Now get back to your fresh Alabama Trouser Sausage, compliance is mandatory!

Frank

[not guilty]

A cheeseburger? Isn't combining meat and dairy products verboten?

[Mr. Bumble]

What are you a rabbi now?

[not guilty]

No, I'm not a rabbi. I was just puzzled by Frank's suggestion that a cheeseburger with bacon would pose religious concerns, but a cheeseburger without bacon would not.

FWIW, I love bacon, and I make a very tasty shrimp salad with Old
Bay seasoning.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That's the beauty of relying on superstition at the expense of reason -- "just because" becomes a perfectly sound argument and you get to make shit up as you go along because nonsense.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think there might have been an implied "in America" there. Maybe not, though.

It is inherent in being an actual adherent of a religion, that in thinking your religion right and best, you think other religions wrong and worse. So, naturally you're going to think Jewish nationalism is inferior to Christian nationalism, if you actually ARE a Christian. And visa versa, I would assume.

The interesting question is, of course, what is actually meant by "Christian nationalism". I mean, meant by it when used by Christians who happen to be nationalists, not non-Christians who happen to not be nationalists, of course.

[Malika]

"I think there might have been an implied “in America” there."

Brett, always happy to read the mind of a person saying something dumb to 'correct' it.

Offer only applies to conservatives Brett generally agrees with.

[Brett Bellmore]

Malika, always unclear about the meaning of "might".

[Malika]

You're giving him a weasely benefit of the doubt defense that you wouldn't if he had a D beside his name.

[Sarcastr0]

I see you dove for the weeds and Malika was there for that.

But broadly, Christain nationalism is a bad thing. For lots of reasons, but among them that it's profoundly anti-liberty, which I hear was a thing you once supported.

[Brett Bellmore]

I would have to know what somebody using the term means by it, before I could say it was a bad thing as used by them.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Rachel Maddow told him it was bad and they got a presentation on it at his Federal workplace telling him it was bad.

Good enough for him! The experts told him, so he hopped on board! He trusts the science!

[Sarcastr0]

Brett once again becomes someone born yesterday to avoid acknowledging well known facts.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, I realize that, as a leftist, you think you're entitled to dictate to other people what they mean by words and phrases they use. But as a non-leftist, who actually wants language to work in its function of transmitting meaning from one person to another, I'm not into that sort of nonsense.

I actually try to understand what people mean by what they say, instead of imposing meanings on them.

So, what's he mean by it? I'd have to find out before opining on whether it was good or bad.

[Sarcastr0]

Christain Nationalism has a well known meaning. You can look it up!

There's also more to that quote that is manifestly untrue about America having a religeon.

[Brett Bellmore]

I can look up what left wing critics of it say it means. That's not necessarily what HE means.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If there's some confusion about what Hawley meant, he could certainly revert to American English, if that would help?

[Don Nico]

"You can look it up!"
That is the kind of thing you say about CRT.

[Sarcastr0]

I DID look up CRT.
I posted digests of Will Baude's podcast where he did a series of interviews with a CRT law professor.

I also posted a bunch of tenets in the thread a couple of years ago.

I was told it was all lies, and the Real CRT was whatever conservatives figured it out to be.

You can just Google "What is Christain nationalism" or I suppose just look up interviews with Christian nationalists to get a pretty bad eyeful of what Hawley is associating himself with.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I was told it was all lies, and the Real CRT was whatever conservatives figured it out to be."

If "a woman" can be whatever leftists figured it out to be, why can't CRT?

[Sarcastr0]

What fucked you up, TiP?

I remember when we had a civil, in-depth conversation about abortion and faith. That was 10 years ago. I still remember it pleasantly as a time I learned a lot and stretched my worldview.

Now this kind of empty off topic threadshitting is your norm.

[Bob from Ohio]

well known!

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I'm willing to stake out "Christian nationalism is a bad thing" as a well known fact.

Feel free to argue the other side if you want!

[Frank Drackman]

I'm probably the only Charlie Daniel's fan on this Homo-Erotic Blog, but "In America" was one of his tunes, written at a similar time in Amurican His-straw, Horrible POTUS, Humiliating military failures in the Mid East, Inflation,

And we may have done a little bit
Of fightin' amongst ourselves
But you outside people best leave us
Alone
'Cause we'll all stick together
And you can take that to the bank
That's the cowboys and the hippies
And the Rebels and and the Yanks
You just go and lay your hand
On a Pittsburgh Steelers' fan
And I think you're gonna finally understand

OMG he's encouraging Pittsburgh Steeler Fans to commit Violence!!!!! (like they need any enouragement)

Saw CD play in Guantanamo (I was working there, not a prisoner) and at a County Fair in Nawth Jaw-Jaw some 20 years later.

Frank

[SimonP]

I think there might have been an implied “in America” there. Maybe not, though.

The rhetoric is obviously drawn from similar kinds of statements by Orban; the Republicans are playing from the same “illiberal democracy” playbook that he has been. The point, in the rhetoric, is to say that western civilization is the greatest development the world has ever known; that western civilization’s greatness is tied to its roots in Christianity and Christian beliefs; that the decline in hegemonic power in the west is similarly tied to its disavowal of Christian principles; and so, the revivification of “Christian nationalism” is part of a global effort to protect western civilization.

Jewish nationalism, in the specific form of Israel, gets a special exemption. If pressed, they might grant a similar exemption to Modi’s Hindu nationalism. But certainly none of them will endorse Islamic nationalism (aka, “terrorism”) or be able to speak comprehensibly about Buddhist nationalism (“is that a thing?”).

The interesting question is, of course, what is actually meant by “Christian nationalism”.

Is it? I suppose we can quibble over precise implementation, where you pretend that politics, institutions, and pragmatic considerations will constrain the extremism we hear regularly from self-professed Christian nationalists, and I take them only at their word. But certainly we can say this much:

“Christian nationalism” in America means, at the very least, shaping state and national policy in accordance with traditionally “Christian” values. This means banning pornography (perhaps settling just for imposing stricter requirements intended to prevent “children” from accessing it or materials relating to LGBT issues); it means centering the “traditional family” in policy-making (generous tax exemptions for families, rolling back federal recognition and protection of same-sex marriages, providing parents a greater say in controlling the healthcare decisions of their minor children (except when it comes to gender-affirming care)); it means generous protections for “religious freedom” (going as far as possible in expanding religious exemptions from compliance with various federal laws); it means funneling more public money to churches, religious schools, and other religious organizations (charter schools, partnering with religious organizations to provide welfare services).

The “nationalist” bit is less developed and currently doesn’t seem to be much more than an extreme approach to immigration. Trump has offered a paean to economic nationalism, but it’s hard to see what the strategy is, for American economic self-sufficiency, after you impose massive tariffs on international trade and trigger the trade wars. Republicans talk a lot about “drill, baby, drill,” as itself a kind of case for energy independence, though in actual fact America is the top petroleum producer in the globe, such that our dependence on oil from other countries has less to do with the amount that we drill than it does with the amount we consume. That is, if we wanted to be self-reliant in terms of energy, it’s not clear why the best strategy is to double down on our consumption and to restrict ourselves to a non-renewable resource that pollutes our air and accelerates global warming. So it’s all a mess, and not as coherent as the “Christian” agenda.

[Bob from Ohio]

"This means banning pornography (perhaps settling just for imposing stricter requirements intended to prevent “children” from accessing it or materials relating to LGBT issues); it means centering the “traditional family” in policy-making (generous tax exemptions for families, rolling back federal recognition and protection of same-sex marriages, providing parents a greater say in controlling the healthcare decisions of their minor children (except when it comes to gender-affirming care)); it means generous protections for “religious freedom” (going as far as possible in expanding religious exemptions from compliance with various federal laws); it means funneling more public money to churches, religious schools, and other religious organizations (charter schools, partnering with religious organizations to provide welfare services). "

This Jewish convert says "hell yes!" to those things.

[SimonP]

Does the Jewish convert say, "hell yes!" to their children being told by their Christian teachers that salvation is to be found only in accepting Jesus Christ as their lord and savior, in accordance with their personal religious beliefs?

Does the Jewish convert say, "hell yes!" when local governments, extending public money and partnerships to Christian organizations, refuse to do so with similarly-situated Jewish organizations, citing limited resources and demand? And when those Jewish converts sue over this disparate treatment in court before Christian judges, do they say, "hell yes!" when the judges accept those assertions at face value?

Does the Jewish convert say, "hell yes!" when Christian versions of the Bible are taught in schools, and textbooks treat Christian history as part of American/European history, while Jewish religious texts and history are treated as a "niche" or "specialized" interest that need not be included in curricula or course offerings?

Does the Jewish convert say, "hell yes!" when Christian nationalism means, in practice, providing them a lot of benefits they like, at the expense of a kind of de facto second-class citizenship?

[Bob from Ohio]

None of these things in this post flow from the things in your prior post.

[SimonP]

Yet all of them are part and parcel of the same agenda I've described.

Don't try to evade the point. Your response was, "religious conservatives of every stripe would be in favor of heavy-handed federal policy shoring up their lifestyle." My response to that was, "Maybe so, but emboldened Christian conservatives will assert their supremacy in both official and unofficial ways at every level."

I can only surmise, by your evasion, that you are in some sense aware of this likely consequence, and are just shitposting.

[Bob from Ohio]

Just mind reading on your part.

"Yet all of them are part and parcel of the same agenda I’ve described. "

No, they are not.

[SimonP]

Yes they are.

Fun chat.

[Brett Bellmore]

"“Christian nationalism” in America means, at the very least, shaping state and national policy in accordance with traditionally “Christian” values."

I think that's likely, yes. Just because a voter's values derive from a religious rather than secular source doesn't mean they're barred from being embodied in government policy. You don't have to legalize murder if the legislature was thinking about the Decalogue when legislating against it.

"This means banning pornography"

This is where things get complicated. Because Christians are supposed to take oaths seriously, and a legislator who happens to be a Christian has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, which takes certain means of advancing policy off the table.

You're citing a lot of proposed "Christian nationalist" policy objectives, and not even noticing that many of them are perfectly defensible and popular from a secular perspective. You think only Christian parents believe they ought to have any say in how their children are raised?

[SimonP]

As I said, Brett:

I suppose we can quibble over precise implementation, where you pretend that politics, institutions, and pragmatic considerations will constrain the extremism we hear regularly from self-professed Christian nationalists, and I take them only at their word.

You are nothing, if not predictable.

[Brett Bellmore]

How convenient. Can I also preemptively dismiss any arguments you might advance, by saying up front you'll pretend them?

[SimonP]

I predicted that you'd engage in bad-faith special pleading. You engaged in bad-faith special pleading. Is the accuracy of my prediction supposed to undermine it?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Let's not forget we're talking about Josh "jog on" Hawley, here. If it somehow transpires that something he said is not MAGA enough, he will simply say something else.

"In an interview with National Review‘s John McCormack, Hawley was asked how he went from declaring that “Russia’s brutal assault on Ukraine and invasion of its territory must be met with strong American resolve” to telling other members of his party that “You can either be the party of Ukraine and the globalists or you can be the party of East Palestine and the working people of this country.”

Last year, in the immediate aftermath of Russia’s invasion of its neighbor, Hawley asserted that it was in the U.S.’s “strategic interests” to arm Ukraine, going so far as to argue that “It’s gotta be our policy to make sure that this little bet he’s made — that he can just gobble up Ukraine and that’ll be easy and he’ll be able to chew it up and swallow it — we’ve got to make sure that he loses that bet.”

“I think the way we can do that now is we can arm the Ukrainian resistance,” he continued. But Hawley told McCormack that his past position was predicated on the idea that Putin wanted to take “the entire country of Ukraine.”

“That turned out to be laughably wrong. That was a gross intelligence miscalculation,” said Hawley. When McCormack challenged him by positing that taking all of Ukraine had been Putin’s objective and he had been thwarted in no small part by the efforts of the U.S., as Hawley had once hoped, the senator rejected the theory.

“We were told that it was imminent, and he would absolutely be able to do it. As it turns out, that was totally wrong,” he said."

[Ed Grinberg]

You are a fool (or, more likely, disingenuous, i.e., a troll).
America being a Christian nation in no way conflicts with Israel being a Jewish nation.
I would take it even further:
Q: What accounts for the different treatment of Israel by America vs. the various European countries & the European Union?
A: The fact that America is (or at least used to be) a Christian country.

[Malika]

Someone is a fool!

“Some will say that I’m advocating Christian nationalism. So I do. My question is: Is there any other kind worth having?”

[Martinned2]

Q: What accounts for the different treatment of Israel by America vs. the various European countries & the European Union?
A: The fact that America is (or at least used to be) a Christian country.

For the record, other explanations are available.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Q: What accounts for the different treatment of Israel by America vs. the various European countries & the European Union?
A: The fact that America is (or at least used to be) a Christian country.

That seems doubly wrong. First, America isn't now and never has been a Christian country. Second, every European country was and many still are Christian countries (as in, they literally have an established, government-supported Christian church). So I think secularism and ecumenicism are a more plausible explanation for America's relative philosemitism than Christian nationalism.

[Kazinski]

When in Missouri you do Christian Nationalism, in San Francisco or Seattle or Paris you do Gay Internationalism. At least the Christian Nationalists don’t insist on flying the Christian Flag at all of our Embassies, or threaten draconian prison sentences for blasphemy for laying rubber with electric scooters on crosses painted in the streets.

[Sarcastr0]

Gays - the new rootless cosmopolitans?

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.newsweek.com/peter-brimelow-vdare-blames-letitia-james-1929349
https://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/RadioDerb/2024-07-26.html#02

New York Attorney General has successfully shut down a dissident website (where people said "offensive" things). And the courts ... went along with it.
What was that about "the land of the free and the home of the brave"?

[Malika]

"With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License?"

What leads to something like Ed's lack of self awareness?

[Ed Grinberg]

Whom are you quoting?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You do realize that the NY AG hasn’t “shut down” VDARE at all, right? In fact, it’s still up. Peter Brimelow has promised to shut it down, but you know those MAGARINOs--always changing their minds, or drinking a different flavored drink mix, or tuning in to K-GOD for new instructions...

Brimelow did all that himself, after he got caught apparently doing a “Trump University” type scam. (Or was it a “We Build the Wall” type scam?) Your people…

[Ed Grinberg]

.

To the degree that Kamala Harris has made herself known at all in a general way, it's for two things.
Thing Number One is for being really difficult to work for. ...
Thing Number Two is, for popularizing the phrase "word salad."
Examples are legion; I'm sure you've encountered them.
Clip: "I think it's very important, as you have heard from so many incredible leaders, for us at every moment in time, and certainly this one, to see the moment in time in which we exist and are present and to be able to contextualize it — to understand where we exist in the history and in the moment as it relates not only to the past but the future."

(source)
compare (source):

[In her 1963 book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, Hannah] Arendt takes Eichmann's court testimony and the historical evidence available, and she makes several observations about him:
...
Eichmann's inability to think for himself was exemplified by his consistent use of "stock phrases and self-invented clichés". The man demonstrated his unrealistic worldview and crippling lack of communication skills through reliance on "officialese" (Amtssprache) and the euphemistic Sprachregelung (convention of speech) that made implementation of Hitler's policies "somehow palatable".

[Malika]

Trump supporters going at Harris for "word salad" and "stock phrases and self-invented cliches" is *fantastic.*

Every accusation....

I mean, are you really this lacking in self-awareness?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It made me laugh, so maybe it has a purpose.

[Michael P]

Come on, man, focus on what can be, unburdened by what has been! Consistency with one's past positions and recognizing history for what it is are just SO bougie.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not a hard phrase.

You're working very hard to turn it into something you can be mad at.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Great comment!

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not a hard phrase to pronounce, sure. It's pretty hard to figure out exactly what it's meant to imply, beyond, "Don't you dare use my record against me!", or "Ignore that these things never worked in the past!"

[Sarcastr0]

No, it's pretty easy. I think you know it's pretty easy.
It's an anodyne look forwards and don't let what the past's been like constrain you.

It says nothing about someone's record, and it says nothing about ignoring history entierly.

You're just being a partisan ass because the right hasn't gotten it's shit together about Harris yet so you've really not got a lot to work with.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, and what's in the past? Previous positions and track records.

[Sarcastr0]

You're reading 'unburdened by what has been' as about all things in the past.
That's way beyond what it actually says.

Stop being stupid about slogans.

[Don Nico]

"It says nothing about someone’s record, and it says nothing about ignoring history entierly."
But it seems as that is what she wants it to mean or to have it so anodyne, that it is a poor attempt to sound profound.
Harris has a long history of speaking in empty phrases, but that is much less useful as a criticism than to argue with actual policy positions that she has taken.
It would be a change if both Harris and Trump swore off the stupid name-calling. But I would not hold my breath waiting for either to do so.
I am still happy to vote for RFK,Jr.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s a *political slogan* Don – the mission is to be anodyne but sound profound.

See MAGA. See Hope and Change.

Harris has a long history of speaking in empty phrases
Hahahaha you’ve got *nothing* on her, do you?

But all you 'I can't bring myself to vote for Biden' no longer applies, and you certainly don't want to vote for her!

So here you are. Crying the politician uses too many empty slogans.

Just the weakest of teas.

[Don Nico]

"the mission is to be anodyne but sound profound."
Absolutely correct.

"Hahahaha you’ve got *nothing* on her, do you?
Hahahaha, I been through this before, I have been greatly unimpressed watching her for years from across the Bay. Her record and behavior as AG left much to be desired. So, no, I will not vote for her. Too bad for you.

"So here you are. Crying ..." She does not just use empty slogans. Her speaks and discussions in interviews are anodyne the majority of the time except when she wants to play prosecutor.

Who is whining? You are.

Finally this critique is typical of you. You have nothing positive to offer. It's pathetic.

[Mr. Bumble]

Because, as I have stated before he is the incarnate definition of a douche.
Douche

someone who is more than a jerk, tends to think he's top notch, does stuff that is pretty brainless, thinks he is so much better than he really is, and is normally pretty good at ticking people off in an immature way.

[Sarcastr0]

You're just generally unimpressed, but then you come out with this weak-ass shit.

[Kazinski]

Why do you think everyone is always mad, when it comes off more as bemusement?

[Sarcastr0]

VDARE fan tries to cite Hannah Arendt in his petty partisan bullshit.

Good luck with that.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Great comment! You're on fire!

[TwelveInchPianist]

And as border czar, she was tasked stemming the flow of migrants and addressing the root causes of migration.

She didn't do very well.

[Malika]

"he was tasked stemming the flow of migrants and addressing the root causes of migration."

Interesting. She was "tasked stemming." Given powers to "task stemming?" Elaborate?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yes, you caught me making a typo first thing in the morning. She was tasked with curbing the flow of migrants. And the flow of migrants remains uncurbed.

[Malika]

1. She was tasked with the powers to curb the flow of immigrants?

2. Encounters at the border have dropped dramatically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6ID9VOOSQI

[TwelveInchPianist]

That's what NBC News said:

A senior administration official said Harris' role would focus on "two tracks": both curbing the current flow of migrants and implementing a long-term strategy that addresses the root causes of migration.

Unless you think the senior administration official was lying.

Encounters are down since Biden re-instituted some of Trumps polices? Why didn't she do it sooner?

And of course, we know that encounters being down doesn't mean that the flow is down.

[Don Nico]

"She was tasked with the powers to curb the flow of immigrants"
Even Bill Maher said that a few weeks ago.
But keep the gaslighting flowing.
In any case she owns the results of the present administration's policies.

[Frank Drackman]

Laken Riley (and hundreds of thousands of other Victims of Ill-Legal Crime) was unavailable for comment.
Seriously, Folks, Uncle Joe called her "Lincoln Riley" at his State of the Onion in February, and nobody except me noticed he might be just a touch Senile?

Frank

[Kazinski]

That isn't a fair criticism of Kamala.

You insinuate she was incompetent at steming the flow at the border, but it was never the intent of the administration to do anything but encourage more border crossings at least until it became apparent it was a political liability in late 2023.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/329256/alien-apprehensions-registered-by-the-us-border-patrol/

[not guilty]

Donald Trump has promised that he would sign an executive order on day one of his presidency that would ensure that children born to parents who do not have legal status in the U.S. will not be considered U.S. citizens. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/litigation-certainty-trumps-call-end-birthright-citizenship-face-mount-rcna162314 Never mind that no president has the authority to abrogate birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, unilaterally.

Trump has cold contempt for the rule of law.

[Malika]

But you may have noticed that Biden isn’t big on admitting that anything he wants isn’t constitutional.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

By god, you're right! I shall forthwith withdraw all my support for Joe Biden's candidacy!

[Brett Bellmore]

I think there's a colorable argument that, no, birthright citizenship isn't actually guaranteed by the Fourteenth amendment to the children of people illegally present in the country. Based on that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" language.

It's not an iron clad argument, to be sure. But as I keep pointing out, a lot of current jurisprudence on topics such as the interstate commerce clause was batshit crazy before it was adopted; Is only the left allowed to advocate off the wall constitutional interpretations, and try to get them adopted?

Of course, Trump cannot unilaterally change birthright citizenship for the children of illegals. What he CAN do is get the ball rolling for a test case, to try to get the Supreme court on board.

[Sarcastr0]

Of course you think that.

Is only the left allowed to advocate off the wall constitutional interpretations, and try to get them adopted?
Ahh yes, 'the left is bad so I can ignore my side being bad.'

You know, I see this on the left some, but it's really become the song of the right.

The right HATES to examine itself these days. They only loof left.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, so you DO believe that only the left is allowed to press for off the wall constitutional interpretations. Not surprised at that.

This is rather like attacking somebody for using dirty blows when they've been sucker punched in an alleyway, and are fighting for their life. It can't just be one side in the fight that fights cleanly, and the side using the knuckle dusters is sure in no position to demand it.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Have you never read Sarcastr0's comments before?

He only finger-wags, tone polices, concern trolls, and "oh-my-lands" when the other side does things.

[Michael P]

How quickly we forget which side advised bringing a gun to a knife fight.

[Malika]

Uh, not in any way an "ff the wall constitutional interpretations."

You drinking this morning?

[Sarcastr0]

I didn’t say that. I took it for granted that your take on what off the wall is and mine do not agree.
You admit you're an outlier on Wickard, but now you call it off the wall. BrettLaw is not widely adopted!!

You’re jumping to conclusions and putting words in my mouth, again, to rationalize your support for stuff you admit is bad but ze libs justify all.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, yes, I know once you win something, we're supposed to forget that it was thought to be crazy before you won it. But, why would we agree to do that?

[Sarcastr0]

All you're doing is pretending your subjective take is objective. And thus your subjective take that the left is bad lets you ignore your own principles when it comes to the right.

And you're tapdancing and keeping it so general that it'll let you cover for everything ever.

Have some morals and/or some shame.

[OtisAH]

“Have some morals and/or shame.”

Content not found.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Birther Brett, still rolling out the legal insights, thimbleful by thimbleful.

"I think the world needs a place where disaffected, bigoted, obsolete, on-the-spectrum right-wingers can gather to exchange legal opinions" was a bad idea for a blog.

[not guilty]

Brett, if so-called "illegal aliens" are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, how are they subject to prosecution for unsanctioned entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1325, and how are they are subject to deportation under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227 and 1252? Each involves the exercise of federal jurisdiction.

If the parents are subject to such jurisdiction, how can their offspring born here not be? The matter has been settled by SCOTUS. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898); Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211-212 and n.10 (1982).

[Mr. Bumble]

When you start with "so called illegal aliens" we know the rest is bullshit.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's why I said it was "colorable", not that it was a winning interpretation.

I think there's a much better argument for excluding illegal aliens from apportionment, on the basis that the "indians not taxed" language was intended to exclude from apportionment people who were citizens of other sovereigns than the US government, indians being the only such group large enough to be concerned with.

Birthright citizenship is better dealt with by amendment.

[defaultdotxbe]

It's an obviously incorrect interpretation that is hardly worth mentioning other than to point out it's obvious incorrectness.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Oh, I think it's certainly worth a contempt citation.

[defaultdotxbe]

Brett may have a discovered a way to legitimize sovereign citizen claims. They just need to leave the country, and then reenter illegally and they will no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that would work... If it weren't for the fact that American citizens are subject to US jurisdiction regardless of where they are.

[SimonP]

And this argument would work... if you weren't effectively defining the word "jurisdiction" differently for purposes of the argument you describe as "colorable" and then for purposes of refuting the absurd result of your "colorable" argument.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You all are being unfair to Brett, he means something entirely different by "colorable." He means only to signal that he will provide Josh/Cabresi level obsequious analysis to obviously stupid positions taken by politicians he wants to win.

[SimonP]

But as I keep pointing out, a lot of current jurisprudence on topics such as the interstate commerce clause was batshit crazy before it was adopted; Is only the left allowed to advocate off the wall constitutional interpretations, and try to get them adopted?

I am not sure why the left is singled out for blame, on the interstate commerce clause. As far as I can recall, one of the few limits to its scope was set in order to constrain a "liberal" law; and one of the more egregious extensions of its scope was drafted by Scalia.

Both parties have consistently pushed for expansive use of the commerce clause, in order to set policy at the federal level. I am sure we can expect more of the same, no matter who wins in November.

[David Nieporent]

the children of people illegally present in the country. Based on that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language.

You know, Republicans often attack Democrats for wanting to give amnesty to illegal immigrants. But Democrats have never proposed something as radical as the notion that illegal immigrants (and their children) can commit crimes with impunity¹ in the U.S. because the U.S. has no jurisdiction over them.

¹That's reserved for Donald Trump.

[Drewski]

Academically colorable. Jurisprudentially not so much: You'd be working against legislative intent, original meaning, original public understanding, history and tradition, reliance interests, and loads of precedent to argue that 14A *could* be read a different way. That said, I could see it going up through the 5th Circuit and winning Thomas and Alito, but not because of its legal strength.

[Frank Drackman]

You're guilty of not reading the Amendment you're pretending would have made any of Obama Bin Laden's children Amurican Citizens if they'd been born one inch into Amurican Territory
(I was convinced Bin Laden was hiding in Northern Virginia, close to a large adoring Moose-lum population, Military Headquarters, turns out I wasn't that wrong, just had the wrong Hemisphere)
Because I enjoy helping the mentally challenged, I'll show you the "Operative Phrase"
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"
that emphasized phrase means something, C'mon (Man!) I thought this was supposed to be a legal blog.
It's why Roosh-un and Chinese Diplomats children don't become Amurican Citizens just because they might be born in the District of Colored People.

Frank

[not guilty]

If Osama bin Laden had impregnated a woman who gave birth in the United States, that child would indeed have been an American citizen. Children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state and children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation are long recognized exceptions to birthright citizenship. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 682 (1898).

[Frank Drackman]

You just made my case, "NG" So Osama Bin Laden Jr would be eligible to be POTUS, but Alfred Rascon wouldn't be?
Who is Alfred Rascon? you ask

Alfred Velazquez Rascon (born September 10, 1945) is a retired United States Army lieutenant colonel. In 2000, he was awarded the Medal of Honor—the United States' highest military decoration—for his actions as a medic near Long Khánh Province during the Vietnam War.

Rascon was born in Chihuahua, Mexico on September 10, 1945, as the only child of Alfredo and Andrea Rascon. The Rascon family, in search of a better life, emigrated to the United States. They settled in Oxnard, California, where Rascon received his primary and secondary education. In August 1963, he graduated from Oxnard High School and enlisted in the United States Army.
On more than one occasion Rascon exposed himself to enemy fire and grenades by covering the bodies of those whom he was aiding with his own. In addition to Vietnam, Rascon also served as a medical officer in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

1898? what next, your Defense of Plessy v Ferguson??

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

"Trump has cold contempt for the rule of law."
Given his experiences with "the rule of law" it might be understandable that it isn't what you think it is.

[Michael Ejercito]

Great point!

Ever heard of Andrew C. McCarthy?

[Frank Drackman]

I've heard of Charlie McCarthy, who has way more intelligence than you.

[kramartini]

Are children born to tourists entitled to birthright citizenship?

Are you sure that the Constitution mandates that those who evade the law by sneaking into the country have greater rights than those who come here legally on a tourist visa?

If someone who comes on a tourist visa decides to overstay that visa, are children born in the US to the former tourist entitled to birthright citizenship? If so, when?

[kramartini]

Oops. Not sure this argument works...

[Martinned2]

I'm sure it doesn't.

[defaultdotxbe]

Yes children of tourists who are born in the US are entitled to citizenship.

The Constitution does not mandate greater rights, the rights are the same.

Children of those who overstay a tourist visa, born in the United States, are also entitled to citizenship by the same process.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I used to know a German lawyer and his wife who (quite intentionally) managed to be either working or studying in the United States (legally) at the times his two children were born. They were successful, of course, and the kids got US passports.

Little did they know, however, that they would also be saddling their kids with a lifetime obligation of filing tax returns in a country they may never have set foot in again. (It was too late to warn them…)

[Brett Bellmore]

Eh, it's quite possible for them to renounce US citizenship if they want. There's a process for doing it through a US Consulate. Won't get them out of taxes already incurred, but going forward, sure.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, it is possible. But by the time they finally realize what their parents have done to them, they may have to pay a substantial "exit tax" and have their names published in the Federal Register (as despicable traitors). I'd call it "un-American", but what do I know?

[Josh R]

I like the idea of denying citizenship to kids born to parents here on tourist visas who then immediately leave the USA, but it would require a constitutional amendment. In contrast, a child born of parents who reside in he USA illegally should continue to have birthright citizenship. These kids know no other country but the USA.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd favor an amendment for both cases, to require that at least one of the parents be a citizen.

[Corve5]

Who cares if their kids know no other country? If they're deported at age 3 months, they don't know this country either.

The last thing you want to do when you have a major problem, a migrant invasion, is to incentivize it

[David Nieporent]

Are children born to tourists entitled to birthright citizenship?

Yes, of course.

Are you sure that the Constitution mandates that those who evade the law by sneaking into the country have greater rights than those who come here legally on a tourist visa?

No.

If someone who comes on a tourist visa decides to overstay that visa, are children born in the US to the former tourist entitled to birthright citizenship? If so, when?

When they emerge from the birth canal. Unless it's a c-section.

[John F. Carr]

Mississippi had no right to ban abortion after 15 weeks.

Trump's campaign statement implies a dichotomy between illegal aliens and permanent residents, but there are other kinds. I think his intent is to deny citizenship to children of those here legally on temporary visas. Or more specifically, to direct federal agencies to consider them not to be citizens. A state official presented with a birth certificate might make a different choice.

[Joe_dallas]

John F. Carr 4 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Mississippi had no right to ban abortion after 15 weeks.

Carr - Care to explain Why ?

[John F. Carr]

The Mississippi law conflicted with Roe v. Wade and/or Planned Parenthood v. Casey. It was one of a series of laws designed to get abortion test cases into federal courts. The laws were as illegal as an order to federal agencies to reject birthright citizenship. Republicans had spent several decades choosing Supreme Court justices based on abortion politics, and the settled precedent was overturned. (Democrats also picked judges based on abortion politics but they didn't pick enough judges.)

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is an interesting article by Andrew C. McCarthy.

https://archive.md/xjUnD

Analysts from both sides of our deep political divide recognized how embarrassingly rigged against Trump Bragg’s prosecution was. Besides Bragg’s well-known misgivings about bringing it, the indictment pled a trivial, long-stale business-records misdemeanor, time-barred under the statute of limitations, that Bragg inflated and diced into 34 felony counts based on the supposed concealment of a second crime. The state prosecutor was dodgy about identifying that second crime because, principally, it was based on federal campaign-finance law, which Bragg had no jurisdiction to enforce and which Trump hadn’t actually transgressed. A progressive prosecutor whose default mode is to resist prosecuting and to plead felonies down to misdemeanors, Bragg had thus, in the case of his party’s foremost Republican adversary, turned a dubious misdemeanor into ostensible felonies carrying well over a century in potential imprisonment. No fair-minded person believed Bragg would ever have brought such charges against anyone but Trump. It was a textbook denial of equal protection under the law.

[Joe_dallas]

Concur

The jury instructions never laid out what actual event / transaction was the second crime.
What was event that was the tax crime ?
What was the violation of federal election law?
What was the violation of state election law?

The jury instructions imply that there was a second crime - yet never point to any actual event , transaction or occurrence detailing the actual second crime.

[not guilty]

"The jury instructions imply that there was a second crime – yet never point to any actual event , transaction or occurrence detailing the actual second crime."

Of course. Identification of the object offense which Donald Trump, by falsifying business records, intended to commit or conceal -- actual commission or concealment was not required per the language of the statute -- was not the province of the trial court. It was a question of fact for the jury.

[Joe_dallas]

"Of course. Identification of the object offense which Donald Trump, by falsifying business records, intended to commit or conceal — actual commission or concealment was not required per the language of the statute —"

That make the language vague which violates the vagueness doctrine.
In order to convert the misdemeanor to a felony, there has to be a second crime. Zero elements of that second crime were proven.

[not guilty]

Unclear on the concept of inchoate offenses, Joe?

[David Nieporent]

In order to convert the misdemeanor to a felony, there has to be a second crime.

False.

[Josh R]

The jury instructions said the only object crime the jury could consider was NY 17-152, conspiracy to promote or prevent election.

[Moderation4ever]

I have argued this before that the hush money case against Trump was unique and so claims that charges would not be brought against another individual don't really hold up. There have been successful prosecutions of business fraud cases. The Trump case was a bit unique in that it involved hush money. Most billionaires can pay off mistresses without any problems. When the person is running for office paying off mistresses gets a bit trickier, and this is where Trump got into trouble. It is hard to suggest it was not a crime when Trump's own DOJ sought and got a conviction on Michael Coehn for the payoffs.

Also, neither side seemed interested on a plea deal. I think Trump's lawyer could easily have pushed for a plea had they wanted one.

[Joe_dallas]

The problem with that argument - is that under federal campaign law, the manner in which it was paid was legal.

[Moderation4ever]

If the payments were legal why did Trump's DOJ charge Michael Coehn with campaign finance violations?

[Brett Bellmore]

Do try to remember that Trump had pretty shallow control over the DOJ at the time; Nobody thought they had to obey his orders, because if he fired them he'd get an independent council sicced on him.

So, why did "Trump's" DOJ do it? To implicate Trump, of course.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Oh, ffs.

Too weak. Too strong.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're talking about an administration where Rosenstein could literally write a memo justifying firing Comey, and then sic an independent counsel on Trump for... firing Comey. They hardly even pretended to be following orders at times, and that was at the cabinet level. Further down you had the State Department actually bragging about how clever it was to feed Trump false troop numbers to defeat his policies.

I expect he's going to be a lot more free with firings this time around, if he wins, in his campaign to take effective control over the executive branch once he's nominally in control of it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You’re talking about an administration where Rosenstein could literally write a memo justifying firing Comey, and then sic an independent counsel on Trump for… firing Comey.

That is, once again, not what happened.

[David Nieporent]

Trump: “Rod, I intend to fire Comey. Write me a justification for doing so.”

Rosenstein: “Okay, here: Comey should be fired because he was mean to Hillary.”

Trump: “I’m firing Comey to stop him from investigating me for Russian collusion.”

[Kazinski]

Because they figured it was a hail Mary that could at some time bear some fruit.

Funny
how pleading guilty to that additional charge actually reduced the time Cohen was facing.

[David Nieporent]

The problem with that argument – is that under federal campaign law, the manner in which it was paid was legal.

The problem with that argument is that it was pulled out of Joe_climatologist_virologist_microbiologist_dallas's ass.

[Josh R]

I thought the case was improperly politically motivated (but legally sound). At it's heart, it criminalized lying about an affair to the voting public. Such conduct is bad hardball politics, but ought not be criminalized. And, it may be the case that Bragg's case soured public opinion on the other, legitimate cases.

[Joe_dallas]

Politicians lie all the time.

[John F. Carr]

A Libyan court has sentenced corrupt officials to prison for taking money meant for dams and not spending it on dams. The dams later failed, killing thousands. The sentence comes less than a year after the dams collapsed.

https://apnews.com/article/libya-deadly-floods-derna-officials-sentenced-258f4e499508a198ceaf8b5ca50b03a7

While watching the aftermath of the 2020 election I have come to greatly admire the speed of foreign political and justice systems. The speed of the Libyan proceedings also compares favorably to the Flint water crisis.

[Michael Ejercito]

And it seems that the alleged acts violated clearly established law!

[John F. Carr]

I do not know Libyan law, and I'm not out to get Trump. I'm against justice delayed. If prosecutors in 2021 had charged Trump with being too Trumpy and in 2019 charged Snyder with being too toxic, and the cases had resulted in not guilty judgments within a year, we would still have had a swift resolution. I also thought the second impeachment of Trump should have taken a day or two to decide.

[Frank Drackman]

I enjoyed the way Kim Jong Un Executed some of his Military Generals with Anti-Aircraft guns. Maybe a little dramatic, but isn't that supposed to be the point with Capital Punishment? and way faster than waiting for some EMT to start an IV

Frank

[Malika]

"Executed some"

Sadly, some can't "execute" basic English.

[MoreCurious]

Drackman may think that he’s making a point, but by constantly writing like a stupid middle-schooler, he simply reinforces everyone’s understanding that he’s a moron with access to Google and Wikipedia.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Sadly, some can’t “execute” basic English."
I thought that's what you were accusing him of doing.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, then. You'll also be very impressed with the speed of "justice" in many other authoritarian shitholes, like Russia, Iran, North Korea...

[John F. Carr]

The First Circuit rejected a claim that "liking" a Facebook page of a conservative group disqualified a person from sitting on a jury in an employment discrimination case. The juror had been asked if he had "any strong feelings or philosophical beliefs" about pregnancy discrimination and money damages. Liking the page did not mean his "no" answer was a lie. Neither did it make him a "member of an organization that has advocated on topics relevant to women's rights or gender-related issues". It was just a mouse click. He later unliked the page. The trial judge didn't hold that against him either, despite the plaintiff's lawyer's suggestion that it could be a conspiracy with the defendant to hide his bias.

https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/23-1652P-01A.pdf

Are there any rules about juror stalking in routine civil cases? Do the trial lawyers here tend to go snooping around Facebook to see what jurors are up to?

[David Nieporent]

It depends on the stakes of the case, but absolutely. Doing juror research is entirely appropriate.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is why I think that Shakespeare was right:

https://www.amherstbulletin.com/UMass-Protesters-call-conference-amid-legal-proceedings-56124738

Iran's useful idiots.

[Frank Drackman]

"The more pity that fools may not speak wisely what wise men do foolishly."

Frank

[Estragon]

Is it your impression that somehow Shakespeare gives an intellectual veneer or justification for your murderous fantasies?

[Dr. Ed 2]

"{Brandon:] Congress should pass legislation to establish a system in which the sitting president would appoint a justice every two years to spend 18 years in service on the court."

OK, Reagan would have nominated four and Bush '41 nominated two -- creating a 6-3 conservative majority in 1992. Sodomy would still be a felony and VMI still all-male.

And who says that the Senate will confirm?

How many of Trump's appointments would have made it were the filibuster rule still in effect? And why shouldn't the 18 year rule apply to all Federal judges?

[Brett Bellmore]

"And why shouldn’t the 18 year rule apply to all Federal judges?"

Congress wouldn't do THAT, because it would increase their own workload...

[Magister]

Reagan did appoint four Justices, and the older Bush did appoint two Justices. How would you expect things to differ? Those appointments were in the days when nominees were not vetted for political leanings.

I would prefer a court with six Democratic appointed Justices. Or at least five Justices who do not rule for partisan advantage.

[David Nieporent]

OK, Reagan would have nominated four and Bush ’41 nominated two — creating a 6-3 conservative majority in 1992.

Um, that's in fact what happened. Why would that have led to a different decision about sodomy in 2003, though? Especially since Clinton would've appointed 4 justices instead of 2?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Biden needs to be impeached -- right now he's able to advance the leftist agenda while Heels Up can play the blushing virgin. SHE needs to be accountable.

[SimonP]

The "high crime and misdemeanor" in this case being what, exactly? "Biden's continued occupation of the White House is politically inconvenient for Republicans"?

[Malika]

Ed just wants someone to run them over with a plow.

Not him, of course. He'd have to come out of his basement.

[Brett Bellmore]

It would just be a 25th amendment action shoehorned into an impeachment to avoid the VP and cabinet's involvement, and the need for the House supermajority vote, is what he's thinking.

The House can impeach over literally anything a majority of its members can agree on, and I'm sure if they wanted to do it they could find SOME pretext, but no conviction is likely, so it would be a total waste of time.

[SimonP]

It would just be a 25th amendment action shoehorned into an impeachment to avoid the VP and cabinet’s involvement, and the need for the House supermajority vote, is what he’s thinking.

So, an unconstitutional attempt to remove the President?

The House can impeach over literally anything a majority of its members can agree on, and I’m sure if they wanted to do it they could find SOME pretext, but no conviction is likely, so it would be a total waste of time.

Well, the words in the Constitution are there, and they mean something, right? You really play fast and loose with the constitutional text, Brett. Sometimes it matters to you, and sometimes it doesn't, sometimes it's malleable, sometimes its inflexible. It just matters what result you want to reach.

[Brett Bellmore]

It wouldn't be unconstitutional if they actually used the process dictated by the Constitution. And, like most Presidents, Biden HAS done stuff that would be legitimately impeachable if you wanted to be hard nosed about it. He's routinely violated his constitutional duty to take care that the law be faithfully executed, for instance.

Look, I try to distinguish between what I think the Constitution entails, and what the courts do. Yeah, I think it would be unfaithful to their oaths of office to impeach a President with a pretextual charge just to avoid the difficulty of the 25th amendment. It was pretty scummy of Democrats to decide in late February of 2017 that they were going to impeach Trump, and then just spend a few years lowering the bar ever lower until they found a really stupid excuse.

Doesn't change that the courts regard what's impeachable as a purely political question. And I'm hard put to see in the Constitution any basis for the courts to double-guess a Congressional decision on that score.

[SimonP]

It wouldn’t be unconstitutional if they actually used the process dictated by the Constitution.

You yourself described an impeachment of Biden as being a way of "shoehorning" a 25th Amendment-motivated removal without the messy business of needing the VP and Cabinet's cooperation. That's another way of saying, "unconstitutional power grab."

In a similar fashion, you are apparently elevating disagreements over whether the President has adequately performed his constitutional duties to a "high crime and misdemeanor." Like I said, the text is useful to you only sometimes.

Doesn’t change that the courts regard what’s impeachable as a purely political question.

I seem to recall... someone, somewhere... arguing that the different branches of government have independent obligations to uphold the Constitution and rule of law, regardless of whether a successful judicial challenge could be brought to compel them to do so. Does that ring a bell, for you?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trump’s impeachments were legitimate unlike Clinton’s. Now if I were a senator I wouldn’t have voted to remove instead I would have tried to get a grand bargain that included Trump agreeing to drop out of the 2020 race. Clinton deserved to be censured but impeachment was overkill.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Malfeasance and Nonfeasance were both considered in the context of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" back then.

Or impeach Heel's Up for not bringing 25th Amendment proceedings.

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : ".... Heels Up can play the blushing virgin"

Will Ed still be doing this incel trash eight years into Ms Harris' presidency?

[Sarcastr0]

This is rapidly growing to be Harris' main strength, the always lovely weakness of her opponents.
Between her race and gender and history she hits GOP base just right so cannot resist making it weird.

And then Vance shows up, who is not going to mak it less weird!

[SimonP]

I am skeptical that half of the VC's most vociferous MAGA commenters will still be alive in eight years.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm only 65, actuarial tables say that I probably will be. Hopefully at that point I'll mostly be preoccupied with fishing and breeding my own new hot pepper.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett --

I fish with a 2000 foot long net, 20 feet high with corks on the top and lead weights on the bottom. We wait until the fish all go into a cove and then we use the net to trap them there. And then we use a giant pump to PUMP them out of the water, water goes overboard, fish (herring) go one way, their scales go the other and are used for women's cosmetics.

[SimonP]

What's stopping you, now?

[Mr. Bumble]

Still has a kid to put through college?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yup.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "I’m only 65..."

I knew Brett & myself shared a common birth year (though can't remember how or when that came up). But I'm not yet 65!

Ergo, I'm still a young buck & he's a tired old fogey.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Simon, if Heels Up laughs unto a thermonuclear war -- a LOT of us wont be here....

[Dr. Ed 2]

Let me first state that the word "incel" is every bit as offensive as "nigger" and ought to be considered in the same light.

I have neither use for nor desire of the Slut De Jour and the absolute last thing I would do is fire the competent middle-aged woman and replace her with a young slut.

Millennial women are now in their 30s, starting to worry about the ambitious and attractive 22-year-old who the company just hired, and "heels up" WILL have traction with them. They nay not admit it publicly but the two things most resented are the brother-in-law and the broad sleeping with the boss.

But back to "incel" -- it stands for "inVOLENTARLY celibate" and is about as accurate as the "nigger" term -- most Black men are not Willie Hortons and most single men are not involuntarily celibate. Do I know some who are -- sure, likewise most Black men know of other Black men whom they would prefer to see behind bars -- in both cases, the term "statistical outlier" applies.

There are more than enough sluts to go around. Now as to their baggage, what they may drag you into, and what you might catch from them -- there is always that. And just having to deal with them -- most wouldn't be of interest to anyone were they not a life support system for a vagina.

Personally, I hire people on the basis of competence, effort, loyalty and dedication to duty -- and I can live with shortages in competence of people willing to learn & try -- I've made mistakes too. But trying to sleep with me will get you fired -- I want no part of that.

[Zarniwoop]

TL,DR Grampa Ed: "So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time..."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Incel and grandfather. Interesting (but impossible) combination...

[Noscitur a sociis]

Let me first state that the word “incel” is every bit as offensive as “nigger” and ought to be considered in the same light.

In the words of John Mulaney, "First off: no. No, it's not."

[David Nieporent]

Heh. That's literally where I first went, too. (But then I realized that Mulaney's first argument — people say 'the n-word' instead — didn't apply to Dr. Ed. He revels in sounding it out.)

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : “Let me first state that the word “incel” is every bit as offensive…. (etc)”

Several points to make here:

1. If you’re going to be shit-for-brains crudely offensive (and take gleeful pleasure in it) please don’t turn on a dime and be a whiny snowflake sniveling crybaby loser. It’s not a good look.

2. Turn down many people trying to sleep with you for career advancement, Ed? I’m guessing no. And my reason isn’t because I understood your profession is janitor.

3. You say : “There are more than enough sluts to go around”. I couldn’t disagree more. There can never be enough (bless their hearts!)

4. You say : “I hire people on the basis of competence, effort, loyalty and dedication to duty”. But you’re a Trump supporter, the very antithesis of all those things. Reminder : Without daddy’s millions, Trump would be a two-bit criminal running a three-card-monte-grade hustle on some slum street corner.

[apedad]

Mental health patient’s 19 months in seclusion departs from professional standard: Fourth Circuit

https://www.courthousenews.com/mental-health-patients-19-months-in-seclusion-departs-from-professional-standard-fourth-circuit/

I highlighted this case because of this statement, "The panel concluded that Riddick is entitled to appointed council for the remainder of the litigation. Through a program with the Duke University School of Law, the Fourth Circuit assigned the case to students who helped flesh out (Plaintiff Rashad) Riddick's appeal and argued in court."

Is that a real thing?

I'm assuming/hoping there's a real attorney leading this.

[John F. Carr]

In Massachusetts law students assist tenants in eviction cases.

[apedad]

[Dr. Ed 2]

Accounting (undergrads) fill out tax forms, but the accounting professor reviews them. They do better work than some CPAs.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In a mental health case, where anything the plaintiff says can be dismissed out of hand as the raving of a lunatic, does it really matter if the advocates are real attorneys?

I'd love to know how he got a pro-se case into court in the first place.
From solitary confinement in a mental ward? How'd he do it?

That said, this is insane:
""Were it otherwise, Youngberg's presumption of validity would become an iron-clad rule, with officials able to shield themselves from liability for even the most extreme conditions of confinement so long as they first obtained an administrative sign-off," Harris wrote. "

Why wouldn't the administrator be liable? And if the administrator signed off on something clearly unconstitutional (eg. whipping Blacks) would those who knew it was unconstitutional be immune for having done it?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Are you asking whether law students working on real cases under the supervision of an attorney is a "real thing"?

If so, the answer is yes.

[Frank Drackman]

Probably like in Medicine where the bulk of the work is done by the Med Students Interns/Residents, Oh, the Interns/Residents are doctors, but there's a reason they say don't get sick/injured in July...

Frank

[apedad]

Desert relief: Arizona wants to bring lawyers to the desert. They may not want to go.

(T)he Arizona Supreme Court has issued an administrative order creating a program for lawyers who just barely missed passing the state’s bar exam. They can still practice law if they sign up to serve in a rural area or public agency for two years under a lawyer with at least five years of experience.

The rationale for this, as explained by the state’s chief justice in a news release, is that “Arizona is not only a real desert, but also a ‘legal desert.’” Apparently, the problem is “especially acute” in rural areas and public agencies are hurting too.

The news release, by the way, notes that while the minimum passing score in Arizona on the Uniform Bar Exam is 270, it’s only 260 in Utah and New Mexico. So every year, the chief justice noted, people who scored between 260 and 269 move to Utah or New Mexico.

https://www.courthousenews.com/desert-relief/

Not sure this puts Utah or New Mexico in a good light.

[apedad]

To be honest, I bet there's a lot of Warren Jeffs-types up on the Utah border who would just as well NOT have govt-appointed lawyers milling about.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

There's a "Uniform Bar Exam"?

Well, well, I didn't know that. First used in 2011, apparently, and now used in 37 States. You learn something new, etc...

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I'm honestly intrigued, but I'm not un-muting him to find out.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I have long felt that Maine should do something similar -- all the lawyers want to practice in Cumberland and York Counties -- Southern Maine, and the other 14 counties are hurting.

Maine has done something similar with Lobster Licenses -- the coastline is divided into zones and there are a finite number of vacancies in each zone. And the only vacancies are in the rural outlying areas.

I'd like to see something like that -- all bar applicants have to identify the counties they are willing to practice in, and they only get to INITIALLY practice in a county that is short of lawyers. Maybe after 10 years they can move to Portland, but if you want to be a lawyer in Maine, it's Houlton, Machias, or Skowheagan, take your pick.

If Maine can do this with Lobster Licenses, why can't it do it with Lawyer Licenses?

[Noscitur a sociis]

We love free enterprise!

[Estragon]

“Machias”

How many lawyers do you figure Machias needs (population approx. 2000, and yes I have been there)

[Jmaie]

At least two, if only one they'd starve...

[OtisAH]

Fun fact:

Every single twat here clutching their fake pearls over the Olympics opening ceremony has shared/created memes and other commentary of Convicted Felon Donald Trump portrayed as Jesus Christ.

[M L]

Trump is still out there campaigning and doing rallies.

Do you think he is constantly thinking about the possibility that he might be sniped at any moment from any direction?

Trump's brains being blown out in high definition video was the spectacle that we almost had. That was narrowly avoided, miraculously even. A good number of people would cheer that occurrence apparently, and some may be working to make it happen.

[SimonP]

A good number of people would cheer that occurrence apparently, and some may be working to make it happen.

If you really believed this, would Trump's decision to keep doing rallies - as a demonstration of "strength" and refusal to give in to the... disaffected Republicans plotting spectacular assassinations for unclear reasons... - actually be understood as imprudent? Shouldn't someone running for president be taking better care of themselves?

Anyway, no one on the left, that I've seen, wants another attempt on Trump's life. We understand that would be a catastrophe, in more ways than one. There might be some Russian bots who disagree. But otherwise you seem to be the one most excited by the possibility. Why is that? Is chaos an aphrodisiac, for MAGA?

[Brett Bellmore]

Trump is probably reasoning that the SS understands that at this point, if they do a repeat, nobody's going to have any doubt at all it was deliberate. Tar and feathers would be the optimistic outcome.

So they're going to be guarding him really good now.

[SimonP]

So are we going to put you down in the column of people who don't believe that security at the rally in Pennsylvania was intentionally lax, in hope that something would happen? Or are you speaking out of both sides of your mouth, again?

[Brett Bellmore]

Huh? Of course I think it was intentionally lax, on the part of higher ups. I'm saying at this point all deniability has gone up in flames, so that if they let another assassin through they'll be lucky to avoid being torn limb from limb. And they know that.

They blew their one shot at it, and need to play it straight going forward. Notice that the SS director had to fall on her sword, and they caved and gave JFK Jr. protection? The games are over now.

[SimonP]

Both sides of your mouth, got it.

[ThePublius]

"Anyway, no one on the left, that I’ve seen, wants another attempt on Trump’s life. "

That's bullshit! I know some everyday Democrats, "normal people," doctors, lawyers, who have said to me they are disappointed that he wasn't killed, and hope someone else will be successful.

[Sarcastr0]

I'd bet Simon doesn't know those people you know who are so free with their talk to you.

Thus, not bullshit.

[Jmaie]

The overarching point is that some on the left would be happy if someone put a bullet through Trumps head**. I don't think this is controversial. Quibbling over whether Simon happens to know any such persons isn't IMHO all that strong a rejoinder.

**In deference to David's quip below - which I quite enjoyed - I won't say "brain."

[Sarcastr0]

ThePublius used irrelevant, personal anecdotes (and frankly not too believable ones at that) to go after an already caveated comment. Coming in like that says a lot about what ThePublius very much wants to talk about, but not much else.

As to your point, I would bet there are plenty on the left (including myself) who don’t think the ends justifies the means.

And plenty who go the other rout.

The left contains multitudes.

The right, never one for a wide variety of free thinking, is in it’s large MAGA subset extra lockstep these days.
Luckily their bloodthirst is nearly unversally wanking not action.

[David Nieporent]

Trump’s brains being blown out

His what now?

[Frank Drackman]

Brains, you know, like Parkinsonian Joe used to have (not a good one, but a Brain never the less)

[Moderation4ever]

Trump is no braver than any other candidate. Reagan, Ford, and T. Roosevelt campaigned after assassination attempts. Martin Luther King spoke with nothing like secret service protection. Thomas Matthew Crooks is looking like a person looking for opportunity rather than having a grudge or ideology. Sadly, people like Crooks are out there and political figures have to take risks to get their message out.

[not guilty]

Rep. Joe Morelle (D-NY) has introduced a constitutional amendment which would: (1) abrogate immunity from criminal prosecution for the President, the Vice-president and (in most circumstances) Members of Congress, and (2) declare that no President can self-pardon. https://democrats-cha.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-cha.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/Constititional_Amendment_Signed.pdfIt's

It's unlikely to pass the current House of Representatives, but it makes sense to me.

[Brett Bellmore]

Link was bad.

https://democrats-cha.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-cha.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/Constititional_Amendment_Signed.pdf

"except for Senators and Representatives acting pursuant to the first clause of the sixth section of the first article."

Bit of self-dealing there, no? "We don't really mean for this to apply to ourselves."

Anyway, the language about "otherwise valid federal law" interacts badly with the actual immunity decision. But bad drafting seems rather the norm for performative constitutional amendments.

[Voize]

Did you notice the language slipped in confirming that the President and Vice-President are officers of the United States?

[Bored Lawyer]

“but it makes sense to me”

Really, why? Do you think every act of the president should be questioned for corrupt intent?

Let me give you three examples.

Obama ordered a strike that killed Americans he believed were terrorists? Should that be subject to a murder charge?

Trump pardoned low-level drug users. It was ostensibly justified as relieving overly harsh sentenced. But he clearly hoped it would help him politically. Should that be subject to a criminal charge?

Biden tried twice to forgive student debt, which (IMO) was done to help gain votes. Should that be subject to a criminal charge?

[not guilty]

Per your three examples:

Obama ordered a strike that killed Americans he believed were terrorists? Should that be subject to a murder charge?

Trump pardoned low-level drug users. It was ostensibly justified as relieving overly harsh sentenced. But he clearly hoped it would help him politically. Should that be subject to a criminal charge?

Biden tried twice to forgive student debt, which (IMO) was done to help gain votes. Should that be subject to a criminal charge?

The Office of Legal Counsel opined that President Obama's conduct did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 1119. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/pages/attachments/2015/04/02/2010-07-16_-_olc_aaga_barron_-_al-aulaqi.pdf Although actions taken as commander in chief present a close question, I don't think that he should be immune from prosecution; I do think there was/is no probable cause to indict.

Which federal criminal statute(s) do you claim that President Trump's pardons or President Biden's attempt to forgive student debt arguably violated? Please identify by title and statute numbers.

[Bored Lawyer]

So it was a "close question." A politically motivated administration from the opposite party could prosecute.

As for the others, who says that the federal criminal code can't be amended? It is certainly chock full of bizarre crimes. (Mailing dentures in the US mail without a license is one of my favorites.) A creative prosecutor can certainly come up with something from that morass to stretch to fit. (Here's looking at you, Alvin Bragg.)

Pardoning someone for the wrong reasons could be obstruction of justice, for example.

Also, Congress could pass a law that any exercise of public function with corrupt intent is a crime. That would cover everything.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm fine if someone wants to take a run at the President for murder in that kind of scenario - killing anyone is serious business, put him to the question!

Your other examples would not fly in court for very long, as both rest on 'do things that are popular to get votes' as a crime.

I think you're smart enough to see that's not going to be a favored reading.

Could it be abused? Sure. But I'd prefer to take the risk of a dumbass single court judge and more insane than now 5C than a President who gets to be above the law.
It's both more likely to be an issue when it's one person versus an institution, and symbolically goes against our civic fabric.

[Bored Lawyer]

I’m fine if someone wants to take a run at the President for murder in that kind of scenario – killing anyone is serious business, put him to the question!

Which is a foolish position, IMO. President sends military in battle as Commander in Chief, and sometimes it results in failure. Should he be subject to murder (or manslaughter or negligent homicide) charges. No, that would cripple his ability to make decisions.

Your other examples would not fly in court for very long, as both rest on ‘do things that are popular to get votes’ as a crime.

That's the point, though. Such could easily be construed as corrupt intent, and be subject to some prosecution. Everything the president does became subject to second guessing because he had the wrong intent.

Here is another example. One of the president's cronies is indicted. The prosecutors are hoping to use that to pressure him to "flip" on higher ups. Maybe the president or others high in his party or close associates of his.
So the president grants the indicted person a full pardon. And without leverage, he decides not to give any harmful information. (Yes, I know about Kastigar v. U.S.)

That arguably is obstruction of justice. Should he be prosecuted?

I would say no, it leads to too much abuse. That's what impeachment is for.

[Voize]

That’s what impeachment is for.

Impeachment is for protecting the country by removing a government official for misconduct. It isn’t for achieving the goals of prosecution and punishment – deterrence, retribution etc. Both may be appropriate.

I appreciate the concern that deterrence can be abused so it extends to actions that shouldn’t be deterred. The concern on the other extreme is immunity removing any constraints on Presidential corruption, like with a President pardoning his criminal associates to conceal their activities.

These aren’t equally dangerous risks. A corrupt pardon only requires the action of one person. Allowing a lone individual to perform a sensitive action is a well-known risk factor that organizations counter with a two-person rule: Two people to launch the missile, or open the safe, or to draw up and sign the check. Prosecution and punishment though adhere to something closer to a dozen-person rule. Not impossible, but much harder to pull off.

[not guilty]

"As for the others, who says that the federal criminal code can’t be amended? It is certainly chock full of bizarre crimes."

Well, the founders said that it can't be amended retroactively. Art. I, § 9, Cl. 3.

Your failure to identify any federal criminal statute is duly noted.

[David Nieporent]

So it was a “close question.” A politically motivated administration from the opposite party could prosecute.

As for the others, who says that the federal criminal code can’t be amended? It is certainly chock full of bizarre crimes. (Mailing dentures in the US mail without a license is one of my favorites.) A creative prosecutor can certainly come up with something from that morass to stretch to fit. (Here’s looking at you, Alvin Bragg.)

For 230+ years, nobody thought the president had immunity and yet this never happened. Why would it? What incentive would a president have to engage in such a stretch prosecution? Any president with even a modicum of intelligence would say, "If I prosecute my predecessor for routine presidential conduct, then my successor will do the same to me."

[Bored Lawyer]

That's the point. That was the norm for 230 years. The norm has been dropped and not coming back. Politically motivated prosecutions are in.
And today, the process is the punishment. A drawn out proceeding, even if ultimately dismissed, is still very burdensome.

[Mr. Bumble]

Would any other president but Trump have had the resources to fight the flood of lawsuits he faced?

[not guilty]

Bill Clinton was nearly broke from legal fees when he left office. He recovered pretty quickly, though.

[David Nieporent]

Would any other president but Trump have had the resources to fight the flood of lawsuits he faced?

Um, Trump didn't spend anything; he fleeced his gullible followers to fund all of his legal expenses.

[Sarcastr0]

You have one data point. One data point most everyone this side of Brett says is extraordinary.

And you're already set on what the policy's gotta be.

This is overdetermined.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"The norm has been dropped and not coming back. Politically motivated prosecutions are in."

You seem to be confused about causality. Trump broke the norms by being a giant piece of shit who thought he was above every law in the country. Perhaps you shouldn't worship a guy who unsurprisingly turned out to be a felon, after he surrounded himself with fellow felons.

[David Nieporent]

That’s the point. That was the norm for 230 years. The norm has been dropped and not coming back. Politically motivated prosecutions are in.

No; the norm is still in place. Nobody tried to prosecute Trump for ordinary presidential conduct that every other president has engaged in. Nobody tried to criminalize drone strikes or pardoning low-level drug dealers or the like.

[Kazinski]

"Nobody tried to prosecute Trump for ordinary presidential conduct that every other president has engaged in."

Paying hush money to hide affairs is unique to Trump?

Retaining classified documents?

Get out of here.

[Sarcastr0]

He didn't just retain classified documents. He didn't just pay hush money.
And you didn't even try with Jan 06 or false electors or strongarming governors.

The fact that you need to lie and elide what he actually did shows how extraordinary Trump's conduct was.

[David Nieporent]

Paying hush money to hide affairs is unique to Trump?

Obviously not, since John Edwards did so and was also prosecuted for it. I certainly don't think many have their lawyers take out home equity loans to pay hush money and then reimburse their lawyers while falsely claiming those reimbursements are actually for legal retainers, though. But since that wasn't an official act of a president it has nothing to do with an immunity for official acts, so not sure why you brought it up.

Retaining classified documents?

For about the 75th time: Trump is not being prosecuted for retaining classified documents. The thing Trump is actually being prosecuted for is not something presidents do, no.

[M L]

If a President takes millions, billions, or trillions of taxpayer money and distributes it to a favored political constituency or donor without Congressional authorization or other Constitutional basis, is there any criminal statute covering that?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Seems a bit muddled in how this would work (though as you note, the issue is entirely academic). As I understand it, the theory behind the opinion is that separation of powers principles preclude Congress from passing laws that would prevent the president from executing their constitutional responsibilities, so that the enforcement of such a statute wouldn't be an "otherwise valid Federal law". For purposes of federal prosecutions, then, the amendment might do nothing at all.

The part about state prosecutions is also unclear. Suppose that a state made it a crime for the president to pardon anyone, or to nominate any judges or executive officers. Is Article II a "valid Federal law" that would protect the president from prosecution? (If so, then this provision would seem to be pointless.) Or is the amendment designed to supersede the supremacy clause? (In which case, it seems like a bad idea!)

[M L]

Goldman report suggests "AI" and related spending is sort of a bubble, overhyped

https://www.goldmansachs.com/intelligence/pages/gs-research/gen-ai-too-much-spend-too-little-benefit/report.pdf

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Here is the complaint in which it is alleged that Northwestern declined to hire Eugene Volokh (who, it is claimed, was looking to depart UCLA for an academic position) not because of bigoted conduct; stale, ugly views; or personality issues but instead because he is white, male, and not homosexual or transgender.

The claim is that a person who operates a white, male, bigotry-embracing blog was discriminated against for being white and male.

Carry on, clingers.

[apedad]

Just for the record, Prof. Volokh has never stated he is NOT a homosexual or transgender, so SAFORP could be wrong (insert obligatory Seinfeld quote here).

The footnote even says Prof. Volokh isn't part of their lawsuit.

1. None of the professors mentioned in this complaint played any role in initiating this lawsuit, and they provided no information to the plaintiff or its attorneys.

[SimonP]

The footnote even says Prof. Volokh isn’t part of their lawsuit.

It's odd that the complaint dedicates so much attention to him, then, isn't it?

Given that this lawsuit was brought by leading "lawfare" advocates like Jonathan Mitchell (of SB8 fame, in Texas) and the America First Legal Foundation (led and staffed by former Trump officials), I think some skepticism toward that footnote is in order. These scoundrels excel at lying by telling the truth. All Eugene needed to do was ask his friend Steve-O to leak internal deliberations from Northwestern to the enterprising rats over at AFLF - bim, bam, boom, they have the necessary fodder to bring a case on behalf of people who might, someday, want to apply for a job at Northwestern. And Eugene can pretend he had nothing to do with it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Could Northwestern defend by asserting it would not hire a censorious, hypocritical, habitual publisher of racial slurs who embraces bigots and bigotry even if that person were black, female, transgender, and gay?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or he is SO qualified that NW not jumping for him is legally significant.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The complaint doesn’t allege that any members of FASORP (the organization bringing the lawsuit) have applied for positions at Northwestern University, but claims some members would be “ready and able” to do so if it weren’t for Northwestern’s discriminatory policies.

Volokh allegedly applied for a position at Northwestern University and was not hired because he was a white male. My guess is that the complaint includes these allegations because it’s hard to win an employment discrimination lawsuit if you don’t allege that the employer has engaged in discrimination.

The lawsuit also targets the Northwestern University Law Review. The complaint alleges that FASORP members have submitted articles to the Law Review, but not that any of these submissions have been rejected for publication.

[Bwaaah]

That would be (bim, bam, boom) a conspiracy theory.

[M L]

Some people who want to make changes to our Constitutional system frequently complain that it is “too hard” and not practical to amend the Constitution.

The suggestion seems to be that some sort of end run around the amendment process is justified, such as changing the Constitution by judicial fiat.

But the Constitution has in fact been amended properly via the amendment process with some frequency. On the other hand, some might say that it has been changed by judicial fiat with even more frequency.

What do you think? Does this position hold water?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The Civil Rights Movement shows the proper way to get around the political process when it fails. So if people are being excluded from the political process then it obviously can’t work and then some other entity needs to get involved and right ship. The political process was actually working in the 1850s and Taney weighed in and it had no lasting impact other than as an object of derision that tarnished his legacy. The South seceded because the political process was working and slavery was going to be abolished. Roe was in the aftermath of the SCOTUS’ Golden Age but women weren’t being excluded from the political process even though old ass justices thought they were.

[Corve5]

The Democrats are trying to amend the earned income tax credit to ensure that illegals who have anchor baby citizen children can claim it.

What disgusting pieces of shit the Democrats are.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Babies in America need food…SNAP is in the Farm Bill because it helps American farmers. The only way to end illegal immigration is to tank the economy like Bush and Trump. Also, Trump is like Perot in that both weren’t involved in the political process and got involved and then made their issue exponentially worse!?! So NAFTA was good for America and then Americans were lulled to sleep for China in the WTO which was awful under Bush. And Trump’s maneuvering on the border forced migrants to figure out legal ways to enter and they did and it’s been a disaster!!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspiracy: Official Legal Blog Of Disaffected Culture War Casualties Who Can't Stand Hearing That A Child Is To Have Food

[ThePublius]

SBF and RALK are both stupid. The EITC has nothing to do with SNAP, with food for children, or anything of the sort.

Do some (little bit) of research in what EITC money is used for - it's mostly "lifestyle" items like televisions, Disney trips, and so forth.

[Mr. Bumble]

Welcome to Kamelot:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/07/its-official-kamelot-ii-is-here.php

[Sarcastr0]

You going to excerpt bits you like, or just going to post a bare link to powerline like I don't know they suck?

[Frank Drackman]

I know Cum-a-lot Harris is here, can somebody make her go away?

[Moderation4ever]

Why do you prefer the incompetent adjudicated sexual abuser convicted felon? I prefer he go away. To the golf course is fine with me, but to jail if he insists.

[Frank Drackman]

I prefer Hunter Biden go away also (for 10-20) didn't realize you thought he was running

[M L]

31,800 references to Kamala as "Border Czar" over the course of 3 years (prior to 12/31/23)

[M L]

"Paper ballots are the smartest, safest way to ensure your vote is secure against attacks by foreign actors. Russia can't hack a piece of paper like they can a computer."

- Kamala Harris

[Moderation4ever]

I agree with the VP here. I vote with a paper ballot as do most voters. Those ballots are counted on an electronic tabulator, but the paper ballot remains as a check.

[hobie]

Women are ruining the Secret Service
Women are degrading the military
Childless Cat Ladies
“It is you, the women, who have had the most diabolic lies told to you,” Butker said during the speech. “Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.”
Roe
Bounties

OMG, Republicans, I'm begging you, please keep this up thru November

[Frank Drackman]

"45" won the White Female Vote in 16' and 20', now with Cums-a-lot Harris-Willie-Brown they'll go from %99.999999 of the Black Female Vote to %99.99999999999, and lose a few % of the Black Male Vote, they don't appreciate a Bee-Otch married to a White Boy, especially a Jude

Frank

[ThePublius]

Serendipity.

I'm learning to cook, and have now pivoted to cold salads for summer BBQ - I have a couple of smokers, and do ribs, brisket, chicken, etc.

I have spreadsheets for my recipes, including sauce and dressings. My mac salad dressing, mostly mayo and sour cream, plus spices, etc., is such that the correct proportion of dressing to dry macaroni is 1:1, i.e., one ounce before cooking of macaroni to one ounce of dressing. So convenient!

Also, I accidentally double the red wine vinegar in the dressing and - wow, it was great! Ha, ha.

Anyone else make mac salad, vermicelli salad, potato salad, etc.?

[hobie]

Yeah, I've been making a summer macaroni salad lately, but no mayo. I use a standard French vinaigrette of sherry vinegar/dijon/olive oil/tarragon. I add the only tomatoes left with any flavor (cherry tomatoes), sweet corn from the cob, cucumber, purple onion.

[Frank Drackman]

don't forget the Cum-of-sum-yung-goy

[ThePublius]

Puh-lease Frank, don't shit up every post! And if you must, at least get the quote correct.

[ThePublius]

That sounds pretty good.

[Bored Lawyer]

Candidate Kamala Harris has stated she intends to ask Congress to pass a bill overturning the Dobbs decision and reinstating Roe v. Wade. Meaning abortion on demand will become a federal statutory right.

Query: what is the Constitutional authority for such a bill.

Can't be the 14th Amendment. Supreme Court has said under City of Boerne v. Flores that Congress can only enforce rights found by SCOTUS. Since SCOTUS has ruled there is no right to an abortion, then that would not work.

Could be the Commerce Clause. Although most abortions are provide interstate, the Supreme Court has stretched that clause to include anything the might affect commerce. Abortion clinics presumable use a large quantity of equipment and materials that travel in interstate commerce. Whether SCOTUS would agree with that application is an open question.

[Moderation4ever]

I believe that Roe was based on privacy and SCOTUS has not ruled that people are not entitled to privacy. Abortion is a medical decision and very few medical decisions are outlawed.

[ThePublius]

Privacy is not mentioned in the constitution. Roe was a terrible decision, inventing rights and laws that do not exist.

[Magister]

Griswold is not overturned yet, and there they found a right of privacy implied by various amendments in the bill of rights. (How would being secure in your papers matter if you never had any privacy to write them?) Roe just expanded on that right.

[Jmaie]

"Abortion is a medical decision"

Said with great conviction, but if everyone agreed with this statement we wouldn't be having this discussion...

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The Commerce Clause "authorizes" everything else, so why not this?

[hobie]

I wasn't aware that a right had to be enumerated in the Constitution for Congress to establish it. Congress does this all the time: commerce; drugs (for or against); digital communications. A lot of this didn't exist in the Plymouth Colony

[not guilty]

Congress could withhold some federal funding from states which outlaw abortion prior to fetal viability. The extent to which it can do so is uncertain in light of Chief Justice Roberts's treatment of the conditional Medicaid expansion in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012).

[Armchair]

Watched an interesting video about the Irish "fake" economy.

One of the topics that comes up here every so often is "GDP per capita," especially of a few outlier countries in the EU (like Ireland). And the video nicely explained why Ireland's GDP per capita is so high...and why it's fake. Also, a big bit on corporate tax avoidance.

So, here's the deal. If you have a major tech or pharma multinational, they found a great way to avoid taxes. See, Ireland has a corporate tax rate of just 12.5% (The US by comparison is 21%, and used to be 35%). What they companies do, is they open an Irish subsidiary. Then they transfer all the IP (intellectual property) to the Irish subsidiary (IS).

So, the company's US branch then makes a boatload of profit, based in part off that IP. But then, that US branch needs to "License" the IP from the Irish subsidiary. And the "License fee" just happens to equal the boatload of profit. So, now the US company has "zero" profit, and its corporate taxes are zero. All of that profit is transferred to the Irish subsidiary (which pays taxes...sometimes) at the much lower 12.5% rate, as opposed to the 21% (or 35%) rate.

Meanwhile, the Irish GDP looks great, because all that "profit" is counted as a "service." I mean the Irish didn't "do" anything (besides set up a nice tax code) and the don't get much benefit out (aside from the tax revenue...which is nice, when it happens). But it does massively inflate the GDP per capita.

[Bored Lawyer]

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Mark Twain

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Which decade was this video from?

[Armchair]

It's from 2024.

Here. Have a watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWCxj__3Xx4

[Magister]

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

Hide your pot of gold from the taxman at the end of the rainbow.

[Armchair]

These companies have hid some SERIOUS tax revenue through this trickery.

I wonder if Congress could write a law specifically with these companies in mind to get back the taxes that "should" have been paid. Even the GOP would get behind that.

[Magister]

It's usually a very large pot of gold, yes. As the linked Wikipedia article and its sources explain.

It seems unlikely that the party of tax cuts for rich people would do anything about it, though.

[Michael P]

You mean like Donald Trump's deemed repatriation that actually led to a metric boatload of corporate profits being actually repatriated? Nah, would never happen!

[Magister]

Preferential tax rates (a tax cut) encouraged corporations to repatriate earnings (which would have been eventually taxed at the higher rate). A fine race to the bottom.

[Kazinski]

Nothing encourages tax avoidance like confiscatory tax rates like a 35% corporate tax.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, if you think about it those avoiding taxes are the real victims.

[Frank Drackman]

Breaking News!
Our Crack FBI has determined 15 days after the fact, that President Trump was indeed, shot on July 13.

[Bored Lawyer]

Pro-Palestine Protesters Chant 'Heil Hitler' at Israel's Olympics Soccer Game

https://www.tmz.com/2024/07/29/pro-palestine-supporters-chant-heil-hitler-israel-olympics-soccer-match/

Yeah, they're just anti-Zionist. Nothing against Jews.

(Or maybe they read the New Republic and are really Trump fans?)

[Sarcastr0]

TMZ? That takes me back.

Any source, if you can generalize from it to tar everyone you disagree with via that same wide brush!

I don't agree with most of these Palestinian protests either, but the mania to demonize every single one of them is getting pathological.

[Bored Lawyer]

So you are saying there are "very fine people" among the pro-Palestinians?

The same article was widely reported. Here's another link: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/chants-heil-hitler-shouted-antisemitic-133124186.html
You can Google it.

And these were not a few people, they were hundreds, if not thousands, chanting "Heil Hitler." Must suck to realize you are on the same side as them.

"every single one" -- nope, that's a straw man argument. There is a very large contingent whose support for Palestinians is anti-semitic. They try to hide it, but it comes out, sometimes subtly, sometimes blatantly. Hundreds chanting Heil Hitler is pretty blatant. That there are fellow travelers and useful idiots who are not anti-semitic does not negate the point.

(Same thing applies to the Trump comments. They are often misquoted as claiming Nazis were fine people. That's a lie. But the problem with what he said is that "very fine people" don't join a march with Nazis, even if their agenda is different. As the old saying goes, "you lie down with dogs, you get fleas.")

[Michael P]

Will Kamala Harris work with the GOP on the border issue?

I am meeting with a lot of folks, and the work that we have begun is the work that is gonna be ongoing. There is no question, and I said this from the very beginning, that our approach to this issue has to be with a commitment to a long-term investment and it has to be a commitment to consistency. The United States has to be consistent. There were times that we were more engaged, and we saw good results. Less engaged, and we can see where the work and the partnerships then deteriorate. So I am committed to ensuring that we engage in an active way on the root causes, on addressing the cause and effect, and also being partners in the Western Hemisphere, understanding that we have a responsibility, and if we ignore that responsibility, it will visit itself upon us in a very domestic way. So thank you.

Well, that was certainly a model of something! The responsibility will visit itself upon us.

[NvEric]

Somin is off his rocker again. Comparing Madero to Trump or is it Trump to Madero ? In either case the election example is nonsense from the nonsensical.

[David Nieporent]

Guy who doesn't even know who we're talking about — hint: it's Maduro — has opinions.

[NvEric]

-2 points for spelling ? Awe shucks.

[OtisAH]

“She got rid of the laugh. I haven’t seen the crazy laugh. She’s crazy. That laugh, that’s the laugh of a crazy person. She is not using that laugh anymore.”

- Convicted Felon Donald Trump’s additional commentary on that laugh

For those who missed the first opportunity, here is your next chance to share your favorite stories, videos, and commentary on Convicted Felon Trump’s laugh. What do you love most about it? Least? Give us your thoughts on Convicted Felon Donald Trump’s laugh and laughter.

[NvEric]

Venezuela's elections are mired in corruption again. Arresting the opposition will not work as it hasn't worked in the USA. Political prisoners look bad, very bad to those claiming to false election results.

Taking to the streets is as old as time. But, here, in the USA, we've yet to begin the fight. Stay tuned.