Supreme Court Rejects Missouri's Attempt to Sue New York Over Trump Prosecution

Insofar as the justices split, it was due to long-standing disagreement over the nature of the Court's original jurisdiction.

This morning, as expected, the Supreme Court rejected the state of Missouri's attempt to sue the state of New York over the prosecution of Donald Trump and the imposition of a gag order during the pendency of appeals. Missouri had filed a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint against New York in the Court's original jurisdiction. To call the underyling legal theory aggressive would be an understatement (something about how the state law prosecution of a presidential candidate unconstitutionally inhibits the ability of Missouri voters and electors to support the candidate of their choice). Missouri invoked the Court's original jurisdiction by styling this as a dispute between one state and another, and thus sought to bring this suit, in the first instance, in the Supreme Court.

The justices are not having it. The order reads in full:

Missouri's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied, and its motion for preliminary relief or a stay is dismissed as moot. Justice Thomas and Justice Alito would grant the motion for leave to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief.

This means the Court split 7-2 over whether Missouri should be allowed to file its bill of complaint, but was unanimous in rejecting Missouri's request for relief in this case. (In other words, Justices Alito and Thomas would let Missouri make their case, but would not grant any of Missouri's requested relief, which included enjoining the gag order imposed on Trump by New York courts.)

No doubt some commentators will read this order as an indication that Justices Alito and Thomas believe that Missouri's filing had merit. Those that do so will show they know very little about the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction and the long-standing debate over whether the Court has jurisdiction to reject bills of complaint filed by states against other states.

The reason that Justices Thomas and Alito dissented form the denial of Missouri's motion for leave to file the bill of complaint is because they believe that when a state seeks to invoke the Court's original and exclusive jurisdiction, the Court is obligated to hear the case. This is also not a new view. See, for instance, this dissent by Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, in Arizona v. California. It reads in relevant part:

The Constitution establishes our original jurisdiction in mandatory terms. Article III states that, "[i]n all Cases . . . in which a State shall be [a] Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction." §2, cl. 2 (emphasis added). In this circumstance, "[w]e have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given." Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 404 (1821) (Marshall, C. J., for the Court).

Our original jurisdiction in suits between two States is also "exclusive." §1251(a). As I have previously explained, "[i]f this Court does not exercise jurisdiction over a controversy between two States, then the complaining State has no judicial forum in which to seek relief." Nebraska v. Colorado, 577 U. S. ___, ___ (2016) (opinion  dissenting from denial of motion for leave to file complaint) (slip op., at 2). Denying leave to file in a case between two or more States is thus not only textually suspect, but also inequitable.

The Court has provided scant justification for reading "shall" to mean "may." It has invoked its "increasing duties with the appellate docket," Arizona v. New Mexico, 425 U. S. 794, 797 (1976) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted), and its "structur[e] . . . as an appellate tribunal," Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp., 401 U. S. 493, 498 (1971). But the Court has failed to provide any analysis of the Constitution's text to justify our discretionary approach.

Justice Thomas raised this concern when Nebraska and Oklahoma sought to file a bill of complaint against Colorado over marijuana legalization too.

As I have noted before, Justice Thomas is making a serious argument, and one which I suspect may be correct. Note that this would not mean that the Court has to actually hear oral argument. Rather it would mean that the Court has to accept the bill of complaint and resolve it on the merits -- something that would be quite easy to do in a case like this, but might be more difficult in other contexts (e.g. the dormant commerce clause). I suspect the justices do not want to open this door lest they invite other filings in the sorts of cases they prefer to see percolate up through the lower courts, but it is not clear to me the Constitution gives the Court that choice.

Comments

[Joe_dallas]

Agree that the suit had no merit
and likewise Missouri had no standing.

[Martinned2]

Standing is not the question. The Supreme Court seems to have simply decided not to hear the case because it didn’t want to, which seems odd. But granting leave to file and then throwing the case out for lack of standing on a motion for summary judgement seems sensible.

[David Nieporent]

They should've thrown it out sua sponte, rather than requiring briefing.

[JimM47]

Your response gets at the question I have regarding Thomas’s position on original jurisdiction:

Procedurally, what is the difference between (1) denying leave to file and (2) allowing filing as a matter of right, then sua sponte dismissing a case that is obviously meritless?

It seems like, either way, the Court has (i) given all the process that is due, and (ii) effectively opined on the substantive question. It doesn’t strike me as all that dissimilar from a trial court denying in forma pauperis status and rejecting a filing (made without a fee) on the basis that the filing is meritless.

This is an honest non-rhetorical question, though. I simply don’t know enough about SCOTUS practice to be able to evaluate the question. If anyone knows, I would welcome an answer and/or informed speculation.

[MatthewSlyfield]

“what is the difference between (1) denying leave to file and (2) allowing filing as a matter of right, then sua sponte dismissing a case that is obviously meritless?”

What is the difference?
“We don’t want to hear that.” vs “You don’t have standing to bring that case.”

It might make no difference had the Supreme Court explicitly denied leave to file on the basis of standing, but that’s not what they did.

[David Nieporent]

As a practical matter, no difference. But if the court permits the filing of the suit and then dismisses it, it has to give a reason for dismissing it. Lack of standing, failure to state anything remotely resembling a claim, whatever. Even if that's just one sentence ("the case is dismissed for lack of standing"), it at least serves as a ruling.

[JimM47]

I like your (and MatthewSlyfield’s) answer: that the difference is that they didn’t give their reasons, even as a one sentence statement that the state lacks standing.

I am still led to ponder, though: where does the requirement to give a reason in the case of a dismissal come from? I am thinking about state courts with mandatory appellate jurisdiction that sometimes just issue one-word “affirmed” orders; or trial courts that frequently issue checkbox “lacks merit” orders. These say even less than the one-sentence “lacks standing” explanation proposed here.

Practically speaking, courts do sometimes issue orders without express reasoning, figuring that the record speaks for itself. That may be a bad idea, but I am not sure that it amounts to a derogation of the duty to assume jurisdiction.

Of course, maybe I am missing something. I would feel differently if the Court is also denying leave to file in cases that have merit, such that a denial of leave cannot be taken as implying a “lacks merit” determination.

[MatthewSlyfield]

"Practically speaking, courts do sometimes issue orders without express reasoning, figuring that the record speaks for itself."

On a denial of leave to file a case under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, there is no record to speak for itself.

[JimM47]

> there is no record to speak for itself.

On the docket I see (1) a motion for leave to file, (2) a brief in support of the motion, and (3) a proposed complaint. That strikes me as being just as much of a record as there is on a 12(b)(6) motion.

But I think the comment by Noscitur a sociis answers my question: the basis of denial of leave to file cannot necessarily be discerned from the record if they also deny leave to file potentially meritorious cases.

[David Nieporent]

I am still led to ponder, though: where does the requirement to give a reason in the case of a dismissal come from? I am thinking about state courts with mandatory appellate jurisdiction that sometimes just issue one-word “affirmed” orders; or trial courts that frequently issue checkbox “lacks merit” orders. These say even less than the one-sentence “lacks standing” explanation proposed here.

The issue you describe comes up in habeas cases sometimes: a state appellate court will indeed issue a ruling such as "affirmed" or "appeal denied" or the like. But on habeas, federal courts are required to decide not whether the state court decision was correct, but whether the state courts unreasonably applied Supreme Court precedent. So what to do? The way the Supreme Court has decided that those cases be handled is that in those situations, the federal courts are to "look through" the state appellate decision to the "last reasoned opinion" on the claim to determine the basis for the appellate court's claim.

That of course does not answer your question directly; even if it actually applied directly to SCOTUS, nothing in that requires any court, let alone SCOTUS, to give reasons for any of its decisions.¹ But as a matter of historical practice, SCOTUS does, even if it's just DIG. SCOTUS understands that the judiciary's ultimate power — it can't enforce its rulings directly — comes from its ability to persuade. And turning a court into a coin that just says "affirmed" or "denied" without explanation vitiates that ability.
​
​
¹Actually, that's not quite true. Sometimes an appellate court will vacate a lower court's decision and order it to supply an explanation for that decision in order to facilitate appellate review.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

It seems like while there is no practical difference between those two options, Missouri loses either way, accepting the case and dismissing it sua sponte is what is required by Article 3. I haven't read a whole lot on the debate about this, but I don't really understand why "...The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction..." means that they are required to accept the case. After all they turn down cases all the time where they clearly have jurisdiction.
I understand that they are the only forum where one state's suit against another state can be heard, but I still don't see why that means they have to accept every frivolous filing.

[not guilty]

The phrase "shall have original jurisdiction" does not mean "shall exercise original jurisdiction." In any event, the existence of original jurisdiction depends on there being a case or controversy. If there is no Article III standing, there is neither a case nor a controversy.

[David Nieporent]

The phrase “shall have original jurisdiction” does not mean “shall exercise original jurisdiction.”

Many scholars, and also Thomas and Alito, think it does.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It’s also worth noting that while this case was never going anywhere given how dumb it was, the Supreme Court also declines to hear original jurisdictions cases that do have some merit to them.

[JimM47]

Thank-you! Not only was that worth noting, I think it answers the substance of my question.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Over the objections of Justices Thomas and Alito, presumably.

[apedad]

The SC didn't give a reason for the denial but I would say it IS based on standing.

" . . . [i]n all Cases . . . in which a State shall be [a] Party . . . . "

Just because MO submitted the petition doesn't mean they are a Party to the case and have automatic standing.

They could/should have easily said MO lacks standing and therefore is not a party to the case.

[hobie]

Good point

[Noscitur a sociis]

I think this is what we call, “not even wrong”.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You’re a party to a case no matter if you have standing. Lots of complaints are dismissed on standing grounds but the plaintiffs are still parties.

[apedad]

Thanks and I stand corrected.

(The best thing about the Volokh Conspiracy is the free legal training!)

[David Nieporent]

Just because MO submitted the petition doesn’t mean they are a Party to the case

That's literally what it means.

and have automatic standing.

True. But lack of standing is grounds for dismissal, not grounds for a case not being filed in the first place.

(Er, I mean it ought to be grounds for a litigant not to file a case, but I mean it isn't grounds for the court not to allow the case to be filed. There is no other context where that can happen. If I sue the IOC because I'm upset about the judges' scoring of Simone Biles's routine, the case does get filed. It gets immediately dismissed; it might get me sanctioned. But the court doesn't say, "This suit can't even be filed.")

[TheAmazingEmu]

Yeah, I actually agree with Justice Thomas on the question of original jurisdiction (I actually think there's a very narrow category of cases where an individual would have the right to a jury trial in the Supreme Court). But I also think this case could be decided on a 12(b)(6) motion due to lack of standing.

[David Nieporent]

That's 12(b)(1).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The lawyers who filed the motion may be lucky the Court merely denied the motion. The could have imposed sanctions on those lawyers (and on their client) and informed the relevant bar associations of the lawyers' abuse of the judicial system.

I was in Missouri recently. Very close to the middle of nowhere. Some natural beauty. Some nice people. Few signs of modernity, education, progress, reason, or economic competitiveness (beyond a ridiculously oversized airport with Roy Blunt's name all over it -- funded, I would expect to learn, by taxpayers in better states). The "throwed rolls" were great, though. I'd invest in a Lambert's.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And then Missouri offers Trump sanctuary and issues "shoot to kill" orders regarding any NY authorities attempting to seize him.

What's SCOTUS do then???

[Kazinski]

NY authorities have no jurisdiction in Missouri, but US Marshal's do.

[damikesc]

Why would US Marshals be involved in a case that has zero federal violations involved?

[Brett Bellmore]

Article 4, Section 2, clause 2:

“A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.”

While strictly speaking this is an obligation the Constitution imposes on the states, it would probably be sufficient constitutional basis for federal officials to get involved if a state refused to comply with it; The failure to hand him over would itself be the federal violation.

[Mr. Bumble]

What kind of action would constitute treason against a state?

[Ilya Snowman]

State citizens conspiring to have a portion of it secede from the state without constitutional warrant/not meeting the constitutional procedures?

West Virginia is illegitimate, after all. Some Virginians were involved in that illegal, subversive secession action.

[David Nieporent]

How can it be illegitimate when the state legislature approved it?

[Ilya Snowman]

Who comprised the legislature and how did it pass its approval...?

Have you ever read Balkin on the Civil War Amendments as well?

[Dr. Ed 2]

If a state cab prosecute a President, a state can also prosecute US Marshalls.

[David Nieporent]

Is that your professional legal opinion?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Care to explain why this isn't true?

If the Chief Executive is subject to state law, all subordinate officials would be as well, as they really are only exercising his authority.

[Kazinski]

One reason they don't have standing is, if I understand it correctly, the conviction isn't final until sentencing.

Merchan can still set aside the jury's verdict, with or without prejudice, or order a new trial.

There is almost certainly going to be a new trial anyway, and he may want to get out ahead of it. Or he may decide to leave the toothless "convicted felon" tag on Trump for as long as possible.

[David Nieporent]

One reason they don’t have standing is, if I understand it correctly, the conviction isn’t final until sentencing.

Missouri had two separate complaints — one about sentencing, which isn't ripe for the reason you say — and one about the gag order, which is ripe since the order is in place.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

They decided this yesterday.

("MONDAY, AUGUST 5, 2024")

The matter was discussed a bit in the daily SCOTUS history thread. Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp (written by Justice Harlan) is a major precedent for declining to take jurisdiction.

One reason given is that there is another avenue to obtain relief. New York in part argued that applied here.

I'm open to the Alito and Thomas approach though the net result here seems basically the same as if they accepted jurisdiction and then summarily rejected the petition.

OTOH, I respect Justice Harlan's knowledge & at the time the general approach was unanimous. (Justice Douglas dissented in the specific case on the merits but later authored an opinion following the principle.)

[loki13]

"I suspect the justices do not want to open this door lest they invite other filings in the sorts of cases they prefer to see percolate up through the lower courts, but it is not clear to me the Constitution gives the Court that choice."

Given the massive increase in "stunt" and "PR" filings done for purely political reasons (by partisans of the party not in control of the White House through the states), I think that the obvious answer is obvious.

While this might be an interesting theoretical question ... albeit one that the Court has treated similarly for some time now ... I am fairly certain that there is no great desire to incentivize more of this.

[David Nieporent]

Given the massive increase in “stunt” and “PR” filings done for purely political reasons (by partisans of the party not in control of the White House through the states), I think that the obvious answer is obvious.

Not so sure that the obvious answer is correct, though. Obviously Missouri didn't expect to win this suit; it was filed for the political reasons you mention. (Or maybe Bailey is auditioning to be AG if Trump gets elected.) The Supreme Court doing what it did does nothing to disincentivize such filings. Taking it and harshly rejecting it might have some marginal effect.

[loki13]

Well, I think that the PR value of these stunts diminishes when they aren't even entertained as valid by the Supreme Court.

To be honest, one of the things that has bugged me the most about the Overton window issue (especially with a certain Circuit) is that there is no real disincentive about making arguments that would never get made in "regular" cases... you know, like asking for a preliminary injunction in a case under Title VII when you can be compensated with monetary damages. Because hey, you never know if the judges are just going to go with their feels that day, and have a big Ho Ho Ho laugh at the litigants' expense.

[David Nieporent]

ISWYDT.

[Riva]

Assuming it was filed only for “political reasons,” what is the greater sin? Filing a response to counter the politically motivated law fare obscenities or the politically motivated law fare obscenities themselves?

[LawTalkingGuy]

If only there were a way to not incentivize dumb lawsuits. Maybe something that rhymes with Lanctions.

[Bwaaah]

Manctions? That's not even a word.

[Michael Ejercito]

Would not dismissal for want of a substantial federal question constitute a judgment on the merits?

[MatthewSlyfield]

Sure, if it was dismissed on those grounds, which is not what happened in this case.

[Joe_dallas]

In other news Harris picked Waltz to be her VP choice.

Waltz not only let BLM burn down large parts of Minneapolis, Harris encouraged donations to the Minnesota Freedom Fund that help bail out the BLM rioters.

Harris tweeted "Your support will help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota"
june 1 2020 3:34 pm
Secure . actBlue . com

[bernard11]

Are you now opposed to bail for pre-trial detainees?

[Bob from Ohio]

Letting uninterested 3rd parties post bail defeats the purpose of cash bail.

If the accused bolts, what does he care if some stupid leftists forfeit the bond.

[Krayt]

The purpose of the bail money is to twist their arm to come back.

The purpose of bail is a gentlemen’s agreement that, when one party uses the power of government to hamper another, that other, usually wealthy (otherwise how could they possibly be a thorn in the side of some powerful person) gets to go sit at home while all of this corrupt BS continues and their seconds fight it out.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

True, the people who posted Julian Assange's bail were probably happy to lose their stakes.

[David Nieporent]

Letting uninterested 3rd parties post bail defeats the purpose of cash bail.

That sounds like an empirical question. What does the evidence show about appearance rates depending on who posts bail?

[Brett Bellmore]

There's also the element of the 3rd party themselves hunting down the guy skipping bail, to spare themselves losing the money; Bounty hunting IS a real thing, after all.

But allowing bail payments by people who can afford to lose the bail just to prevent the trial also defeats the purpose of bail.

[Joe_dallas]

bernard11 20 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Are you now opposed to bail for pre-trial detainees?"

No - I am opposed to a politician encouraging the rioting.

Protesters dont get arrested for protesting
Protesters who are rioting get arrested for rioting.

[Sarcastr0]

Protesters don't get arrested for protesting
Unlawful protests are a thing.

Curfew violations.
Failure to disperse.

Federal law enforcement officers have been using unmarked vehicles to drive around downtown Portland and detain protesters since at least Tuesday. Personal accounts and multiple videos posted online show the officers driving up to people, detaining individuals with no explanation about why they are being arrested, and driving off.
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-use-unmarked-vehicles-to-grab-protesters-in-portland

[Joe_dallas]

Actual facts are not Sacastro's forte

They were picking up rioters. NPR as usual mischaracterized the rioters as protesters. Same as Harris mislabeled the rioters in support for funding bail for the rioters.

[Sarcastr0]

"Speaking to NPR's All Things Considered on Friday, Homeland Security Acting Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli acknowledged that federal agents had used unmarked vehicles to pick up people in Portland but said it was done to keep officers safe and away from crowds and to move detainees to a "safe location for questioning."

"The one instance I'm familiar with, they were, believed they had identified someone who had assaulted officers or ... the federal building there, the courthouse. Upon questioning, they determined they did not have the right person and that person was released," Cuccinelli said."

Don't accuse people of lying just because you don't like what they say.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, your complaint is that they may have thought they were picking up rioters, but picked up the wrong people?

Or is it that somebody might suggest that assaulting police officers and/or attacking a courthouse constitutes "rioting", not "protest"?

[Sarcastr0]

That guy wasn't a rioter. Or rioting at the time.

"it was done to keep officers safe and away from crowds" is not picking up rioters at all.

They were after protesters, Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, so you ARE going with 'assaulting officers and attacking a courthouse isn't rioting'.

They were after rioters, they were trying to pick them up outside the riot for safety reasons, and they screwed up and picked up non-rioters by mistake.

But, again, unless you want to deny that assaulting police and attacking a courthouse is rioting, it was rioters that they were after. You don't stop being a rioter the moment the Molotov cocktail clears your hand, any more than you stop being a burglar when you climb back out the window with a sack slung over your shoulder.

[Sarcastr0]

They were after rioters, they were trying to pick them up outside the riot for safety reasons

How the fuck does that even actually work? Like, have you seen pictures of the riots, Brett? It's dark, and they’re all masked!

But you're sure this was all in good faith and just a mistake.

You’re apologizing for authoritarianism again.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I actually agree with you there: They should have at least tagged the rioters with paintballs at the riot, so that they'd easier to track. Planning on tracking rioters out of the riot and arresting them elsewhere was not well thought out.

But if they'd been out to arrest protesters, they'd have arrested a hell of a lot more people than they actually did.

[Sarcastr0]

You can be out to arrest protestors without being out to arrest ALL protesters. Chilling effect, getting a notion to humble this or that rando, or just thuggery, will do.

This kind of silly pettifogging is what you're smokescreening for police state tactics.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 4 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
That guy wasn’t a rioter. Or rioting at the time.

You certainly are an expert on criminal law.
A rioter can be arrested for rioting if he is not committing rioting at the time of the arrest.

[Joe_dallas]

NPR has a well known history of bias and misstatements in their reporting , if not outright lying.

[Sarcastr0]

They quoted Ken Cuccinelli, you denial-ridden nimrod.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

You cannot get more biased than Ken Cuccinelli. The kind of bias Joe likes.

[jb]

LOL, unless they're outright lying they're just quoting what a Trump administration official said.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Sonja_T is being predictably silly about it, but that statement doesn't appear to support your characterization.

[Bob from Ohio]

Harris was scared to pick a Jew.

[Joe_dallas]

Harris passed over Shapiro, a reasonably effective governor of Pennsylvania and popular. That shows the anti-semites now rule the democrat party. Catering to the anti-semites.

[Jonathansingletary]

If you are truly worried about anti-semites, I suggest you pick up a broom and start cleaning your own side of the street.

[Social Justice is neither]

Because it is people on the right harassing jews on campus and demanding genocide in the ME? No, it's idiot leftists.

[Joe_dallas]

only a very tiny fraction of people voting for the GOP are anti-semites or racists and those people are not welcome in the GOP.
Where as the anti-semites and racists dominate the the democrat party.

[Sarcastr0]

Joe_dallas, political demographics expert is on the case.

Such an expert he doesn't need no sources when he spits the truth!

[Joe_dallas]

Again actual knowledge of facts are not Sacastro's forte

Sacastro - you are spending too much time in a left wing woke echo chamber.

[Sarcastr0]

You have provided no facts, just bare unsourced statements.

too much time in a left wing woke echo chamber.
Sure, dude. Say that to someone who posts on the Conspiracy. Sure doesn't make you look like an idiot!

[Joe_dallas]

Facts that are well known outside the leftist echo chamber - yet known by those inside the leftist echo chamber.

[Sarcastr0]

You keep saying facts, but all I see is foot stamping and insults.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Nobody believes you because you’re a fucking liar who refuses to provide sources.

If these things are so well known, then it should be easy enough for you to source appropriately. Instead you just double down on how “well known” everything you say is.

That’s what people do when they are full of shit.

[Joe_dallas]

Jason - we were discussing the anti-semites that dominate the democrat party.

Read any newspaper,
Read Huff post
NPR , NYT, CBS -

I realize you are deeply partisan, but you cant possibly be that ill-informed or intentionally ignorant.

[Sarcastr0]

Joe cites "Read any newspaper...NPR , NYT, CBS."

Also Joe: "NPR has a well known history of bias and misstatements in their reporting , if not outright lying."

Joe, being so obviously full of shit can't be healthy for someone.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Actually fuckhead, we're discussing how you put forth delusions as 'facts' and refuse (multiple times now) to provide any evidence for them.

Did Sonja_T ever provide sources? Is this an issue across all of your idiot sock puppet accounts, or just the prime moron?

[SimonP]

You’re just jealous that she chose someone likeable. Not a fan of the guy-lining couch fucker, are you?

[damikesc]

Likeable? The guy who abandoned troops on their way to war? The guy who set up snitch lines for people to report stay-at-home violators? The guy who claimed to be deaf to try and get out of a DUI conviction? The guy who did nothing to prevent damages to innocent people from the Floyd riots (his daughter even relayed tactical planning of dealing with them to the public).

He looks like a random Eastern European Politburo member from the 80's.

[SimonP]

I see you got the talking points memo from the GOP. Good job, citizen! You definitely do not come off like a "random Eastern European Politburo member from the 80's," with your uncritical embrace of the party's message!

Are you sure you want to go around reminding people of the chaos of the Trump years?

[Mr. Bumble]

Are any of those "talking points" not true?

[SimonP]

Who knows? Who cares? If you MAGA morons have taught us anything, Bumbler, it's that voters don't care about facts or things that happened decades ago. All you have to do now is "tell it like it is" and convey "strength."

Again - you're all just jealous that the best you can put up against Walz's military background is Captain Bone Spurs and Sergeant File Clerk. The best you can put up against Walz's COVID precautions is President Bleach and JD "I was perfecting my guyliner at the time" Vance. The best you can put up against Walz's DUI record is a Convicted Felon "Grab'em by the Pussy" and a pathetic couch-fucker. The best you can put up against Walz's approach to the BLM protests is the president who stoked the flames.

The Republicans are serving you shit, Bumbler, and you're just gobbling it up. Harris/Walz show us what candidates could be like in this country. Blemishes, imperfections - but also principles, commitment to the country, hope for a better future. Trump offers you chaos, incompetence, and corruption, and the best you can say for his "vision" is, "Hey, it's not as bad as the other side." You're being so transparently manipulated, it's pathetic.

[Mr. Bumble]

Nice deflection. Seems that you're the one who eats shit (which in your cocksucking case is probably literally true).
Have a nice day.

[SimonP]

Am I deflecting? I seem to have started by simply observing that Walz was more likeable than Vance. Dammy is the one who tried to "deflect" by bringing up these half-digested talking points, which you've jumped in to defend.

I'm not going to debate them, or get into a digressive argument over why things that happened in Walz's life decades ago are relevant, when MAGA ignores virtually anything that Mr. Guyliner-from-Yale and President Slumlord have ever done more than a newscycle or two ago. Like Trump, you're just all trying to respond to the moment's immediate crisis, taking your marching orders from outlets that massage your egos and feed your outrage.

My only point was that Walz is more likeable than Vance. And he is. That's not deflection, or false. And you're jealous that your party disrespects you so deeply that it doesn't bother to win your vote any more.

[Ilya Snowman]

‘Who knows? Who cares? If you MAGA morons have taught us anything, Bumbler, it’s that voters don’t care about facts or things that happened decades ago. All you have to do now is “tell it like it is” and convey “strength.”’.

As a non-American, it is amusing to witness this display of projection on your part. Even for an American, you're quite shameless.

Do you nonetheless expect anyone outside of your country to believe you about this. Say, about the stolen 1960 American election? Russiagate? The Steele dossier? Bill Clinton winning because of Ross Perot and because of his adoption of ‘neoliberalism’/’third way liberalism’ and the blue team’s abandonment of the unions?

[SimonP]

I'm sure that all seemed far more clever to you than it does to me, comrade.

[Ilya Snowman]

Thanks, American liar (but I repeat myself). I couldn’t care less if you thought it was clever. Regardless, I wrote those things because they’re true, not because I thought they were clever. For pathologically lying Americans like yourself, obviously such a motivation is alien and incomprehensible to you.

[SimonP]

You really are quite repetitive. Is there no joy in your heart?

[Ilya Snowman]

I see what you did there, and it wasn't clever.

Of course. What does that have to do with calling you out for being a lying sack of shit?

[David Nieporent]

Are any of those “talking points” not true?

all of them are not true.

1. He did not "abandon" anyone. He retired when his term was up. The army could have stop lossed him if they needed him, but they didn't.
2. As far as I can tell, he did not set up snitch lines for people to report stay at home violators. He told people to call local police if they had anything to report; he set up a state hotline that people could call with questions about the rules.
3. He did not claim to be deaf to get out of a DUI (which, by the way, was twenty-nine years ago.)
4. He did not "do nothing" to protect people from the George Floyd riots; indeed, he called out the national guard. Then-President Trump praised him for his response.

[Joe_dallas]

Talking points that factually true.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, those are all true and unspun objective facts right there. You're the best at facts, Joe!

[Joe_dallas]

Get out of your echo chamber
Cross check the facts - though its probably too much trouble or too much of an embarrassment for a leftist.

[SimonP]

Hey Joey-D - how about you start by explaining why they're relevant, and we can then decide whether "checking the facts" is worth the time/effort?

MAGA uses "facts" like chaff - just something to throw up in the air to distract from an inconvenient truth. Democrats like Walz because of what he's accomplished in Minnesota. He has won several elections, and the support of Minnesotans, despite the "facts" you want to be debating. Why do they matter now, apart from serving as a distraction from Walz's charm, charisma, sense of humor, and record of accomplishment?

MAGA is the party of child poverty and hunger. MAGA is the party of LGBT prosecution. MAGA is the party of regulating women's bodies. I'll take Walz's DUI and Harris's record as AG over Trump's decades of business fraud and corruption in office and Vance's smarmy past. I'll take Walz's military record over Vance's. I'll take a man and woman who seem to love their families over a ticket that views family as a prop. I'll take a presidential candidate who celebrates her heritage over a presidential candidate who struggles to understand it and a VP candidate who apologizes for his wife's.

Face it, Joey-D. Your man is weak, corrupt, and in way over his head. His political instincts are not suited to this moment and you're trying to drag him over the line. You're angry because you're worried that a virtually-assured victory seems like it could be slipping away.

Good.

[Ilya Snowman]

SimonP:

Your blue team and GOP establishment/anti-Trumpers are widely seen, across the globe, to be imperialist totalitarians. You lie, every time, just to try to obtain a policy result of the moment. Literally no other civilised Western country respects you for this.

You're CLEARLY the bad guys. You'll never recover from the reputational damage.

Beyond that, your lives are in mortal danger now, as MILLIONS of your fellow Americans are itching to murder you. Are you at least BEGINNING to get a sense that November's election results will be irrelevant in this regard?

Tick tock, tick tock...

[SimonP]

Ilya - show me the domestic politics of whatever Eastern European country you're posting from, and I'll show you just as many far-right, would-be murderers just itching for a reason to go off. (Apart from yourself, of course.)

You write as though it's not possible for people in the US to get a sense of how other countries view us. Your lies are so transparent that they're not even fun to rebut.

[Ilya Snowman]

I'm not from or in Eastern Europe (the 'other' Europe).

I write that way because it's largely true. And when any sensible, educated, non-American person reads your parochial, partisan drivel, they can see that you and your lot DON'T really understand what people think of you.

CASE in point: you don't know and/or refuse to address the way that liberals, social democrats, and socialists in other Western countries view you. The disgust and revulsion of YOU. The conscious effort to not have our politics, our courts, our systems, our media, emulate YOU. You, not (just) MAGA. You.

You're the bad guys.

[SimonP]

Comrade, you have elsewhere demanded that I supply factually support for my assertion that Trump and Vance are running only for themselves. I do not feel any particular need to do that, because it's obvious to everyone that has been following American politics. But it's at least as fair a demand to make of you, and this constantly-repeated line about how everyone everywhere hates Americans. You have nothing but the bare assertion to be speaking for billions of people. Where's your support?

Anyway - I'm not going to quibble over it. Geopolitics is complicated, and the US is no saint, but I'm not going to get any kind of constructive dialogue with an edgelord troll like yourself. You don't seem to have any goal here except to make the dialogue as toxic and unpleasant as possible. So, suck a dick.

[Ilya Snowman]

'I do not feel any particular need to do that, because it’s obvious to everyone that has been following American politics'.

This is called circular reasoning. You're employing it not just because you're a moron, which you of course are, but also because you're lying (as is your wont).

Why would you have a double standard about presenting evidence---aside from the fact that you're a bullshitting liar, of course?

Note your additional lie about my claim: it wasn't about ALL Americans, as my written statements evidence. (Of course, demanding that a liar correct his lies would be a waste of time; so it will suffice for me here simply to note that you've lied, yet again).

Last, your mandate here is to create a toxic environment in your discussions of domestic politics: you repeatedly lie and shit on the MAGA folks, and you lie about your institutions' legal and political machinations. Projecting such a mandate onto me is comically dumb of you.

The idea of a 'constructive dialogue' with a proven liar and moron such as yourself is also laughable.

As well, you talk a lot about sucking dicks. Are you an evolutionary dud, unequal, homosexual, Simon? One who is desperate to trick others, and yourself, into believing that you're equal?

[Joe_dallas]

SimonP 3 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Hey Joey-D – how about you start by explaining why they’re relevant, and we can then decide whether “checking the facts” is worth the time/effort?"

Simon - As I have stated - All the facts I state are commonly known, at least commonly known by those who stay reasonably informed. Its not my fault, that you or any of the other typical leftists take pride in their ignorance.

[SimonP]

Joey-D - No, facts are not relevant just because they're (misleadingly framed) facts. Try again.

[SimonP]

It's also factually true that Trump is a convicted felon and Vance is a VC-backed opportunist, and they're both just in it for themselves.

[Ilya Snowman]

'...they’re both just in it for themselves'.

Prove this to be a fact and not just your opinion. (Do you even understand the difference, Yankee Doodle, or is lying so fundamental to your identity AS AN American that you both don't care that it's just your opinion and you cannot control how you respond anyway?)

[SimonP]

Prove this to be a fact and not just your opinion.

Suck a dick, comrade. A shitposter doesn't get to demand anything from me.

[Ilya Snowman]

You won't because you can't.

Good luck trying to survive after November, when your American MAGA come to Brevik you and your family.

Don't try to flee to our more civilised Western countries, OK? You won't be tolerated if you show up here.

[SimonP]

Like I said, comrade. Wherever you hail from - Norway, is it? - has plenty of domestic terrorists of its own. We'll deal with ours, you'll deal with yours - or I guess, Norway will deal with you? - and then we'll compare notes.

[Ilya Snowman]

What do you mean, ‘we’, Simon?

YOU’RE the domestic terrorists. You’re the ones who systematically transgress the US Constitution and aim to subvert it. You’re the totalitarians. You’re the enemies of the Republic and of the rule of law.

As already noted, you will be dealt with by your American betters very soon, regardless of who wins your elections. 🙂

[Ilya Snowman]

Since you’re just an American who doesn’t/can’t appreciate irony, it might be deemed a waste of time to point out that you keep going over the same talking points about ‘convicted felon’ from a trial against Trump that the rest of the civilised world has deemed to have been a political trial and an indicator of your country becoming a banana republic.

The irony of you and your lot’s acting lock stop EXACTLY LIKE an Eastern European commie in this regard (and in others, such as the recent American campaign to use the word ‘weird’) is lost on you.

It’s nevertheless not a waste of time to point this out BECAUSE it is amusing to do so. You’re not just a laughing stock, you’re a moron.

Fortunately, your better Americans are increasingly likely to eliminate you soon enough, irrespective of how your election turns out. Carry on, fool, till your betters cannot tolerate your existence any longer.

Tick tock, tick tock...

[SimonP]

Comrade, the "rest of the world" has proven better able to prosecute former executive officials for corruption than the US has. If they have any particular views about how Trump has been treated, it has been the particular leniency he's been able to get from our current president and our judiciary.

Again - for all of your accusations of ignorance, you seem to be blithely ignorant of several relatively recent corruption cases brought against various European leaders, to say nothing of the ongoing trials of Bolsonaro and Netanyahu. Christ, how many scandals involving the far right in Europe and Chinese and Russian money/influence are still ongoing? Talk about politically-motivated investigations! Is all of Europe a "banana republic," now?

Are you, perhaps, a Reform voter in the UK? It would seem very odd for a rightwing shitposter in Eastern Europe to be so ignorant of what's happening across Europe right now and the way it would resonate with the MAGA narrative about Trump's prosecution. But Reform in the UK would likely be a good home for that kind of idiocy.

[Ilya Snowman]

Simon, do you keep calling me ‘comrade’ because you’re a closet commie in addition to being a closet homosexual evolutionary dud?

I know quite well what’s happening in Europe, including the recent Sarko appeal.

What’s happening in the US, by contrast, is indisputably about lawfare. Perhaps the most conspicuous example for the legal cognoscenti was the pseudo-equitable fraud case in New York. A case immediately followed up with NY state governor announcing that no one else need worry about this form of civil action, even though the unrebutted evidence was that it was and is standard practice for the forms in question.

Even regarding the other trials, things are SO BAD, so obviously Stalinistic, that some of your more principled moderates are even speaking about it. https://www.youtube.com/@ProfessorJedRubenfeld

You’re can BS here to me and others all you want. It won’t change the facts on the ground. Yours are the stuff of a banana republic. The reputational damage to the US is irreparable.

It’s nonetheless unsurprising that hubristic imbeciles such as yourself, ones who advance an evolutionarily inferior meme and don’t meet replacement rate, would warmly embrace Eastern European-style totalitarianism and gaslighting as their MO. After all, your lot hates your Constitution, the rule of law, speaking honestly and truthfully, etc.

Yours is a country in decline, and it’s largely your lot’s fault. You needn’t worry too much about it, though, since you have no future.

[SimonP]

Simon, do you keep calling me ‘comrade’ because you’re a closet commie in addition to being a closet homosexual evolutionary dud?

No, I call you "comrade" because you seem to be a Russian troll.

And I am a very open homosexual - one who doesn't quite understand what it means to be an "evolutionary dud," or why that is apparently some kind of insult. Maybe you could slow down on the vitriol and just walk through that one.

I know quite well what’s happening in Europe... What’s happening in the US, by contrast, is indisputably about lawfare.

Ah, yes. What's happening in the US isn't the same because it's different. You have put the point so well, comrade.

Honestly, comrade, all of this ahistorical and false stuff about "banana republics" and looming civil conflicts is so high-octane and off-the-wall that it doesn't have the intended effect. It's like trying to debate something with Frank. I can tell you're not certifiably insane like he is, comrade, but it is awfully hard to take you seriously, because what you write is the stuff of a certifiable loon.

[Ilya Snowman]

Yeah, I could sniff the gay ressentiment off of you, you unequal evolutionary dud.

Are you sad that the Global South is going to quash your ‘gay rights’ movement over the coming two decades or so? Are you ready to go back into the closet forever once American hegemony comes to an end?

Anyway, your American court cases regarding Trump are indeed different: they’re widely perceived, even by us, your country’s allies, to be political hack jobs. Hell, even some of your more honest American blue team scholars are basically admitting as much about that now.

Feel free to continue to discredit yourselves, though.

Now, you’ve a well-established, written record here on the VC of being a consummate liar. So your ‘judgments’—if they can even be called as much, since they’re obviously at least in part a presentation of your insincerity and efforts to lie—about me or anything other matter, including whether something is a bona fide instance of an ‘ahistorical’ discourse, must be understood in that context. In other words, they are worse than useless.

Still, it’s ironic that you’d call me a Russkie (even though you’re, again, obviously just lying about that in a pathetic effort to insult) since YOUR lot is the one who deems systematic gaslighting, kangaroo courts, comprehensive social re-engineering projects, and duplicitous projects to police concepts and word usage to be FABULOUS.

Whatever the Russians are now (authoritarians, Chinese salad-tossers, etc), they aren’t communists. So, your ‘comrade’ label still doesn’t make any sense.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Chuck Schumer, Antony Blinken, Janet Yellen, Bernie Sanders, Merrick Garland, Doug Emhoff, Elena Kagan, JB Pritzker, Adam Schiff, Jon Ossoff all famous antisemites.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The whole charge of antisemitism thing is completely out of control. She didn't choose Senator Kelly either, so she must hate the Irish, or twins, or astronauts, or some other stupid shit.

[Ilya Snowman]

American Jews (and others) are pathological. They had a weapon, the label of ‘anti-Semitism’. Then they couldn’t help themselves but use it excessively.

I am tempted to write an update to Aesop’s fable entitled ‘The American Jewboy Who Cried Anti-Semitism’, but it’s probably too late for it to be of any help for them in reforming their character.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You really are this fucking stupid, aren’t you Joe?

Here I thought this whole time you were just putting on an act for everyone, but you are in fact utterly retarded to the point of deserving euthanasia.

No wonder you hide behind screen names and sock puppet accounts.

[hobie]

We halted the practice of eugenics too soon

[Ilya Snowman]

Who could or would you vote for that would reinstate it?

[Joe_dallas]

JC - are you capable of an adult conversation.

Throwing FBombs non stops

Have you always had problems with maturity.

[Sarcastr0]

Tone policing while you throw out accusations of antisemitism.

Maybe you should call a lot of other people dishonest; that's really the mature and adult way to be and not the behavior of a tantrum-throwing child at all.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Let's presume for a moment that I actually believe you're an adult in the first place. That would bring us to the next issue, which is that you're a goddamn liar spewing partisan bullshit as truths, who runs away from providing sources for anything you claim as truth, and who therefore does not deserve a kind word or moment of grace from anyone.

In other words: Go fuck yourself.

(That goes double for your cowardly sock puppet accounts you refuse to acknowledge, Sonja_T.)

[Joe_dallas]

maturity problems
You should get those addressed

[Jason Cavanaugh]

If hell ever freezes over and you somehow prove you deserve to be spoken to in a manner other than abusive, then we can have a conversation.

If you carry on with your stupidity and lies, then you will continue to be treated as you deserve. You'll notice that I don't speak to not_guilty in this manner, or SimonP, or santamonica811, or a number of other commenters who demonstrate integrity and reasonableness, despite not agreeing with them on all of their policy preferences.

You on the other hand, can eat shit and choke on your lies.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I thought the JesusBlueEyes guy would be the first with this one.

Bob from Ohio might have been my next pick.

Thanks for the bigoted, superstitious, un-American view from our half-educated, bigoted, parasitic Republican backwaters, Bob from Ohio.

[Ilya Snowman]

What does it mean for an anti-American, anti-Western, anti-logic totalitarian such as yourself to call someone or something 'unAmerican'.

Is it an instance of your PRAISING someone?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Insurrectionists are un-American.

Right-wing racists are un-American.

Old-timey misogynists are un-American.

Chanting antisemites are un-American.

Superstitious gay-bashers are un-American.

Immigrant-hating wingnuts are un-American.

Half-educated Islamophobes are un-American.

Conservative transphobes are un-American.

Etc.

[Ilya Snowman]

What absolutely weird claims—especially the first, as America is predicated upon an insurrection. It’s in your blood, after all.

What about non-chanting anti-Semites?

What about non-superstitious folks who look down upon the unequal evolutionary duds (who are wired to same-sex attraction so that their DNA can be weeded out of the gene pool) for their totalitarianism and efforts to misrepresent themselves as being equal?

Why isn’t immigrant-hating CORE to what it is to be American?

What about well-educated people who look upon the religion of submission with scorn and derision precisely because they know a lot about it?

What about libtarded frauds, such as yourself, who present themselves as being anti-‘Islamophobia’ (thereby misrepresenting contempt for that faith system as constituting a bona fide form of phobia) but nonetheless secretly wish to subvert and destroy that faith? Is it un-American to be THAT, especially as America was ostensibly founded upon religious liberation and tolerance?

In a similar vein, why would anyone fear a bunch of weirdos with gender dysmorphia? Those latter folks are clearly mentally ill, deluded by a political ideology, and/or born with a brain defect. Why would someone fear the ridiculous and inferior? Why would norms of propriety and etiquette need to be reworked, in totalitarian fashion, to muck with pronouns, to accommodate delusions/disorders? Why would a singular person be a ‘they’ rather than an ‘it’? Why would genuine liberals and libertarians support this Orwellian shite—unless they and their ideology/ies aren’t as what they publicly present them to be? Weird.

Why would anyone take YOUR word—the word of a lying, half-educated, conceited moron, one has repeatedly been shown not to understand basic logic, who has repeatedly been shown not to believe the import of his own core dogmas or even really believe them at their core—about what counts as ‘un-American’ or not?Why would anyone take the word of someone is who is going to be killed by traditional Americans for trying to subvert their fundamental norms in a foolhardy effort to make a new, DIFFERENT society, about what counts as ‘un-American’?

Last, why would someone who lives in a more civilised, better educated, better cultured society and state care about what you consider to be ‘un-American’ and/or bad? After all, YOUR espoused values, aspirations, and secretive political schemes are a clear example of what NOT to do, and how NOT to live, if one wants a stable society, let alone a vibrant, flourishing, healthy one.

Carry on, AIDS. Your entire worldview is crashing and burning now, globally and within the United States, for obvious reasons. You will soon be held accountable, by better Americans, for your totalitarian scheming, with your life. There is no escape for you. It is irrelevant who wins your elections in this regard.

[ducksalad]

Bob, what lines of attack were you planning to use if she had picked Shapiro?

Was it going to be the middle road: “She’s just trying to reassure Israel supporters she’s not a pro-.Hamas radical.”

Or the low road: “She’s so anti-Semitic she had to pick a Jew to deflect.”

Or the lowest road: “He’s not really a Jew! Check his grandparents’ birth certificates!”

[Bob from Ohio]

Hypothetical hypocrisy is the best-est hypocrisy!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah but with you it’s not hypothetical.

[Sarcastr0]

Yep. Your bad faith is out and proud with your 'scared to pick a Jew' nonsense.

[Bob from Ohio]

"nonsense."

Its conventional wisdom dude. the large hamas wing of your party was again' him.

[Sarcastr0]

Large Hamas wing.
Your faith ain’t getting gooder.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

When I am savoring the imposition of accountability and justice on Israel’s theocratic, war-criming right-wing assholes, I will recall fondly the vital roles that myriad right-wingers — Netanyahu, Ben Givr, Smotrich, a bunch of Volokh Conspirators and their wingnut fans — had in (1) arranging the end of my country’s subsidization of those right-wing belligerents and (2) precipitating the end of Israel’s bigoted, theocratic, war-criming, terrorist conservative government.

So carry on, clingers . . . but only so far as your betters permit. Some of you seem destined to experience and learn that one the hard way.

[Ilya Snowman]

'Accountability' to whom?

An international system that's collapsing?

To America, which imposed that system, where half the country will come to completely condemn that system as a racist imperialist edifice, and the other half who will kill the former half for having concocted it in the first place? (SURELY you see that that form of accountability and justice is coming domestically, and internationally, yeah?)

Accountability to other theocratic warmongers in the world?

Why do you write INCESSANTLY about theocratic bigots whilst simultaneously talking about Islamophobia and the need to normalize an imperialist apartheid cult in the West? Granted that you're American, and granted that you're actually ignorant despite your pretenses, surely can't be THAT retarded?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The unraveling will start when America stops providing the extraordinary (and likely essential) military, economic, and political skirts behind which Israel has been operating and hiding for decades.

The pace of unraveling might be difficult to forecast but the result seems quite predictable. One fewer bunch of deplorable right-wing assholes to afflict our world.

[Ilya Snowman]

Will start??? The unravelling is already long underway. It's manifesting in East Asia (with Taiwan being the only instance your corporate media will cover), with Ukraine, with the North African coup belt, and with South America.

Next come the international institutions themselves.

With the end of the Petrodollar, you can also be sure that MANY more right-wing, theocratic states will be 'afflicting' you and your lot soon enough. 🙂

Oh, and fuck Kikestine, AIDS. It had decades to solve its problems and it basically sat on its ass instead.

The confrontation of Islam inside the West is also upon you. Your EXTREME efforts to mask that faith's true norms, as established not just by primary resources but also by robust sociological evidence from various communities, is going to come undone. You wished to normalize it not just for immigration, but so that you'd be the dominant consumer of the Gulf (and Nigeria's) precious oil and natural gas. That, too, may end soon.

Do you expect your fellow Americans will tar and feather you, or will they not waste their time and just go directly to blowing your brains out instead?

[Ilya Snowman]

This seems rather doubtful.

A relatively more credible explanation is this. Just as in 2020, when your country's blue team picked an elderly white guy to mask the party's real policies with the patina of being 'moderate' (and to trick middle America into voting for this white guy), it seems quite credible to have a whitebread middle American on the ticket in order to try to trick voters again.

This, over and above, some silly Jew from Pennsylvania who couldn't even win over many of his fellow state's citizens...

[Mother's Lament]

Not the real retard ML here...

The leftist not very nice to Jew stuff was pretty brazen on twitter recently. It could be astroturfed....

I honestly assume everything from everyone is a psyop though.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, there are assholes of every political stripe on twitter. I don't think anyone will deny that leftist antisemites exist.

But they do not form a wing of the Democratic Party.

Meanwhile on this very Conspiracy, like 1/3 of the Big MAGA are full on Jewish Question Nazis.

Maybe not a full-on wing of the GOP either, but certainly a glass houses situation.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If we’re taking the universe of online posters, you could probably go tit-for-tat on right-wing and left-wing antisemitism for a real long time. But the fundamental difference between the two groups is this:

The antisemitic left, at least in the US and online, is broadly opposed to the Democratic Party, electoralism, and actual effective direct action. They embrace performative sacrifice. You can trick a left-wing antisemite into boycotting anything if you say “settler-colonialism.” Instead of making effective points they say shit like: Free Hawaii. They’ll critique power instead of wielding it, decline to vote and decline to firebomb a Walmart.

The antisemitic right by contrast is actually interested in wielding power. They’ll get on republican staffs, be members of conservative think-tanks and mainstream conservative news outlets. Nick Fuentes can’t have dinner with Donald Trump without some extremely high level connections. They’re in deep. But they’re also patient. They have no problem waiting and using regular politics to see what they can get. And of course they have accelerationists, but those guys, shoot up synagogues and Walmarts

[Noscitur a sociis]

This seems either naive or disingenuous. There are plenty of leftist antisemites who are not only interested in wielding power, but actually doing it by, e.g., holding congressional seats.

[David Nieporent]

I agree with N-a-s here. Is there an anarchist left out there? Sure. But that's a really tiny subset even of the left, let alone of society as a whole. The vast bulk of even the far left takes "democracy" to the level of a fetish. The DSA exists, the Squad exists. And often their staffs are farther left than they are.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If you mean Tlaib I feel like you might be confusing the fact that her literal family and friends are in Gaza so she’s opposed to the Israeli war as “antisemitism.”

Again, an actual open Neo-Nazi had dinner with Trump. Where’s the equivalent of that on the left?

Where’s the left wing equivalent of mass-shootings that using the “Great Replacement” as a motivating factor?

I think the right is in complete denial about what they’ve allowed to happen to themselves. Just like last time.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I’d DSA broadly antisemitic?

Is the whole squad (which always changes members seemingly) antisemitic?

Are the staffs in contact with open neo-Nazis and arranging dinner with their presidential candidates? Or posting sonnenrad’s in campaign videos?

[Mr. Bumble]

Who is this neo-Nazi who dined with Trump?

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna59010

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Fuentes

[Mr. Bumble]

"Trump has since said he didn’t know Fuentes or his background when they dined together, a claim Fuentes confirmed in an interview,...."

[LawTalkingGuy]

This thread is about how deep neo-Nazis have infiltrated high level republican staffs. This doesn’t happen without that.

[Ilya Snowman]

'But they do not form a wing of the Democratic Party'.

Amusing. War is peace, innit?

[damikesc]

She was quite scared to pick a Jew.

Got shore up that pro-Hamas wing of the party, which is morphing into its base.

[Sarcastr0]

Keep yelling these transparently bad faith accusations. Surely they'll stick sometime, and then you won’t look like a desperate tool.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

If she had picked him you would've claimed she was pandering to the Jews. Your comments are just partisan bullshit, why do you bother? Who do you imagine you are convincing?

[ducksalad]

Hey, it was a question, and you're not limited to my suggested answers.

Perhaps you would have heartily and sincerely applauded her decision, while civilly pointing out that your approval does not outweigh your disagreements with them on policy?

If you say that's what you were planning to say, I'll pretend to believe you.

[hobie]

Look at the bright side, folks. Now that I've moved to Ohio I cancel out Bob's vote. It's like he never voted. Ain't that something?! Last autumn when we voted on our referendums, Bob's goes into his booth at Tractor Supply and mutters, 'No abortions for you, bitches.' And, upstate, Hobie enters his booth and mutters, 'That's what you think, Bob.'

[Bob from Ohio]

Jokes on you. I didn't vote last year.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Very pro-life.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Great comment at a white, male, bigot-hugging, conservative blog that publishes a daily dose of right-wing antisemitism.

And written by one of this blog's prominent bigots from America's bigoted, can't-keep-up backwaters!

[SRG2]

Ah yes, anti-Semitism by proxy.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

When was the last time the Volokh Conspiracy did not publish at least a few bigoted posts and/or comments? Five years? Ten years?

Anyone want to guess how many vile, explicit racial slurs this blog -- starting with its proprietor, including its carefully cultivated collection of conservative commenters -- has published this year, so far?

___ none
___ one-five
___ six-ten
___ ten-twenty
___ twenty-thirty
___ thirty-forty
___ more than forty

Remember, this is a blog whose operators include law professors from Harvard, Yale, Chicago, Berkeley, and Northwestern. Prominent members of the Federalist Society. Advisors to Republican elected officials.

How many vile racial slurs -- so far this year -- at the blog operated by those disaffected right-wing culture war casualties?

[Ilya Snowman]

AIDS, you write bigoted comments about half your countrymen, and about certain religious groups, on an almost daily basis on the VC.

More importantly, you’re a self-saboteur. You demonstrate repeatedly that you don’t believe in the equality of peoples or cultures here. This isn’t merely a sign of your hypocrisy, right; after all, you could come to be more inclusive and tolerate in order to better to conform to your espoused principles. More importantly, your repeated remarks DEMONSTRATE that you don’t really believe those principles, that they’re a veneer for an ulterior agenda (social re-engineering. Pretend to respect group X. Then subvert its belief system and replace it.)

If you weren’t such an absolute moron, you see how it shows people that the CORE of your political ideology is a con. 1. You don’t really believe in the equality of belief and value system and don’t think they should be tolerated. 2. You don’t have real, credible knowledge or skills to craft a superior culture out of the mold of a mixture of peoples with sundry beliefs.

You’re not just wrong to your core, AIDS. You’re seen to be a charlatan. Your entire political identity and belief system is a fraud, and EVERYONE, from the secular and religious left, to the secular and religious right, across the world, can see that now.

You’re ruined. And now your fellow Americans will Breivik you for ruining their country.

Are you a gay, AIDS? Is that what drives your nonsense? Just look, for example, at how the American Gay mafia has obviously bet wrong about the world. The gays think themselves to be oppressed historically because of the ‘bigotry’ rooted in the texts of the Semitic cults. So, they see to establish solidarity with other groups in the world that they conceive of as being (OR WISH TO PRESENT to the world as being) oppressed. This, in the hopes that those groups, those societies, will recognise ‘gay rights’ in exchange. Too bad that they aren’t, and won’t. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, as the West loses power over the globe, the prospects of ‘gay rights’ being both QUASHED AND CRIMINALISED for being Western bullshit.

The gays are ruined. Serves those evolutionary duds right for being Orwellian little shits who mis-frame contempt for them as being a form of ‘phobia’.

(The Jews fucked up here too. Instead of 'anti-Semitism', they should have shrieked about 'Judeophobia' for the last few decades instead.)

[Jonathansingletary]

I honestly think this kind of talk is going to sour really quickly , if it hasn‘t already. Not to mention that hijacking a thread on an unrelated post just because you want to make a nasty and twisted point is tacky.

[Estragon]

Stinks of desperation. Save it for Thursday, huckleberries!

[Bob from Ohio]

Everyone on my side is happy about Walz, no desperation.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, it's Harris the MAGA side is blowing its top over.

[Sarcastr0]

Who knows if they are happy. They’d have said Harris misstepped regardless. Just as the Dems would whenever Trump chose.
The proof is on the campaign trail.
Do you think we are stupid to pretend otherwise?

The right is all about saying they’re not mad when they are super mad, and saying they are outraged when they don’t actually care.

[Bob from Ohio]

Whatever.

Nobody votes for the bottom of the ticket except for a tiny bit in the home state. Shapiro was right there to help in a vital state, but Jew.

[Sarcastr0]

Devaluing charges of antisemitism to get your partisan jollies seems bad.

[Bwaaah]

Sure. But all quips aside, she does avoid the problem of having a Jew on the ticket. (Not that anybody has particular concerns about Jews or their potential Jewy biases.)

[Sarcastr0]

You see cagey.

What exactly are you saying?

[Bwaaah]

One doesn't have to be cynical to see how much group-associated stereotypes, widely held by voters, can move those voters in big, statistically significant numbers. Any politician who is serious about winning an election needs to take that into account in his/her vote-getting strategy.

[Sarcastr0]

By that same logic I could call Trump’s pick of Vance antisemetic.

You need more than ‘not Jewish’. But the GOP is pretty free with the accusation lately.

[Bwaaah]

That was more observation than logic. It wasn't even intended as a partisan point, although you seem to be unable to see any less than one.

What did I say that you disagree with? (Please directly quote what I said that you disagree with, if any of it.)

[Sarcastr0]

"Not that anybody has particular concerns about Jews or their potential Jewy biases"

"That was more observation than logic. It wasn’t even intended as a partisan point."

Hmmmmmm.

[Bwaaah]

I didn't know a slightly facetious parenthetical remark would throw you off. What did you think I meant by that? Here's a translation of it for you (I'll pretend that you're stupid for a moment and that you misunderstood me):

Many people have concerns about types of people (e.g. religious types, racial types, ethnic types, etc.) and biases they associate with those types.

Now that I've translated that so that you might understand me better, do you disagree with that?

I still don't understand why you consider that to be a partisan point. If you do, please explain.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes. Many people have *concerns*. About demographics.

Never heard of this type of trolling before. What should we call it, I wonder?

[Roger S]

Shapiro probably is the better candidate, if he were not Jewish.

[Bwaaah]

Honestly, Sarc. I don't understand what you're saying, or what you think I'm saying. But I sincerely believe you don't disagree with the very simple point I'm making.

[Bwaaah]

I reiterate my simple point, verbatim:
“One doesn’t have to be cynical to see how much group-associated stereotypes, widely held by voters, can move those voters in big, statistically significant numbers. Any politician who is serious about winning an election needs to take that into account in his/her vote-getting strategy.”

[LawTalkingGuy]

No too-online right-winger has ever been happy about anything.

[Frank Drackman]

It's a balanced ticket anyway,
2 Drunks,
and who doesn't get a DUI in their 40's? (me)
Seriously Folks, they should just did up Floyd George and run his Corpse, or at least his Bloody Shirt

Frank

[SimonP]

Be real, Bob. They’re saying things like, “he’s a far left liberal that no one has ever heard of,” so that they don’t have to acknowledge that they put up a venture capitalist-backed, couch-fucking opportunist with almost no political experience or principles against a football coach and veteran who taught kids before becoming a popular and successful governor.

Race is far from over, of course. But come the fuck on. “Your side” is motivated by grievance and hate, and has yoked itself to two con men that no one really likes. “Our side” is laughing at you and pumped to win this.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Be careful, Estragon.

Huckleberries, hillbillies, hayseeds, slack- . . . . oops, almost forgot, Eugene Volokh has banned that word (sl_ck-j_w) from his blog if used to described conservatives . . . in any event, the proprietor doesn't like it when you call conservative huckleberries and right-wing knuckle-draggers huckleberries and knuckle-draggers at his blog. He has imposed censorship in that context more than once.

This is a friendly warning. (I believe Eugene Volokh is entitled to impose viewpoint-driven censorship at his blog for several reasons, including that censorious, partisan hypocrites have rights, too.)

[Sarcastr0]

"This is a ticket that would want this county to go communist immediately if not sooner ... he's very heavy into transgender. Anything transgender he thinks is great ... I think it's very insulting to Jewish people"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Interesting comment at a blog whose proprietor has a demonstrable trans fetish.

[David Nieporent]

Joe_dallas is already an expert on the career of a guy whose name he can't even spell.

[Sarcastr0]

I’m sure the curious could figure where he got this oppo snausage from.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Hoover Institution? Federalist Society? Heritage Foundation?

[Frank Drackman]

Well it's a balanced ticket!
2 Drunks,
and maybe Cums-a-lot should have chosen a more "Main Stream" Minn-a-Soda Governor, like Jesse "The Body" Ventura
Love the Common-Law people putting out the story that they didn't pick Mark Kelly, you know a former Astronaut wanted nothing to do
with the leaking O-rings on the Challenger-Like Harris Cam-Pain
Guess maybe "45" was doing better in Minn-a-Sod-a than Nate Sliver would like to admit

Frank

[Mother's Lament]

Is this supposed to be convincing independents?
Swaying the RINOs?
Nudging the blue dogs?

Love always,
The guy that stole ML's handle.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Mostly, I think Eugene Volokh and Frank Drackman perform here just to amuse each other and indulge their intolerant, awkward urges.

[Bwaaah]

"Is this supposed to be convincing independents?"

Yes. As a matter of fact, Donald Trump personally called Frank Drackman and said, "Frank...I want you to bring a message to voters that even I can't deliver."

And you know what Frank said? I can't repeat the rumors I've heard.

Frank Drackman - Voter Influencer

It's getting real now.

[hobie]

Should be a good ticket.

We're the Shiny Happy People Party and you're the Sausage Party.

We concede the angry losers vote

[hobie]

So much for 'let the states decide' or let the states handle their own affairs (abortion, marijuana, voting, prosecuting criminals). Seems the red states like the federal government just fine as an instrument of retribution to crush other state's laws and preferences:

Texas v. Pennsylvania (nullify Penn's votes)
Nebraska and Oklahoma v. Colorado (nullify Colorado's marijuana legalization)
State of Missouri v. State of New York (nullify New York's ability to prosecute its criminals)

State's rights and all that, amirite?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Flailing right-wing hayseeds -- in courts, at the Volokh Conspiracy, throughout the Republican Party, at the Hoover Institution and Federalist Society, in our can't-keep-up rural and southern stretches -- are a predictable stage of the modern American culture war. The losers become increasingly desperate, disaffected, and delusional.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Republicans are like this blog not consistent libertarians. They are Republicans. They aren't really about letting the states decide, full stop. Federalism is about deciding what states decide.

The "government off our backs" rhetoric is often obviously b.s.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The only type of libertarian found at this blog (Prof. Somin to some degree excepted) is faux libertarian.

[Frank Drackman]

well you're a Faux Lawyer, so what's the difference?

[Frank Drackman]

Seriously, is there a day in your life where you’ve contributed anything more to Society than taking a Shit?
Yesterday I helped 3 Veterans be able to have Erections again, and 3 more to see again (Ok, the Urologist/Ophthalmologist helped to) It wasn’t my idea that Jaw- Jaw stop letting predominantly minority women kill their babies, like they do in your state, but hey, this isn’t Roosha (is this Roosha? this isn’t Roosha)
And if your state’s so smart, why is JD Vance your Senator, and “45” won the State easily?
People like you (and my Sin O Gogue' supporting a Black Supremercist Moose-lum) are what turned me into an Atheist (don’t tell Jay-Hay, I like to hedge my Bets)

Frank

[LawTalkingGuy]

If the justices were really not having it they would have sanctioned plaintiffs. Still insane they didn’t sanction Paxton and Co. for the Texas v Pennsylvania stunt. But AGs don’t get sanctioned I guess.

[Bob from Ohio]

i have never heard of SCOTUS sanctioning a lawyer. Have you?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well they do disbar people when the state bars do. Alito asked a patent lawyer to show cause why he shouldn’t be sanctioned when it was clear the client wrote the brief. But their lack of sanctioning doesn’t reflect well on them, especially when it’s their buddies.

[hobie]

I guess in these kinds of cases, it depends on what Ginnie is into at the moment

[Frank Drackman]

Not you obviously, but what woman who had a choice would be?

[not guilty]

It doesn't happen often, but Rule 17.2 provides that the form of pleadings and motions prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is followed in original jurisdiction actions. If SCOTUS were to conclude that Missouri's attorney general filed this action for an improper purpose, it could impose sanctions under Rule 17.2 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(1).

The request to stay Trump's sentencing is especially curious. Is it plausible that anyone in Missouri would vote for Trump despite his having been found guilty of 34 felonies while he is awaiting sentencing, but would not vote for him after imposition of sentence?

[Noscitur a sociis]

It doesn't seem very likely, does it? And of course, if Trump needs those votes to win Missouri, that means he's lost the election in a landslide.

[Frank Drackman]

The total fertility rate in Minnesota was roughly 1.87 in 2019, slightly below the replacement rate of 2.1
Guess the Revolting "Reverend" is right about something. Maybe this has something to do with it
In 2021, around 45 percent of all reported legal abortions in Minnesota were performed on White Women. 28.6% on Non-Hispanic Black Women, 15% on Other/Mixed Race, and 11% Hispanic
2020 Census reported a Black Population just under 8%
I know this is a legal blog, and most of you num-nutz can't count to 21 without taking off your pants, but Blacks kill their unborn babies 3 times out of proportion to their share of the population.
It's almost like they think nobody wants to adopt Black Babies,
So who's the real "Genocide" Candidate this year?

Frank

[Bored Lawyer]

Given that only Trump was affected by the gag order, and anyone else could say or write anything about the judge or his family, it's hard to see how Missouri had standing.

[Mr. Bumble]

I thought it also applied to his attorneys and if not what is the justification for gagging only Trump. Fearful of hi megaphone on social media?

[Bored Lawyer]

OK, so what? The State of Missouri is neither Trump nor his attorneys. So it's free to comment as much as it wants.

[Roger S]

Voters in Missouri need to vote for President, and want to hear Trump's side of various public issues. With Trump gagged, their ability to make an informed vote is diminished.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, the gag order for Trump not to talk about national policy issues sure did go too far!

[SRG2]

Trump isn't prevented from speaking on other topics, duh.

[David Nieporent]

How would listening to Trump make anyone informed? And, no, nobody wants to hear Trump rant about family members of the judge or prosecutor. Also, wanting to hear him doesn't give one standing to challenge a gag order, no.

[Roger S]

Harris campaigns on Trump being a criminal. Voters are entitled to decide for themselves, and listen to whatever arguments Trump presents. One of his arguments is that the judge is biased against him, partially because the judge's daughter is directly profiting from fundraising off of the Trump prosecution. Trump ought to be able to tell that story.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Trump is a criminal, although the adjudication against him concerning sexual assault was civil.

[Frank Drackman]

Another demonstration of “Drackman’s Razor” when in doubt about a particular Surpreme Case, come down on the side of Clarence “Frogman” Thomas and Sammy “The Knife” Alito.
I’d like to “reform” the court just like Parkinsonian Joe and Cums-alot-Harris, my proposal? Thomas and Alito each get 4 votes to every other Judges 1. Call it a “Seniority Adjustment” “Reparations for my man Clarence having to defend himself against charges of Sexual Her-Ass-Meant before a Senate Panel including a veritable Rogues Gallery of Sexual Her-ass-ers, lets see, Ted Kennedy (you know wat’ I be talkin’ bout Willis!) Strom Thurman (Colored Maid Diddler), Parkinsonian Joe (Cereal Hair Sniffer), Howell Heflin (claimed that Fawn Hell smuggled classified documents in her panties, Heflin claimed he’d “Read it in one of the papers” unfortunately in 1987 AlGore hadn’t invented the Internets and it was easily shown that the only place Heflin “read” the story was in his own Dirty mind)
Sex Fiends in the full Senate at the time included AlGore(Maid Diddler), Larry Craig (of "Wide Stance" infamy) Chris Dodd (of "See Kennedy, Ted, Sloppy Seconds) Robert KKK Bird, I could literally smell the stench of Anita Cuntlips Cuntlips through my 27" Sony Trinitron ($699 in 1991, adjust for inflation and it'd be nearly 2 grand today)

Frank

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These right-wing bigots are your fans, defenders, ideological allies, and target audience, Volokh Conspirators.

And the reason your leader is no longer on the UCLA campus, not on the Northwestern campus, no longer able to sprinkle his racial slurs on captive audiences of law students. Which of you disaffected clingers will be next?

Carry on, cowards . . . while you still can.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and what campus are you on?

[Frank Drackman]

Revolting holds the Professor Suggon Deeznutz Chair at I. Felcher U.

Frank

[Estragon]

Truly— a modern John Donne! The amount of self-regard is truly amusing.

[ReaderY]

Given the Supreme Court’s recent complete evisceration of both state legislatures’ textual power to appoint presidential electors as they see fit and presidential electors’ textual power to fill out their ballots and vote as they see fit, frankly you can’t blame Missouri for trying. If the Supreme Court wants something really badly, clear text is simply no barrier.

Since these cases have been unanimous, the folks on the court who claim to be originalists might be better described as “Bayesian originalists.” They repeatedly emphasize the virtue of relying on their priors. And they in fact do so, at least most of the time, at least when the issue isn’t very important or when it leads to the result they want. But every now and then, on really important issues, suddenly we see them relying on their posteriors.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You forgot to mention the clear text of the Constitution stating that impeached officials would still subsequently be subject to criminal indictment, which is directly contradictory to SCOTUS' recent should-be-ignored ruling about Trump's "immunity."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Clingers prefer to ignore that part of the Constitution, much like a number of words in the Second Amendment.

Better Americans are likely to correct those mistakes, thank goodness.

[Ilya Snowman]

If by 'clingers' you mean your blue teamers, then surely it's more accurate to say that they ignore your entire constitution.

They hate it, after all, for being the creation of 'white' heterosexual capitalist settler colonists.

Carry on, AIDS, till you're Breiviked.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm getting so tired of hysterical misreadings of that ruling.

Look, the text of the Constitution is clear that impeachment doesn't invoke the double jeopardy clause, that much is true. But Congress can impeach over things that aren't actually crimes, and if it does so, that doesn't magically make them into crimes that an ex-President can be prosecuted for.

So, for instance, Congress could impeach a President over pardoning somebody a majority of Congress really didn't like. They could even convict him and remove him from office, if enough Senators agreed the pardon was awful enough. But, that wouldn't make the pardon into a crime!

OTOH, if Congress impeached a President over his shooting somebody on 5th avenue, whether or not they convicted him, he'd still be subject to prosecution by the state of NY for murder.

In the first impeachment, Trump was impeached over, essentially, his foreign policy. Sure, they charged him with "Abuse of power" and "Obstruction of Congress", but the supposed abuse of power as a classic exercise of Presidential foreign policy, and the supposed obstruction of Congress was just the normal practice of the Executive branch not always honoring Congressional subpoenas.

Nothing in there was actually a crime, in the ordinary sense of the word, or you'd have to have a separate wing in some prison somewhere to hold all the ex-Presidents, the acts were so common.

The second impeachment was for "incitement of insurrection". Now, inciting an insurrection CAN be a crime, and Trump could be prosecuted for it regardless of whether he was impeached, but the case for him having done it is pathetically weak.

[Joe_dallas]

Jason Cavanaugh 19 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
You forgot to mention the clear text of the Constitution stating that impeached officials would still subsequently be subject to criminal indictment, which is directly contradictory to SCOTUS’ recent should-be-ignored ruling about Trump’s “immunity.”

Another ill-informed comment from jason
Any guesses on how many things you got wrong in that single sentence.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

What I wrote is common knowledge, and you can't possibly be ignorant enough to not know that.

Go fuck yourself, Joe.

[Frank Drackman]

Has a newly selected VP candidate every shared the details of his Infertility? And I could tell Governor Waltz why he and his wife had such difficulty having children,
The man has no Balls!
Oh, and he's for "Common Sense Gun Safety Laws"
this Erection is going to end well, reminds me of when Do-Cock-Us nominated that Petrified Wood Statue Floyd Benson, oh he got one good slam at Danny Boy Quale, who carried Texas??

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I hope Whittington, Kerr, Sachs, Adler, and Baude bring up their blog when requesting a merit raise at their next employment review. Their employers need to see this shit.

[Passoner]

No question if the situation was reversed, the Democrat judges would find a way to grant cert. The problem is that conservative judges care about pretending to follow the rules, and the ugly lesbian Democrats don't.

[Estragon]

More voltage! How many accounts do you have, man? Getting grey boxed ever quicker these days, it seems…

[Passoner]

Not grey boxed.

[Estragon]

“More voltage”

Oh that’s a bingo! Buh-bye!!!

[Bwaaah]

"The problem is that conservative judges care about pretending to follow the rules, and the ugly lesbian Democrats don’t."

Sounds to me like a cry for some hot lesbian Democrats on the bench.

[grb]

Bwaaah : "Sounds to me like a cry for some hot lesbian Democrats on the bench"

I'm sure I speak for lefties everywhere in saying we're all in favor of hot lesbian Democrats - on the bench or at the beach. Anywhere!

[not guilty]

"No question if the situation was reversed, the Democrat judges would find a way to grant cert."

Uh, there was no petition for certiorari here.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The court could simply have said "this suit by Missouri is based on a bad legal theory and so we dismiss it without further ado."

But that would have meant dealing with the merits, as I believe the Constitution requires the Supreme Court to do when a state files suit in that Court.

[Kazinski]

I'm seeing conflicting reports about why it wasn't Shapiro, this one says he went to extraordinary lengths to try to secure the VP Slot:
"Josh Shapiro Annoyed He Got This 'Death To Israel' Neck Tattoo For Nothing buff.ly/3YBILdg "

Then I saw another report from Politico that he pulled himself from consideration:

"A person familiar with the selection process told our colleagues that, after their meeting on Sunday, Shapiro called Harris’ team and made clear that he was “struggling with the decision to leave his current job as governor, in order to seek the vice presidency.”

It's worth noting that Nate Silver says Kamala has a 91% chance to win the election IF she takes PA, and Trump has a 96% chance of winning if he takes it.

[SimonP]

MAGA sure is upset that they don't get to run against the centrist Jew from PA, aren't they? Why is that, I wonder?

It kind of seems like the play was supposed to be, Kamala picks Shapiro, leftists online throw up their hands over the "establishment" pick who's pro-Israel and pro-school vouchers (prodded along by plenty of "leftist" accounts online), while Trump runs against the "Soros ticket."

MAGA keeps having to pivot, doesn't it? How long are you guys going to be talking about this, I wonder? Long enough for the Republicans to run their focus groups targeting Walz?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm content that the two of them just came out last night to announce their intention to die on the hill of gun bans and confiscation.

It's not like we didn't already know they were radically anti-gun, but that they lack the sense to downplay it is really nice, going into this election. It's going to make it easier to beat them in several swing states.

[SimonP]

Walz's approach on guns has evolved over time, but in last night's speech he affirmed support for the Second Amendment, as well as common-sense gun control - which has broad support among American voters.

Honestly, Brett - you need to get out of your information bubble, if you think "killing kids in schools" is the approach that will win over swing voters. You're attributing to Harris/Walz a position they haven't taken, and then celebrating how unpopular it would be if they took it. But voters will hear what Harris and Walz actually say about it, just like Minnesota voters have. Minnesota isn't banning or confiscating guns, and that's not their message, either.

[Brett Bellmore]

Doesn't mean squat to 'affirm your support for the 2nd amendment' when it's with a private reservation that it's interpreted so that it doesn't actually guarantee a right that means anything. Stevens, in his Heller dissent, claimed to be defending the 2nd amendment; Which he claimed guaranteed a right to be armed while serving in the military when, where, and if the government wanted to you to be armed..

Like claiming freedom of speech was the right to say what the government orders you to, and otherwise STFU.

Heller and the Democratic party's freak out over it revealed to all the world what you actually meant by "reasonable gun control"; You might as well retire the phase, it cools nobody anymore.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The mainstream backlash against gun nuts by better Americans will be as sweet as it is predictable.

I hope a right to possess a reasonable firearm in the home for self-defense survives, but if it does not gun nuts will have themselves to blame.

See you down the road apiece, clingers.

[Noscitur a sociis]

MAGA sure is upset that they don’t get to run against the centrist Jew from PA, aren’t they? Why is that, I wonder?

Not that the Harris campaign cares what I think (or should!), but

1. I think Shapiro would have been a stronger running mate, and am therefore glad that she didn't pick him in that I want her to lose the election;
2. In light of 1, the fact that she didn't pick him, and the justifications being offered for it, are pretty ugly; and
3. I haven't really seen anyone on the Trump side (admittedly, I do have a lot of the ones around here on ignore) saying anything different.

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

How come only wrong people have conviction 🙂
"a serious argument, and one which I suspect may be correct."
How about: It is correct

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Unlike anonymous internet commenters, Prof. Adler is willing to admit there are issues on which he is not an expert, and about which he hasn't formed a hard opinion.

[Brett Bellmore]

I thought Yeats explained that.