Supreme Court Briefs Filed By Attorney General Kamala Harris

Knowing all that we know, I struggle to see how putting Harris in the White House would "save conservatism."

Recently, a number of people on the right have endorsed Vice President Harris as the only way to save democracy. Relatedly, David French, says he is voting for Harris "to try to save conservatism." Not mentioned in French's essay is the Senator Schumer's nuclear bill, which would effectively overrule a decision by statute, and strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to review that law. French had asked Justice Gorsuch about Supreme Court "reform" during an interview, but the issue apparently did not move French. I suppose the only way to save democracy is to destroy the independence of the Supreme Court.

Perhaps if French came out and said we should elect Harris, but keep the Congress in Republican hands, that would forestall SCOTUS "reform," at least for a few years. But an endorsement of Harris, without opining on the state of Congress, all but ensures the filibuster is destroyed and jurisdiction striping and/or Court packing will pass. The American Bar Association recently endorsed a suite of "democracy" reforms, but as best as I can tell, has been silent on jurisdiction stripping. As Justice Thomas often repeats, we will come to regret crippling the last independent branch of government.

On that note, Harris spent about six years as Attorney General of California before becoming a Senator. By my count, she signed about fifty Supreme Court briefs--a mix of cert-stage briefs, merit-stage briefs, and amicus briefs. It is rare to have a presidential candidate with such a detailed record regarding constitutional law. I think it is useful to walk through these briefs to provide a sketch of how a President Harris would view the Constitution and the Court.

2016

• Joined blue state amicus brief in Whole Woman's Health v. Cole (abortion)
• Led blue state amicus brief in Zubik v. Burwell (contraceptive mandate)
• Led blue state amicus brief in Murr v. State of Wisconsin (takings clause)
• Joined blue state amicus brief in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp. (bankrptucy)

2015

• Joined blue state amicus brief in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (redistricting)
• Joined blue state amicus brief in King v. Burwell (ACA "pure applesauce" and "jiggery-pokery")
• Merits brief in Davis v. Ayala (habeas)
• Joined blue state amicus brief in Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency (Clean Air Act)
• Joined blue state amicus brief in Obergefell v. Hodges (same-sex marriage)
• Merits Brief in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (union dues)
• Joined amicus brief of blue states in Evenwel v. Abbott (redistricting)
• Solo amicus brief in Fisher v. University of Texas (affirmative action)
• Joined blue state amicus brief in United States v. Texas (DAPA)

2014

• Joined blue states amicus brief in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency (Clean Air Act)
• Led blue state amicus brief in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (contraceptive mandate)
• Merits brief in Riley v. State of California (search of cell phone)
• Amicus brief in Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc. (private cause of action for Medicaid)
• Joined amicus brief of red and blue states in Ohio v. Clark (confrontation clause)
• Led amicus brief of red and blue states in City of Los Angeles v. Patel (warrantless search)
• Joined amicus brief of blue states in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc (Fair Housing Act and disparate impact)

2013

• Led amicus brief of red and blue states in Maryland v. King (DNA testing)
• Joined (mostly) blue state amicus brief in Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc (patents)
• Joined blue state amicus brief in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder (Voting Rights Act)
• Merits Brief in Hollingsworth v. Perry (same-sex marriage)
• Joined blue state amicus brief in United States v. Windsor (Defense of Marriage Act)
• Led blue state amicus brief in American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (preemption)
• Joined amicus brief of blue states in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl (ICWA)
• Led amicus brief of (mostly) blue states in Kansas v. Cheever (self-incrimination)
• Joined amicus brief of red and blue states in Burt v. Titlow (ineffective assistance of counsel)
• Joined amicus brief of red and blue states in Mississippi v. AU Optronics Corp. (parens patriae)
• Led amicus brief of blue states in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary (state constitutional amendment to prohibit affirmative action)
• Led amicus brief of blue states in Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg (ADA)
• Merits brief in Brown v. Plata (prison overcrowding)
• Merits brief in Fernandez v. California (warrantless search)
• Joined amicus brief of blue states in Township of Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. (housing discrimination)
• Joined amicus brief of blue states in McCullen v. Coakley (abortion buffer zone)
• Merits brief in Navarette v. California (vehicle search)
• Led amicus brief of blue states in Harris v. Quinn (mandatory union dues)

2012

• Joined amicus of blue states in HHS v. Florida (constitutionality of individual mandate)
• Led amicus brief of blue states in NFIB v. Sebelius (severability of individual mandate)
• Joined amicus of blue states in Magner v. Gallagher (Fair Housing Act and disparate impact)
• Joined amicus brief of blue states in Arizona v. United States of America (Immigration, SB 1070)
• Merits brief in Johnson v. Williams (federal habeas)
• Sole amicus in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (affirmative action)
• Joined amicus brief of blue states in Federal Trade Commission v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. (Eleventh Amendment)
• Led amicus brief of (mostly) blue states in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District (exactions and monetary payments)

2011

• Led amicus brief of blue and red states in Bullcoming v. New Mexico (Confrontation Clause)
• Joined amicus brief of blue and red states in Davis v. United States (exclusionary rule)
• Joined amicus brief of blue and red states in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing (drug labeling)
• Joined amicus brief of blue states in American Electric Power Company Inc. v. State of Connecticut (Clean Air Act)
• Merits brief in Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, Inc. (cause of Action for Medicaid suits)
• Merits brief in Martel v. Clair (ineffective assistance in capital habeas case)
• Joined amicus brief of blue states in First American Financial Corporation v. Edwards (case or controversy requirement)
• Joined amicus brief of blue and red states in Williams v. Illinois (confrontation clause)
• Joined amicus brief of blue and red states in PPL Montana, LLC v. State of Montana (navigable waters)
• Joined amicus brief of blue states in Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc. (RESPA)

(I may have made a few errors here or there, but I think my list is substantially complete.)

To summarize, Harris filed brief in support of abortion access (Whole Woman's Health), in opposition to pro-life demonstrators at clinics (McCullen v. Coakley), in support of the contraception mandate for private employers (Hobby Lobby) and religious non-profits (Zubik/Little Sisters of the Poor), opposed immigration-related cases involving Arizona and Texas, favored compelled payment of union dues (Harris and Friedrichs), opposed standing for intervenors in Prop 8 case (Hollingsworth), favored a constitutional right to same-sex marriage (Obergefell and Windsor), opposed both challenges to the Affordable Care Act (NFIB and King), favored broad reading of the Clean Air Act (Michigan and AEP), supported affirmative action policies (Fisher and Schuette), favored broad enforcement of disparate impact suits (Inclusive Communities, Mount Holly, and Magner), and supported obsolete Voting Rights Act coverage formulas (Shelby County). I did not go through her briefings in the Ninth Circuit and the California court systems, so I'm sure I missed some more. You can also see the kinds of questions she posed to Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett during their confirmation hearings.

Knowing all that we know, I struggle to see how putting Harris in the White House would "save conservatism."

Comments

[Randal]

I struggle to see how putting Harris in the White House would “save conservatism.”

It’s more that putting Trump in the White House would severely hobble conservatism.

But also, Democrats understand that the country needs a strong conservative party. We’re not as naive as MAGA drones who think that somehow the opposition can be defeated in some kind of permanent way. We know there will always be conservatives who disagree with us, and we’d prefer a strong (and pro-democracy) conservative party to a weak and stupid (MAGA) one.

So in that sense, Harris would respect conservatism more than Trump would.

[Commenter_XY]

That is just a load of crap = Harris would respect conservatism more than Trump would

[Randal]

It's actually pretty obvious. Trump doesn't respect anything but himself. Almost everybody respects almost everything more than he does. Especially the Constitution.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It's like you dont realize we have had four years of Trump as president.

[JasonT20]

I don't see how anything that happened in Trump's four years as President refutes what Randal has said here.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Other than his entire four years! Otherwise, nailed it!

[Randal]

That's Exhibit A.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Was it when he kept ignoring a SCOTUS ruling to give billions in handouts to his wealthy voting base?

Because that was pretty shitty.

[Frank Drackman]

That said it all Hey-Zeuss,
funny how none of the "Usual Gang of Idiots" is rushing to refute you (You're Jesus, bad move)
But C'mon (Man!)
When you comin back?
and when the Trumpets sound is it too late for me to Convert to Christ-Insanity??

Frank

[Brophy]

Trump is a thug who used Covid and the CDC as an excuse to rob landlords. Biden and Harris continued the theft when they took over. There's no difference between them.

[Noscitur a sociis]

We’re not as naive as MAGA drones who think that somehow the opposition can be defeated in some kind of permanent way. We know there will always be conservatives who disagree with us, and we’d prefer a strong (and pro-democracy) conservative party to a weak and stupid (MAGA) one.

I see very little evidence that that’s in fact the case.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

They even put Democrats who don't agree with them on secret terror watch lists.

[JasonT20]

Those lists are so secret that there is no proof that they exist other than in your mind. Which is further proof that they DO exist! Otherwise, how could 'they' hide them!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Uh you hadn't heard about what they did to Tulsi?

Of course not, you're a Democrat.

[Frank Drackman]

You know it was just Creepy TSA Incels hoping to cop a feel. Tulsi's got more Courage in one of her hot strands of White Hair (from an IED Explosion) than in Waltzin' Tim's whole Corpulent Body (I don't want to here anymore Homo's calling "45" Fat) I'm older than "Tampon Tim", Served in a (Real) Wah Zone, carried a (Real) Weapon, Never been to Chy-Na! (but love some General Tso's)
and I don't even want Tampons in XX's Bathrooms, (I had 2 daughters, played competitive Juniors Tennis from 8-16, think I didn't have to deal with some umm "Women's Ish-yews"? (OK, not when they were 8) #2 (the really tough one) started her "Flow" right at the beginning of a Semi-Final match, you think she took a break to umm, you know? She played 3 friggin hours, won, and at the end that Court looked like the OJ Crime Scene (Spoiler Alert! OJ did it)

Frank

[Krychek_2]

I think that tampons in boys' bathrooms is a silly idea, but there are far worthier candidates for the amount of outrage it's receiving. It's not like, i.e., the prospect of allowing Putin to walk away with the Ukraine, or the 2025 project, or the authoritarian instincts Trump isn't even bothering to hide anymore.

But then again, you're still harping on an automobile accident that happened 50 years ago as to which the participants are all long dead, so maybe your outrage meter isn't the best standard.

[Michael Ejercito]

Hoew exactly will Putin walk away with the Ukraine, if the much more poewerful Soviet Red Army could not conquer Afghanistan?

[Krychek_2]

I can think of a number of differences. For one thing, Afghanistan is heavily mountainous terrain, great for hiding guerrillas and facilitating guerrilla warfare. For another, Afghanistan has been populated for centuries with people who do guerrilla warfare for a living.

The better historical analogy would be Finland, which Stalin invaded during World War II. The brave Finns managed to hold off the Russians for months, but eventually simply could not hold back the tide of a bigger, more powerful Army and were forced to surrender.

[Absaroka]

Nitpick: surrender isn't quite the right word, I think. The Finns gave up some territory, but Finland remained a free country until the present day, which is a much better outcome than Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, et alia.

'Walk away with Ukraine' seems to envision Russian rule in Lvov or Odessa, vs. Donetsk.

(What the Ukrainians would do if Russia did occupy most of the country is an interesting question. The Germans never suppressed the partisans there during WWII. I get the sense that Ukrainian attitudes towards Russia have hardened a lot since 2022. Whether they have hardened enough to support a long term insurgency is hard to say.)

(and, FWIW, I'd give Ukraine a lot more support than Biden has...to me, in addition to the altruism of helping people defend themselves, there is the selfish angle that Ukrainians fighting Russia in Ukraine beats the US fighting Russia in Poland or the Baltics)

[damikesc]

Can you list three huge problems with Project 2025?

[Randal]

Apart from the long list of radical right-wing policy wet dreams like eliminating the Department of Education and classifying gender dysphoria as inherently obscene (whatever that even means!), it includes instructions for how political appointees can shirk oversight, accountability, and transparency laws. It really is the aspiring dictator's handbook.

[loki13]

Well, I have always said that I want a strong (but sane) GOP. But that's because a lot of my positions were better captured by the "Rockefeller Republican" wing of the GOP than the Democrats, but that part of the GOP is pretty much extinct.

I don't actually think most true Democrats want a strong GOP, but I think a lot of people are wondering when the fever will pass, of if it will. Because ... strongman populism isn't a great look for the United States.

[Joe_dallas]

Loki - I likewise would prefer a saner GOP, At the same time, the sane part of the left is also extinct. Gone is Lieberman, Nunn. The party of the left is now dominated by the woke and the racists, and anti-semites.

To a large degree, the radical right is a reaction to the radical left.

[loki13]

I can't agree with that, just based on what I've seen. I think that the issue is that the GOP is, for lack of a better word, a bizarre grift now, that primarily tries to keep people in a perpetual state of fear and outrage (and giving money). I mean, "woke?" Is woke really bothering you? Can you even really say what it is?

That's not to say that everything is great. Of course not! "The left" is, well, whatever you might think it is. The are idiot Democrats that have stupid beliefs and say stupid things.

And I have previously expressed that I am concerned about how free speech, as a principle, is no longer as valued with the younger generation as it once was. I have also been quite clear that the rise in anti-Semitism is terrible- but I don't think that "the left" has a monopoly on that. Ahem.

Anyway, there are a lot of moderate reasonable people out there that are part of "the left." Some of them are probably neighbors.

[JasonT20]

Anyway, there are a lot of moderate reasonable people out there that are part of “the left.” Some of them are probably neighbors.

I often wonder how much of the increase in polarization is due to the kind of self-sorting that people in the U.S. have done over the last few decades. It seems to me that, whether conscious or not, people have tended to live near other people that tend to share their political views, religious views, and culture. I mean, the U.S. was always like that to some degree, but I think we're seeing it even within larger groups. Not only do you have "white" and "Black" and ethnic neighborhoods, but you'll see all Republican or all Democrat signs within those neighborhoods. Despite the diversity of the population as a whole, I wonder how many people actually interact closely with people that are different than them in these respects, and how often they do.

[Armchair]

"I mean, “woke?” Is woke really bothering you?"

When "woke" policies interfere with basic concepts of hiring good people who can then do good jobs.

Yes. Yes it bothers us.

[JasonT20]

When “woke” policies interfere with basic concepts of hiring good people who can then do good jobs.

And what "woke" policies are doing that?

[Randal]

I assume he means he only wants to hire white men since they’re the best, but those darn woke-ass Civil Rights laws are getting in the way.

[Frank Drackman]

Your VP Candidate (Nominated by a POTUS Candidate who dropped out before the first Primary in 2020, and got no votes in 2024) put Tampon Dispensers in Boy's Restrooms,
Explain that Shit.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

The Republican party has been a grift for my entire life, Loki. I attribute it to that long period of Democratic party dominance of Congress up to the 90's; For an entire political lifetime Republicans were a powerless minority, who could only service their constituents if they were on the Democrats' good side. The big difference now is that back in the 90's our politics became more competitive than they had been for a very long while, and the Republicans started ending up in power occasionally.

And that made it really hard to conceal that they were a grifters.

So now you're looking at a GOP that's had a civil war being waged for close to 30 years now.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett keeps yourself in a perpetual state of fear and outrage and does not brook wannabes.

In fact, he'll blame the Dems for whatever the GOP's failings, that's how good he is at grifting himself.

[JasonT20]

To a large degree, the radical right is a reaction to the radical left.

That includes an interesting word choice. "Reactionary" is a term that is applied to political views that look to return to a previous status quo in politics. If that applies here, what do you think that the "radical right" of today wants to see return that the "radical left" has changed about the political state of the country?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You really have no clue?

[JasonT20]

It was you that claimed to know what the "radical right" was doing to react to the "radical left", not me. I'm not going to play the guessing game on it.

[Krychek_2]

There is a radical left but it has not taken over the entire Democratic Party the way the radical right has taken over the entire Republican Party. Two members of "the squad" just lost their primaries. Yes, we have AOC and most Democrats view her and others like her as the equivalent of the crazy uncle that makes everyone else roll their eyes whenever they speak up at the family Thanksgiving dinner. When AOC or any other squad member is actually a viable candidate for the Democratic nomination for POTUS, get back to us.

For those who missed it, Trump was in Montana a day or two ago talking about extreme leftist John Tester. When a reporter asked him to name an issue on which Tester has taken an extremist position, Trump looked like a deer in the headlights and couldn't come up with one.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Democratic party has had terrifying discipline over issues the leadership cares about for so long as I can remember. NRA board member John Dingle being forced to vote for the ’94 AWB, for instance, even though it cost him his board seat.

“In a House speech, Dingle said he strongly opposed the crime bill’s assault weapon ban as an infringement of gun owners’ rights. But he said he was nevertheless supporting the $30-billion bill.”

He thought it was a terrible bill, had attacked it vehemently, he had to give up his board seat over the vote, and yet, when the order came down to vote for it, vote for it he did. He wasn’t alone that year, many Democratic members of Congress voted for it despite opposing it, and ended their political careers in the process.

And they KNEW that they were forcing members to vote against their constituents’ will, that it was going to cost them seats. The forced multiple members of Congress to commit political suicide to get that damned bill enacted.

“And we smile about that, but there are some people who would be on this platform today who lost their seats in 1994 because they voted for the Brady Bill and they voted for the assault weapons ban, and they did it in areas where people could be frightened.”

I don’t know how they extract votes like that from members, how they get people to vote to end their careers in politics.

So, has the radical left taken over the Democratic party? Depends on what you call “radical”, I suppose, but you wouldn’t have to replace many people to accomplish terrible things, given the extent to which the Democratic party operates top down.

If not for that discipline, and willingness to destroy whole careers to get unpopular shit passed, the Democratic party would probably still be as dominant in American politics as it was before ’94. The GOP resurgence was build on the smoldering ashes of a thousand bridges the Democratic party burned between themselves and a large part of the electorate.

[Krychek_2]

Nice subject change. And someone needs to tell Joe Manchin about party discipline.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nobody needs to tell him about it. Why did you suppose he's retiring from the Senate, and changing his registration to independent? Because your party could not tolerate the presence of a Democratic Senator who represented their constituents rather than just voting as he's told.

I expect that Dingel faced that choice, too: Betray his announced principles and voters, or retire. And decided on betrayal in preference to retirement, unlike Manchin.

[Sarcastr0]

. Why did you suppose he’s retiring from the Senate, and changing his registration to independent?
The voters. This has been well covered. I guess that just shows how deep the conspiracy goes.

I expect that Dingel faced that choice, too: Betray his announced principles and voters
Just full on fan fiction with no support. This is why people make fun of you.

[Krychek_2]

Brett reminds me of the guy who woke up every morning with a hangover. He wanted to figure out what was giving him the hangover, so he kept a record of what he drank. At the end of the first week his record looked like this:

Monday: Scotch and soda, hangover
Tuesday: Vodka and soda, hangover
Wednesday: Whiskey and soda, hangover
Thursday: Rye and soda, hangover
Friday, Gin and soda, hangover.

Conclusion: The only common element all five days is the soda, so obviously soda causes hangovers.

That's our Brett.

[Armchair]

What exactly is wrong with populism?

With a political party that is responsive to the needs of the people, as opposed to the needs of the elite?

[Sarcastr0]

You should look at what the Founders had to say about populism.

But more importantly you shouldn't elide the 'strongman' part of what loki said.

[Corve5]

What you want is a GOP that kowtows to the left, every time.

[Randal]

If you mean a GOP that actually puts America first, as opposed to itself and its cult leader, and so is willing to compromise occasionally for the good of the country, yes.

[Michael Ejercito]

What policy positions do you disagree with this cult leader you write about?

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, I understand that, since you think left-wing policies are best for the country, you're going to have a tendency to confuse "kowtows to the left" with "actually puts America first". But they don't actually mean the same thing.

[Randal]

See, that’s the problem with MAGA right there. You assume it’s tautologically true that every policy is zero sum. It either hurts the right and helps the left or vice versa.

That’s your cult leader talking, but it’s not true. There are tons of policies that are net positive for the right and the left. The infrastructure bill was one. The immigration compromise would’ve been another. MAGA has decided that even win-win policies should be opposed on own-the-libs grounds. That’s putting party before country.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, what I assume is that the policies that aren't that way all tend to get enacted without much sturm und drang, and all the big fights are thus over the stuff that really is zero or even negative sum.

The immigration 'compromise' was a steaming heap that had to be negotiated in secret because everybody involved knew that it was a complete non-starter on the Republican side, and that if they couldn't rush a vote before people found out what was in it, it was going to die.

I've said this before: You can't negotiate compromises or do horse trading on topics where nobody believes the deal will actually be fulfillled. You've spent years proving that having an immigration law on the books doesn't mean squat if the administration doesn't want to enforce it, so how the hell do you think you can enact a compromise bill where nobody on my side expects the things we got to actually be delivered?

The only Republicans who supported that bill were Republicans who didn't CARE if the deal was observed, because on immigration they're in agreement with the Democrats, and happy to be 'cheated'.

[Randal]

That’s just your excuse. Well, MAGA’s excuse (you’re not really thinking for yourself). “We can’t compromise because blah blah blah.” We all know the real reason: Trump wanted the issue for the election. He knew that it was a good bill that would actually help the immigration problem. Can’t have that in an election year!

(Also, I might as well call out your lie for like the 100th time. All the immigration laws are being fully enforced. Biden tried to enforce them even harder and the courts shot him down. We need Congress.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Your calling out is itself a lie, Randal. Illegal immigration shot up several fold the moment Biden took office, and stayed up for years, until he decided he needed to look good on immigration to be reelected. This clearly demonstrates that Biden COULD have largely secured the border, and chose instead to throw it open.

[Randal]

There are lots of reasons it shot up, and policy changes aren’t among them because the policies didn’t substantively change… but we’ve been over this 1,000,000 times. You don’t care about the real causes of illegal immigration. You just like the narrative that it’s all the evil Democrats’ fault.

[Randal]

"I think the country needs a strong Republican Party [like] we need a strong Democratic Party...but this is not it," Pelosi said. "It isn't our judgment about what it should be. It's their judgment, but it's a missed opportunity for America."

[Armchair]

So, you're voting for Trump then?

So you can have a strong and pro-democracy Democratic party? As a loyal opposition?

[Sarcastr0]

Trump is not conservative. He's anti-liberal, at best. And even that seems more an instrument to serve himself.

[Corve5]

You are so full of shit. My goodness.

[Randal]

"Your good deeds are just a ruse to hide your evil intent!" I've heard that before. You're just like David Bernstein and Brett Bellmore and the other lost souls of VC, for whom bad faith is axiomatic.

[Brett Bellmore]

What "good deeds" by the Democrats would you be talking about?

[Randal]

Oh like being pro-diversity. Whether or not you think diversity is a good thing, the left is actually pro-diversity and does think it's a good thing.

David Bernstein thinks the left isn't actually pro-diversity at all and that we're just using it as a smokescreen for socialism. He has no evidence other than that bad faith is axiomatic.

Here, when I say that Harris would prefer a strong Republican party to a weak one, I'm accused of lying based on the same principle: bad faith is axiomatic.

Democrats aren't acting in bad faith. America's never going to get healthy until conservatives stop believing that.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, what you mean by "good deeds" is stuff that the Democrats think are good, not stuff that people on both sides of the aisle actually agree is good?

Well, it's fine if you think hiring people according to racial quotas is a "good deed", but this supposed quote is purported to be something you hear from Republicans, isn't it? If that's the case, wouldn't the supposed "good deed" have to be something Republicans think is good? For the quote to make any sense?

So, that's what I was asking: What exactly, in this supposed utterance you say you hear all the time, were these "good deeds"? So characterized, not by you, but by the people supposedly saying this?

[Randal]

Way to miss the point.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, my point is that nobody, literally nobody, on my side is actually saying that your good deeds are just a ruse, because we don't think they're good deeds to begin with.

So nobody said that. Got me?

It's just the usual fantasizing that we really agree with you about everything, and just oppose you because we want the bad to triumph. No, we really do NOT agree with you!

[Randal]

I get that that’s your rather vapid point.

My point is that even then, not only do you disagree with us, you think we’re acting in bad faith. That we don’t even believe the things we’re saying, but actually have even more nefarious secret plans beneath the surface.

That’s the “axiomatic bad faith” part. It would be fine if we simply disagreed on stuff. I’m not saying we secretly agree. I’m saying that we have good faith disagreements. You and Bernstein think that we have bad faith disagreements.

[damikesc]

No, most of us believe you genuinely believe what you claim.

We just think you are incredibly incorrect. Like how Communists REALLY believe Communism works, in spite of the century of evidence that it very much does not.

The "Right" is more able to explain the "Left" than vice versa. Has been that way for many years now.

[Randal]

No, most of us believe you genuinely believe what you claim.

Never said otherwise. I was talking about Brett, DB, Corve, and "the other lost souls of VC."

The “Right” is more able to explain the “Left” than vice versa.

I don't think this is remotely true.

[damikesc]

"Oh like being pro-diversity. Whether or not you think diversity is a good thing, the left is actually pro-diversity and does think it’s a good thing."

Should some evidence be presented that it IS a good thing? Believing it is does not mean much.

"David Bernstein thinks the left isn’t actually pro-diversity at all and that we’re just using it as a smokescreen for socialism."

Oh, the Left loves skin color diversity.

Intellectual diversity? No. They oppose that vehemently and block it anywhere they have the ability to do so.

And are you aware that many conservatives feel the same about the Left? Musk is not overly conservative. The Left has gone so far Left that they left him.

[Randal]

Should some evidence be presented that it IS a good thing?

Not really the point of this thread, but yes there’s tons of evidence.

Oh, the Left loves skin color diversity.

David Bernstein thinks that the left doesn’t even really believe in skin color diversity! That it’s all a ruse in order to effect a redistribution of wealth.

Intellectual diversity? No. They oppose that vehemently and block it anywhere they have the ability to do so.

Not true in the slightest.

You (and Musk) have quite a lot of misconceptions about “the left.” There are a handful of hard-left people who say nutty things. (Way fewer than there are on the right.) They’re not representative of “the left.”

[damikesc]

Saying "there's tons of evidence" is not, you know, presenting said evidence.

Not a single institution runs better with increased diversity. Sad reality of the world.

As far as intellectual diversity --- look at the institutions the Left controls. How many on the Right in entertainment? Universities?

Are we to assume that conservatives being so massively under-represented is NOT a sign of intention by those in power? Because it seems to be the case in literally every OTHER field on earth for every OTHER group on earth.

[Randal]

Now you’re just being silly. There are any number of fields that for whatever reason don’t appeal to one group of people or another. Conservatives spend a good amount of their energy pooh-poohing higher education, why would they want a career there? I suspect you’ll find more conservatives doing things like investment banking. That wouldn’t imply that the Right “controls” investment banking and excludes liberals.

Also, not that this is something I want to talk about, but for your education: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/business%20functions/people%20and%20organizational%20performance/our%20insights/why%20diversity%20matters/diversity%20matters.pdf

[ReaderY]

Almost any Democratic candidate in the last decade or so would have supported most, or all of, these positions.

Professor Blackman completely misses the point, which is doubtless his intention. Better a President and for that matter better a Supreme Court that supports striking down laws without authority, subsidizing questionable things, etc. etc. etc. than a President committed to striking down or overthrowing any election he loses.

I don’t think there is any question that for anyone genuinely committed to a Republican form of government, voting for the liberal candidate with ones nose held and having to put up with smelling a whiff of stench is better than voting for the revolutionary authoritarian strongman candidate and having to put up with oneself and ones country being overwhelmed with and drowning in it.

[Vryedni]

+1

[circleglider]

This is tribal allegiance at its most idiotic extreme. Or blatant Orwellian doublespeak.

Rather than offering some intellectual contribution, or if unable, remaining silent, the VC commentariat proves once again that “Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.”

[ReaderY]

Autologies are once again much appreciated.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The Democrats right now are scheming to not certify a Trump win.

Did you not know that?

[Randal]

Well, he is constitutionally unqualified to be president. We still have that situation to resolve thanks to SCOTUS.

[Frank Drackman]

Pretty sure he wasn’t born in Kenya. Also pretty sure the guy who ventilated Crooks Skull isn’t from Kenya either, make of that what you will

Frank

[not guilty]

"The Democrats right now are scheming to not certify a Trump win."

Supporting facts? (Ipse dixit assertions don't suffice.)

[JasonT20]

As Randal implies, maybe there are a few Democrats that have suggested, in the event he wins in November, claiming that any Electoral Votes for Trump are invalid because of Sect. 3 of the 14th Amendment. Now, my saying that is itself pure speculation, so if any Democrats have said that, I'd want to see verifiable sourced quotes before believing that any did say that.

[Joe_dallas]

Colorado

[not guilty]

The plaintiffs in the Colorado litigation were Republicans and Independents. In any event, section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is now a dead horse which no one is flogging.

[JasonT20]

That wasn't an attempt to "not certify a Trump win." That was an attempt to keep him off the ballot at all.

[Frank Drackman]

Like that's better

[Randal]

It is, actually, a lot better.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

https://amgreatness.com/2024/08/05/rep-jamie-raskin-congress-will-have-to-disqualify-trump-if-he-wins-the-election-civil-war-could-ensue/

I know you’ll find some way to dismiss a video of a Congressman saying exactly what I claimed, but hey, when did facts ever get in the way of your analyses? You've got beliefs to support!

[not guilty]

JHBHBE, you claimed upthread that “The Democrats right now are scheming to not certify a Trump win.” [Emphasis added.]

The video discussion that you link to took place on February 17, 2024. SCOTUS eviscerated section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment on March 4, 2024. Disqualifying Donald Trump on that basis has since been a dead letter.

Did you think no one would notice?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>The Democrats right now are scheming to not certify a Trump win.” [Emphasis added.]

Great catch, not an autist!

Keep checking this post and I will go find a quote of a Democrat scheming on 8/12 /2024 at precisely 10:50 AM EST which is when I am making this reply. Hopefully you will hit refresh the exact moment I post my evidence so it will satisfy your definition of "right now". If it's off by a few minutes let me know so I can keep digging up dirt and sharing it with you! Remember to check this thread often over the few days and weeks!

[not guilty]

“Keep checking this post and I will go find a quote of a Democrat scheming on 8/12 /2024 at precisely 10:50 AM EST which is when I am making this reply.”

Is that as true as everything else you have said, JHBHBE? In fact you made your comment at 10:55 p.m. EST on 8/11/2024.

Do you get a rush from lying through your teeth?

[Brett Bellmore]

It was sarcasm, and obviously so.

[tylertusta]

Disqualifying Donald Trump on that basis has since been a dead letter.

Now it’s your turn. Show you work, Mr. Guilty.

(You should probably listen to Rep. Raskin’s speech, because what the Court said could not be done in Trump v Anderson is not what Raskin wants to do.)

[not guilty]

You want me to prove the negative proposition that Democrats have not been invoking the Fourteenth Amendment, § 3 since SCOTUS ruled in March?

I don't think so.

As Justice Robert Jackson opined about his colleagues on SCOTUS, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final." Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443. 540 (1953) (Jackson, J., concurring in result).

My fellow Democrats, as a rule, tend to follow that admonition. If you doubt that, ask His Accidency, President George W. Bush.

[tylertusta]

I see your skills in arguing against something I did not say are still well-practiced, Mr. Guilty.

You should reread the third sentence of my previous comment. Then you should read Rep. Raskin's speech.

We are not talking about the same thing.

[not guilty]

Tylertusta, your challenge to me was to defend my assertion that disqualifying Donald Trump on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment, § 3 has been a dead letter since the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Anderson, I declined your invitation to prove a negative.

When Rep. Raskin made his comments during February, the Anderson litigation was still awaiting decision. Has he said anything about refusing to certify an election result based on § 3 since SCOTUS weighed in on March 4? If so, I am not aware of it.

[tylertusta]

You're talking about whether someone is still trying to pursue disqualification of Trump under the 14th Amendment after Trump v Anderson.

I'm talking about whether the Court left open the possibility for Congress to disqualify Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

"§ 3 has been a dead letter since the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Anderson,"

I really am tired of this Trump v. Anderson hysteria. Section 3 isn't a dead letter, the Court has been very clear about that: All you needed to do was bring insurrection charges against him and convict him in a felony trial. really, the only obstacle to doing that is that you have no evidence of him committing insurrection.

[Sarcastr0]

All you needed to do was bring insurrection charges against him and convict him in a felony trial

But don’t use any evidence that might derive from official acts!

For all practical purposes, this is not a viable method, just about no matter what the President might do, in any realistic scenario.

[tylertusta]

But don’t use any evidence that might derive from official acts!

A president that insurrects against himself. How ironic.

[Sarcastr0]

Sorry you don't understand how we peacefully transfer power in this country, tylertusta.

[Brett Bellmore]

"For all practical purposes, this is not a viable method,"

And what renders it non-viable is that Trump never engaged in insurrection.

If, for instance, you had evidence to prove that Trump had directed the Proud Boys to attack the Capitol, how would that have been an exercise of constitutionally delegated Presidential power?

[Sarcastr0]

I’m not even making that claim, Brett, stay on topic; we’re talking the state of the law not your inability to read the indictment about J6.

A hypothetical President who did try and overthrow the evident vote of the people, if they did so in any way cloaked as official (including giving illegal orders to their Secretaries or other subordinates) could not be convicted on the basis of such acts.

Seems bad, eh?

[tylertusta]

Sorry you don’t understand what an insurrection is, Peanut.

[Brett Bellmore]

You had years to charge Trump with insurrection before Trump v Anderson, if you'd really thought you could prove it. Never did.

That's because you know your case for him being guilty of the crime is pathetically weak. But the crime of insurrection is what you needed to convict him of to invoke Section 3, not BadThink or being wildly overzealous about contesting the election.

[Sarcastr0]

That’s because you know your case for him being guilty of the crime is pathetically weak.

Telepathically finding bad faith.

We're all shocked you went back to this well yet again, Brett.

Plenty of folks explained to you other reasons why Trump wasn't charged with the magic word law. You just decided none of those are as true as the thing you've decided everyone secretly thinks.

Anyhow, good to hear you acknowledge how above the law the President now is.

[damikesc]

/"Sorry you don’t understand how we peacefully transfer power in this country, tylertusta."

Yeah. We invent complex yet non-existent conspiracies and sic the intel community upon em. THEN we leak false claims to the media to make the conspiracy seem really bad (when, again, it does not exist). THEN we have the intel agencies spy on the new administration without their knowledge.

THAT is how we "peacefully" transfer powers.

Well, if WE are Democrats, anyway.

[Randal]

THEN we leak false claims to the media

Oh no! Not false claims, whatever will we do!

Moderator: Will you accept the results of the election if you lose?

Trump: Yes, I’ll concede immediately if I lose. But I might still leak some false claims to the media!

People would not be worried for our democracy if instead of J6, Trump had leaked some false claims about Biden to the media.

[damikesc]

"THEN we leak false claims to the media

Oh no! Not false claims, whatever will we do!

Moderator: Will you accept the results of the election if you lose?

Trump: Yes, I’ll concede immediately if I lose. But I might still leak some false claims to the media!

People would not be worried for our democracy if instead of J6, Trump had leaked some false claims about Biden to the media."

Yeah, the Reichstag Fire was never SUPPOSED to be a blueprint for a "democratic society"...

[Randal]

Um… the Reichtag Fire wasn’t just a false claim leaked to the media. It was also a pretext for imposing what was essentially martial law. Sort of like what many people think Trump’s J6 endgame might have been, if the initial phase of the insurrection had proven more successful. I’m pretty sure neither the Obama administration nor the Clinton campaign used the pee-tape dossier as a pretext for martial law, but correct me if I’m wrong.

Anyway aren’t you the guys who are performatively pissed off about any efforts to minimize the impact of false claims leaked to the media?

[David Nieporent]

But the crime of insurrection is what you needed to convict him of to invoke Section 3,

Except, of course, that nothing in Section 3 says one word about convicting anyone of anything. Not sure why you're trying to rehash the same terrible arguments you made before the Supreme Court decided to eliminate Section 3 from the constitution.

[damikesc]

SCOTUS said forgiving student loans without Congressional approval is a no go.

That has yet to slow down Biden.

You know, the one who respects the Constitution and all.

[agarrett]

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

-C.S. Lewis

[ReaderY]

Far be it from me to disagree with C.S. Lewis. But stretching boundaries has been part of the American political enterprise practically since the Constitution was ratified. And there is an enormous difference between American politicians who have stretched boundaries – every past American President has to some extent, some more than others – and people like Hitler, Stalin, etc.

Trying to claim that taking a nanometer is equivalent to taking a parsec just doesn’t work in the real world. Human beings are flawed. We are imperfect beings. Flaws, mistakes, missteps come with being human.

To equate any flaw or overstep with depravity can only work to the benefit of the depraved people, by making their depravity appear more normal and acceptable. Trying to portray past Democratic Presidents as tyrants etc. is an attempt to confuse people about what tyrranny really is and make it appear more acceptable ro people.

The policies Democrats support have been mostly implemented by most Western European countries. In a world where genuine tyrranies are raging around us, trying to portray Western European regimes and social systems as out-and-out tyrranies because they are somewhat more paternalistic, with more subsidies and more rules and limits, is just silly. Nobody with any experience with genuine tyrrany could possibly confuse the two.

[damikesc]

Have you SEEN what is going on in the UK?

They have become a fascist regime quite quickly.

And the respect for free speech is non-existent in, well, all of Western Europe.

And won't return, given that they have a desire to replace their populations.

[Dbrody]

Agreed. When Professor Blackman chooses to be disingenuous, he insults his readers and undermines the point he was trying to make.

[tuphat]

Based on your summary, I'd wager that a majority of Californians would support many or all of the positions taken by the state's AG.

This dog don't hunt.

[Stephen Lathrop]

As Justice Thomas often repeats, we will come to regret crippling the last independent branch of government.

They are not supposed to be independent branches. They are supposed to be co-equal branches, with power to check and balance each other.

[SRG2]

Judging by the Trump immunity ruling, the SC has voluntarily renounced its own independence.

[hobie]

President Harris will faithfully consummate all of Trump's prosecutions. Barrett is already on board. Harlan Thomas will, of course, embarrass himself over it and get impeached

[Frank Drackman]

There’s no Statue of Limitations on Stolen Valor claims

[Michael Ejercito]

How so?

[SRG2]

"How so?" cries a voice from the peanut gallery.

Because they contrived a decision entirely unwarranted by the Constitution, precedent and practice that clearly and intentionally favoured Donald Trump, which no independent court would have done.

[damikesc]

So, every government functionary EXCEPT the President gets qualified immunity.

Yeah, that makes sense.

[David Nieporent]

No, you fucking moron. Nobody gets qualified immunity from criminal prosecution.

[SRG2]

To summarise, Harris behaved like a moderate Democratic AG.

The Blackman syllogism:
1. I support Donald Trump
2. I'm a conservative
3. Therefore Trump is a conservative

Alternatively,
1. Blackman is a Trumpist weasel
2. See 1
3. See 2

[damikesc]

Moderate Dem AG would keep exculpatory evidence away from a defendant on death row?

Does not speak highly of your party.

[loki13]

Others have already pointed this out, but this is another in a series of, "Does JB really not understand this, or is he being willfully obtuse," posts that almost seem like parody.

No one is arguing that Harris is a conservative. And it's hardly surprising that as the California AG, she supported positions that the voters of California would want her to support.

People who are voting for Harris to save conservatism (note- not the GOP, conservatism) are doing so because they believe that Trump is a bigger danger to conservatism that she is. And that this transcends partisan differences.

You may or may not believe that, but no one should have to state something so obvious. But to reiterate to JB- saving conservatism doesn't mean that people believe Harris is a "conservative."

[DaveM]

"People ... believe that Trump is a bigger danger to conservatism than she is."

I think I get the point, but two wrongs don't make a right. A better case could be made that both Harris and Trump are dangers to conservatism. In which case, you'd have to ask whether the people surrounding the one candidate would on the whole be better for conservatism than the other.

From my perspective, all the people surrounding the Democratic Party are just this side of crazy. So by my standards, I don't really have a choice of voting for Harris. I could vote for RJK, Jr. He's no conservative either, but he isn't crazy.

[loki13]

I addressed that at the end- “You may or may not believe that”

In other words, you don’t have to agree with the people that are saying it. But that doesn’t mean you can’t understand what they are saying!

I am not the boss of anyone (as my spouse is fond of reminding me)- you can make your own informed opinion. But it’s not hard to understand what people mean- that they believe that Trump is such a danger to conservatism, that they will vote for Harris.

(I think that the full idea is that, assuming Trump loses, the GOP might regain the sense to go to conservative policies instead of continue down the path of become the Trump party. And again, they may not be correct! But you can disagree with someone whole not completely missing the point, like the OP.)

[Randal]

I could vote for R[F]K, Jr. He’s no conservative either, but he isn’t crazy.

You think the least crazy candidate is the one whose brain worms made him put a dead bear cub in Central Park performatively.

I'm sensing that you may not be the best judge of character.

[Krayt]

This is a good description. A 4 or 8 year pause, in the usual tug back and forth, which conservatism has weathered in the past, is less dangerous than 4 more years of an unrecognizable GOP. Some day that generation will be gone. Then what? Some loudmouth 40-something GOP populist?

[Frank Drackman]

David French is about as “Conservative” as AIDS

Frank

[Krychek_2]

Wait, you claim to be a doctor and you think viruses adopt political positions?

[Tim B]

>> Knowing all that we know, I struggle to see how putting Harris in the White House would "save conservatism."

Simple. If the left is allowed to hold on to power honestly, they won't be forced to go mask-off and ban the opposition.

(Or, you know, they see "conservatism" as inextricably bound to the Republican party and think that Trump shifting positions any time he loses audience approval will destroy the reputation of anything even remotely associated with him. Or they believe the Russiagate lies and the Chartlottesville lie and such, and think he'll destroy the party and associated positions by being evil. Or maybe they just don't think they can withstand another four years of lies from the media, and think that without Trump around the liars will lose interest.)

[hobie]

Stupid Blackman. French's editorial said nothing about court reform because he had something entirely different to say. So you dismiss it for lacking content about your latest angst. Petulant is a word reserved for children, but here it's apt

[damikesc]

...except his plan to vote for Kamala brings everything with it. The happily bought French cannot pick and choose which policies he likes or does not.

[Sarcastr0]

Blackman’s post is empty conservativism-signalling and frankly kinda boring.

But the comments are coming in unexpectedly hot with liberals gonna overturn the election if Trump gets the votes to win.

I shoulda seen that projection plus conspiricizing coming, but I did not.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

https://amgreatness.com/2024/08/05/rep-jamie-raskin-congress-will-have-to-disqualify-trump-if-he-wins-the-election-civil-war-could-ensue/

Other than being 100% wrong, another great comment!

[Sarcastr0]

Do I get to post all the Trump quotes and take them as foretelling what he'll do? Dictatorship for a day and all that?

Or is taking quotes as proof of a concrete widespread plan only for this one congressperson?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Nice strawman! Otherwise great comment!

It's a fact that atleast one Congressman is scheming to insurrect. He did say "we", so it's not unreasonable to assume that it's more than just him.

But who cares about facts or reality, what can I do to earn your approval? If you hold up four fingers, I promise to sag five like a good little Democrat.

[Sarcastr0]

Present tense for something that was said 6 months ago, before the Supreme Court weighed in.

There is no scheme, you're just fucked in the head.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Woah, good catch the party that's been railing against the legitimacy of SCOTUS and ignoring its rulings will surely abide by this even if it means losing Democracy!

if the State had an asshole, would you lick it too?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Don’t feed the trolls.

[tylertusta]

Unexpectedly? I called it months ago. The evidence of Democrats at least contemplating this scheme continues to slowly accrue.

If Trump wins in November we'll see that scheme get some serious consideration, not least by members of the VC peanut gallery whom will go from "lulz it's projection" to "Trump is so bad that we should do this."

[Randal]

Oh yeah, I agree with this 100%. If Trump wins, the Section 3 conversation is gonna be back on the table big time, especially if the Democrats win the House, and especially if they win the House and the Senate. You can blame SCOTUS for that.

The only reason that might not happen is that it would be hard to do in a way that didn't end with President Vance, and we'll probably conclude that that's even worse.

[DaveM]

These are all true-blue positions, so I certainly agree that electing Harris in no way would “save” conservatism (!), clearly, just the opposite is true. She is solidly left.

If you want the rest of the country to look like California, then Harris is your gal.

[Frank Drackman]

As much as they’ve fucked it up, I still love California, probably more “Assault-Style” Weapon owners there than all Southern states (except Florida, you move to Florida they give you an AR-15)
Once you get away from San Fran Sissy-Co there’s as tough of Dudes as anywhere, that’s why “Sons of Anarchy” was set in California and not Kentucky (Kentuckys got some tough Dudes too, you can’t knock out their teeth because they don’t have any)

Frank

[Corve5]

California is a sick place where the 2nd Amendment is read out of the Constitution, but the right of a single woman to murder her 39 week old unborn baby and the right of a gay man to blast into another man's butthole are paramount.

[Sarcastr0]

Losing an election to the opposition doesn't generally wreck a political party or present a threat to a philosophy.

Electing and defending at every turn the actions of someone who has no coherent ideological philosophy, on the other hand, might make your philosophy look largely abandoned, or even that it leads more to tribalism for it's own sake than any of it's stated goals.

I'm not saying that'll happen, but it's an easier trajectory to see than the scenario where Harris gets in office, passes some liberal laws, and somehow conservativism is no longer safe.

Unless you go in for Brett's The Camps theory. In which case, just don't shoot anyone if you lose, eh?

[Frank Drackman]

I know Elton John hasn’t played “Island Girl” in over 30 years, because he’s a big Sissy Homo,
But it’s a great song, one of the few Non-Disco songs to make AT40 in 1976,
Story of a Transvestite Jamaican Hooker 6 Foot 3, “Playing Tricks on the dudes in the Big City”
Still call Mrs Drackman my “Island Girl” (she’s not Jamaican, a Hooker or 6 Foot 3, but she is from Long Island)
And Tim Waltz?, not really stolen Valor, more like abandoned Valor
“He more one John, One more John that made the mistake”

Frank

[bernard11]

Blackman plainly completely misses French's point.

French doesn't think Harris is a conservative. As others have pointed out, these briefs are pretty standard Democratic positions, and French knows that.

I suppose what he thinks is that a Trump victory would be destructive of conservatism (not to mention democracy) while a Harris win, despite producing some policies French dislikes, would be part of normal political back-and-forth, and conservatives will have their day.

[Michael Ejercito]

https://x.com/TrekDestroyer/status/1822858837407478069

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course French doesn't think Harris is conservative. At this point that's actually a selling point for him, because he's in a "rule or ruin" mode of thinking: If his clique can't control conservatism, conservatism must DIE.

And it's not going to die at the hands of conservatives, now, is it?

The joke is, his clique never did control conservatism.

I used to read National Review, where French was writing. (I also read The Nation; I was never one for restricting my reading to people who agreed with me.) They always had an exaggerated notion of their prominence in the conservative movement, which actually mostly ignored them.

The truth is the David Frenches of the world never ruled, and are in no position to ruin. They have minor utility to the left as useful idiots, but only minor utility.

Anyway, conservatism IS dying, but it's not dying because of Donald Trump, and nothing French is doing will accelerate it. It's dying because the left scored too many triumphs, took over too many social institutions, and you can't "conserve" what's already gone. Conservatism's day is past, what's around for them to conserve? Mostly what remains of what conservatism valued is stuff French disdained, and never worked to preserve, like the right to keep and bear arms. And it survives because of the work of people French didn't really like.

And, on whose watch did the left largely triumph? Yeah, French's. So, please, just go away, or at least engage in enough introspection to realize what you contributed to that victory.

[damikesc]

Was always wondering what, exactly, French felt conservatives "conserved" and what hill would eventually be the one worth fighting on, given that they said that for every single issue that came up.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Well, I did find your characterizations of the various cases amusing. So thanks for that, I guess.

[Frank Drackman]

Is Cums-alot-Willie-Brown-Harris's Secret Service Contingent as fucked up as 45's was?? (hopefully "was" and not "is") Not a believer in Conspiracies when Occam's Razor is right there, simply a collection of Knuckleheads, if they showed up to do Security at your local MLB Stadium half would be summarily dismissed for general Idiocy, the other 1/2 would drown themselves trying to turn off the water in the Stadium restrooms (how DO you turn it off? I just walk away pretending I turned it off)
and the 5'2" Lesbian Dwarfs will be effective, if the POTUS is every attacked by Dwarfs,
So don't blame her for not giving Pubic Access, (Except for Willie Brown, he's got full Pubic Access)

Frank

[Corve5]

Do you think Harris swallowed Brown's man juices?

[Randal]

Oh Frankman, you found your soulmate! Mazel tov!

[Dan Schiavetta]

The briefs I’ve filed in my 30 years as an appellate lawyer, pressing this or that argument in the context of a particular case, in no way represent my view of the law in general. I think any practicing lawyer would understand what I’m talking about.

[not guilty]

These comment threads suffer from a dearth of litigators who have ever tried to persuade an actual judge or jury.

[MoreCurious]

These comment threads suffer from a dearth of educated people who can analyze an issue and communicate a thoughtful point of view without writing like adolescents and resorting to vulgarities. Hell, some of them -- Drackman and JHBHBE, for example -- give no indication that they ever graduated from high school.

[tylertusta]

Wow. So many strawmen arguments from Blackman's haters. Keep it classy, leftists.

[Stepped Reckoner]

Former Republican Party member David French appears to be saying that it has become necessary to destroy conservatism to save it.

Where have I heard that argument before? Oh yes, from an unnamed U.S. Army major who was so wrapped up in his warfighting that, when asked why the Army had flattened a Vietnamese hamlet with great loss of life, he thought it sensible to say, “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.”

It’s a delightful coincidence that David French is, in fact, a retired major in the U.S. Army. As has been truly said, history doesn’t repeat itself, but rhymes.

[David Nieporent]

Former Republican Party member David French appears to be saying that it has become necessary to destroy conservatism to save it.

1) Electing liberals does not "destroy conservatism." You fundamentally misunderstand the conversation.
2) There is nothing conservative about MAGA.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I suppose "don't feed the trolls" includes replying to a contributor when the shoe fits.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I used to think I knew what conservatism is, but now I confess I’m not so sure.

Perhaps, judging from events, it means going in the same general direction as the progressives, but tapping the brakes occasionally, while the progressives keep their foot on the accelerator.

[M L]

Exactly right.

Gotta define your terms when you embark on a highfalutin topic like “to try to save conservatism.”

I assume you know your observation about American conservatism has been stated in centuries past, in very similar terms?

[SimonP]

It's not surprising that Josh takes umbrage at French's column. French's criticism of Trump is, after all, also a criticism of Josh.

It is interesting to me how often Josh's "scholarship" involves running through lists of examples, like these, devoid of substantive analysis or really anything of interest to say. But this post in any event doesn't betray that Josh read or understood French's column.

When French writes of "conservatism," what he is talking about is conservative values. He is not talking about short-term political victories achieved by playing with the Supreme Court's membership, passing bounty laws targeting women, or strategic litigation brought to cue up new cases for the Court to reshape our fundamental liberties. The problem, he finds, with Trump's MAGA party is its cruelty, its divisiveness, and its lack of concern for shoring up the family, ending actual abortions (as opposed to merely criminalizing it), recentering the church as part of our communities, and so on. Trump knows only self-interest and plays in a politics of hate, which infects the party and its members, excusing the worst impulses of Republican voters.

In this, Trump and Josh are very much alike. Josh has no principles to speak of. Josh has cultivated a juvenile resentment and contrarianism that most of us outgrow in our teens into a career in legal academia. Like his idol, Jonathan Mitchell, Josh aspires only to put forward audacious legal strategies that might manage to get his name into the casebooks. He doesn't care about conservative values, not in the least.

So of course he can barely comprehend what French is even talking about. Josh, like Trump, is a cancer on the Republican party. These people have no joy in their hearts.

[Michael Ejercito]

When French writes of “conservatism,” what he is talking about is conservative values. He is not talking about short-term political victories achieved by playing with the Supreme Court’s membership, passing bounty laws targeting women, or strategic litigation brought to cue up new cases for the Court to reshape our fundamental liberties. The problem, he finds, with Trump’s MAGA party is its cruelty, its divisiveness, and its lack of concern for shoring up the family, ending actual abortions (as opposed to merely criminalizing it), recentering the church as part of our communities, and so on. Trump knows only self-interest and plays in a politics of hate, which infects the party and its members, excusing the worst impulses of Republican voters.
Whihc is his policy decisions do you disagree?

[SimonP]

Trump doesn't have "policy" positions. He just has a series of lies that are calculated to permit his supporters to believe whatever they like about what he'd do, in office.

But read the French piece. His concern isn't about policy, or politics, which is the point I was making.

[Brett Bellmore]

He writes a damned platform, and you can't admit he has policy positions. In my experience he's actually better than the average Republican candidate on sticking to what they ran on once in office!

That's what he's hated for, by the party establishment: Because one one issue after another he didn't pull the sort of bait and switch Republicans have gotten notorious for, but instead pursued in office the policies he ran on!

Naturally you're not going to like that, because you didn't like the policies he ran on.

[David Nieporent]

That’s what he’s hated for,

No, Brett. He's hated for being a sociopath who hates basic American values and cares only for himself and his self-aggrandizement, and would happily burn the Republican party and the country to the ground for 15 extra minutes of attention.

[Stepped Reckoner]

What a reality-inverting comment. (Well, SimonP.)

It’s hilarious to read SimonP, of all the joyless people, emitting a sweeping condemnation that his enemies du jour “have no joy in their hearts.” Maybe that describes David French, if you’ve ever listened to one of his breathless, vituperative oral commentaries or read his denunciatory abnegations of Republicans in bastions of “conservative values” like the New York Times. But it’s so rich to aim this at a breezy, ready-fire-aim happy-warrior like Josh Blackman.

Speaking of which, it’s even richer almost to a bolshie degree (well, SimonP!), to insinuate that Josh hasn’t “read or understood French’s column” therein. Can this be coming out of the same mouth as the man who is suggesting, in the very same post, that one of David French’s biggest problems with Trump is that he is too interested in criminalizing abortions?!? Simon betrays no sign that he has ever read or listened to a word French has said about Trump, the GOP, and abortion, and that’s a lot of words. This is the same David French who said in April, in one of his countless repetitive criticisms of his favorite nemesis: “By the standards of the pro-life movement, Trump is now pro-choice,” and consigned every GOP Christian group to perdition for supporting Trump after Trump had the fall to suggest that the degree to which abortions are legal was now up to each of the 50 states’ separate legislatures. What a cad of a criminalizer that Trump fascist is, huh, joyful SimonP?

And all this in a long screed of a comment based on reading David French’s mind as to what he meant by “conservatism”. He couldn’t have meant political activity! No, he must have meant “values”, the ones you bury under your hearth and cherish when you enter a nunnery, leaving to wiser, more practical, better people the privilege of governing the world without troubling them with your contrary vote. SimonP is like a medieval Jesuit who sneers at Protestants that they’re hypocrites because they’re betraying their “Christian values” by opposing the will of the Pope in Avignon. Does anyone think that SimonP admires, practices, or supports “conservative values”? Don’t worry, he’s fully capable of redefining them to mean the opposite of what they actually are. Because that’s just the way he rolls. It’s like reading a shyster legal brief: you can ignore the turning the law and fact on their head and just admire the sophist craft.

[SimonP]

Reckoner, I'm just presenting French's opinion as he himself put it, in the editorial that Josh is referring to (but hasn't linked). No mind-reading or projection required.

[David Nieporent]

This is the same David French who said in April, in one of his countless repetitive criticisms of his favorite nemesis: “By the standards of the pro-life movement, Trump is now pro-choice,”

You completely misunderstood this comment. Which was in a tweet (or whatever they call those things on Threads), not even a column. He was criticizing pro-lifers who rationalized their support for Trump despite all his other flaws on the grounds that at least he's pro-life, pointing out that he has no pro-life principles, and by their own standards Trump isn't.

[tylertusta]

ending actual abortions (as opposed to merely criminalizing it)

First A and then B, Mr. French.

It's extremely hard to end a practice that is given the judicial stamp of approval, defended by judges and Justices who saw abortion not as a necessary evil but a positive good.

[SimonP]

As we know, the criminalization of domestic abuse, the sale of illicit drugs, sexual abuse of minors, etc., etc., etc., had completely reduced the occurrence of those events.

Christ - does no one read any more? French addresses this. If you care about unborn life, the mere criminalization of abortion is irrelevant; the question is whether the criminalization is effective in reducing the rates of abortion. French notes that Dobbs, whatever its merits, as well as state efforts to criminalize abortion, don't seem to be having the desired effect, which is reducing actual abortions. For whatever mysterious reason, Democratic policy and abortion access corresponds with fewer abortions.

Pairing increasingly-draconian abortion restrictions with a politics that is indifferent to the welfare of families and mothers-to-be is how you keep abortion rates up. That should be a travesty to anyone who has conservative values. Yet it is MAGA policy in a nutshell.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes, a pro-life evangelical wrote about the issue here in 2016:

https://rachelheldevans.com/blog/pro-life-voting-for-hillary-clinton

In part:

"By focusing exclusively on the legal components of abortion while simultaneously opposing these family-friendly social policies, the Republican Party has managed to hold pro-life voters hostage with the promise of outlawing abortion, (which has yet to happen under any Republican administrations since Roe v. Wade), while actively working against the very policies that would lead to a significant reduction in unwanted pregnancies."

[M L]

“family-friendly social policies”

It’s a very tired argument – just adopt more socialism and welfare, then people will stop [killing babies or whatever other bad thing]!

I do think there’s something to the idea that if people are generally better off, this may have a causative effect of lessening some ill behaviors. I just don’t think socialism and welfare is the best way to get there. On the other hand, I think there’s also evidence that as people become more and more wealthy in material comforts, this may not necessarily lead to killing less babies in particular, and may in fact coincide with an increase.

Anyway, the main thing I wanted to comment on here is the irony. It is ironic that Trump is actually a bit more fiscally liberal than the Republican party had been previously, particularly with respect to domestic efforts and things like “family-friendly social policies.” And this is the very basis on which a lot of people like David French have criticized Trump as not being conservative. I didn’t read his current article but maybe he has taken a different tack now?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

“just adopt more socialism and welfare, then people will stop”

The argument is based on evidence that if you support certain policies that as a whole certain thing will be more likely. It’s not “tired” as much as tried and true, based on facts.

It is not some simplistic “just” thing. More likely all things being equal still requires addressing specific people in specific situations, including those who might abort their six-week embryo, take a morning after pill, or whatnot.

It also is not just some general “better off” thing without addressing specifics. “Socialism and welfare” are some vague terms.

As to Trump being more fiscally conservative, not shown though “a bit” is probably subjectively marginal in nature.

[M L]

Tried and failed, actually.

But at least you acknowledge this is the argument.

[Randal]

Socialism and welfare? You’ve really got no shame when it comes to loading up your posts with strawmen do you?

[M L]

No strawmen, just my shorthand characterization of

“progressive social policies that make healthcare and childcare more affordable, make contraception more accessible, alleviate poverty, and support a living wage”

That’s a quote from the article.

Those things are about taking more money from the people, to pay for “free” day care, “free” pre-school, “free” healthcare (with priority to illegals), “free” birth control, “free” college, “free” welfare/food stamps, etc. And ever higher minimum wages, etc.

I call that socialism and welfare.

[Randal]

Those things are about taking more money from the people, to pay for “free” day care,

No they're not. Take the ACA for example. It makes healthcare more affordable but doesn't "take more money from the people to pay for 'free' healthcare." There are policy solutions to these sorts of problems other than socialism and welfare.

[M L]

Yes they are. Free day care, free pre-school, free healthcare for illegals, medicare for all (which Kamala has endorsed), free college, welfare, food stamps, and so on are all exactly what I said.

Then you also have things that redistribute wealth without the money actually passing through the government’s hands. Such as the ACA for example. It takes away gobs of money from young healthy people and families, and gives it to older people. But it does this by regulating premiums instead of through taxes. Though the ACA does include direct government subsidies as well.

[Randal]

You’ve gone off into some fever dream that’s totally divorced from the article. A nightmare involving strawmen, no doubt.

It takes away gobs of money from young healthy people and families, and gives it to older people.

That’s called insurance. Here’s you:

They named it Progressive Insurance because it’s socialism in disguise! It takes away gobs of money from people who don’t get into car accidents and gives it to those who do!

[M L]

No, the ACA is not how insurance normally operates. That’s the point. It’s barely even insurance any more.

Insurance in a free market will price its premiums according the expected loss based on actuarial risk taking into account all available information. The ACA says you can’t do that, instead you have to charge young people and families tens of thousands of dollars to subsidize olds.

By analogy, the ACA is like if you dictated that a 22 year old male with 3 speeding tickets and an illegal drag racing charge and several accidents who drives a modified Ford Mustang, a 35 year old male with 3 DUI’s and a Porsche, and a 50 year old male with a perfect driving record and a Honda Accord, all have to be offered coverage and their insurance premiums could not vary between each other by more than x%. That is a redistribution of wealth from from the last one to the first two. Oh – and also the insurance must cover oil changes, wiper blades, replacement of brake pads and tires due to normal wear and tear, car washes, air freshener tree.

[Randal]

Oh god delusional. Insurance is a highly regulated market. All those things you mentioned are true of car insurance as well, for example, just state by state.

[tylertusta]

Do you read anymore? Because French is endorsing a candidate that not only wants to undo Dobbs, but pass laws/amendments that enshrines abortion permanently. You and French are the worst sort- where if you can't find a perfect solution then answer is to throw your hands up in the air and cast your lot with the people who are working to institute policies antithetical to the positions you want!

As a practical matter, ending an abhorrent practice starts with removing the legal protections around it.

You and French are looking at Dobbs and the state-level follow-on legislation as if they're the end. I look at them as the beginning of cultural change, or at least the seeds of it.

For whatever mysterious reason, Democratic policy and abortion access corresponds with fewer abortions.

Clearly the answer is to ban abortions in even Democratic states.

As we know, the criminalization of domestic abuse, the sale of illicit drugs, sexual abuse of minors, etc., etc., etc., had completely reduced the occurrence of those events.

There's a difference between disapproval of something and legally condoning it, and you know it.

Or you can just ask Oregon about how well that decriminalization of drugs has been going for them.

[Sarcastr0]

"the question is whether the criminalization is effective in reducing the rates of abortion"

Did you miss this?

[SimonP]

MAGA trolls tend to respond to my comments selectively.

If I write a sufficient "stimulus", they respond with the programmed "response," regardless of whatever else I might say. If I write something that doesn't provide the right stimulus - like a cogent observation that evades their framing - they'll kind of not see it.

[tylertusta]

Or perhaps I don’t particularly care for people who try to sneak a premise into a conversation, especially since I don’t agree with the premise. It’s a dishonest debate tactic and I’m not obligated to accept it on your terms.

MAGA trolls tend to respond to my comments selectively.

Pot, meet kettle.

[tylertusta]

You and French are looking at Dobbs and the state-level follow-on legislation as if they’re the end. I look at them as the beginning of cultural change, or at least the seeds of it.

Did you miss this?

[Sarcastr0]

So you're ignoring the actual current phenomenological results in favor of a hoped for nebulous pie-in-the-sky.

Either you're shit at policy, or you don't actually care about abortion, just wanna vote GOP.

[tylertusta]

Either you’re shit at policy, or you don’t actually care about abortion, just wanna vote GOP.

None of the above, Peanut.

[Sarcastr0]

Then why are you ignoring the actual current phenomenological results in favor of a hoped for nebulous pie-in-the-sky?

Seems a bad choice to me if you want to meet your stated goal of not having abortions in America.

[tylertusta]

I'm sure you think a lot of the things I say are bad choices.

But I don't owe you an explanation, Peanut.

[Sarcastr0]

I've explained to you *why* I have don't think your choice here makes sense. You've failed to engage with that twice now.

You don't owe anyone anything, but your repeated refusal might make people make some assumptions about your actual motives (e.g. you don’t actually care about abortion, just wanna vote GOP.)

[tylertusta]

In my list of people who are seemingly incapable of earnestly engaging in a conversation in these comment threads, you're near the top.

What I'm saying is that your statement that I don't owe anyone anything isn't quite accurate.

I specifically don't owe you anything. You're just a troll, Peanut.

[M L]

"actual current phenomenological results"

Correlation isn't causation. Next

[M L]

“the question is whether the criminalization is effective in reducing the rates of abortion”

TEXAS TRIBUNE - Texas fertility rate increased after abortion restrictions - More than 16,000 babies were born in Texas in 2022 than in 2021, a new study from the University of Houston shows.

TEXAS TRIBUNE - Five abortions a month: How Dobbs changed Texas - Before Roe v. Wade was overturned two years ago, the monthly average was around 4,400....The drop in abortions in Texas is so large it's difficult to visualize in numbers: a 99.89% decline, a sheer cliff face on a line graph.

JOHNS HOPKINS - Analysis Suggests 2021 Texas Abortion Ban Resulted in Nearly 9,800 Extra Live Births in State In Year After Law Went Into Effect - Researchers use statistical modeling to estimate the number of live births expected if one of the country’s most stringent state abortion laws had not been enacted.

[SimonP]

You and French are looking at Dobbs and the state-level follow-on legislation as if they’re the end. I look at them as the beginning of cultural change, or at least the seeds of it.

I have sometimes seen the view that more criminal laws are required in order to compel a change in culture described as "totalitarian."

I am annoyed by how often conservatives blame "culture" for social ills that they therefore insist we can't effectively address through legislation (e.g., intergenerational poverty, teen pregnancy, gun violence), while at the same time they believe that they can legislate into existence the society they'd like to see. Does that approach work, or not? It always seems to depend on whether you feel like the political winds are in your favor.

[tylertusta]

I have sometimes seen the view that more criminal laws are required in order to compel a change in culture described as “totalitarian.”

You should move to Portland, wear a black ski mask, and fire bomb government buildings since it seems like you’d fit right in with the anarchists.

I am annoyed by how often conservatives…

I am annoyed by people seeking to concern-troll us conservatives.

No, we don’t have to endorse abortion, so stop trying to make us endorse abortion.

…they therefore insist we can’t effectively address through legislation…

That there are limits as to the size, role, and scope of government is (not shockingly) a conservative position.

…while at the same time they believe that they can legislate into existence the society they’d like to see.

Prevent abhorrent practices that is within the government’s power to prevent, or at least prohibit is something that the government should do.

Like murder and abortion (but I repeat myself).

[damikesc]

I love how MAGA is "divisive".

Not the Left. They certainly could not ever be DIVISIVE.

Just the ones who disagree with the Left are divisive.

[Randal]

The left isn’t divisive. You’re just unbelievably thin-skinned. Like delicate little snowflakes, you melt at the slightest touch.

(That's the main way MAGA is divisive actually -- by making you think that any and all pushback you get from the left on your ideas is somehow grievance-worthy rather than just normal political give and take.)

[damikesc]

"The left isn’t divisive."

Of course not. THEY are the good guys. Those who dare to not agree are the bad guys AND divisive to boot.

"You’re just unbelievably thin-skinned."

I am not the one whining about how divisive people who dare to disagree with me are.

Just sayin'.

"(That’s the main way MAGA is divisive actually — by making you think that any and all pushback you get from the left on your ideas is somehow grievance-worthy rather than just normal political give and take.)"

And that is different than MAGA opposing the Dems...how?

Oh, it is only divisive if it is not YOU doing it. Got it. Certainly a consistent position to take.

[Randal]

I am not the one whining about how divisive people who dare to disagree with me are.

Yes. You are exactly the person whining about that.

And that is different than MAGA opposing the Dems…how?

I just explained this to you. Dems don't care that you disagree with us. We'll argue with you, sure, because that's what you're supposed to do in a democracy. Debate the issues. But the right gets butthurt about even having to have the debate!

[arpiniant1]

traitortrump is no conservative, and never has been

As French notes in his editorial, abortions fell under Obama and went up under trump
So if your goal is fewer abortions, perhaps conservative methods are incorrect
over 70 percent of the voters do not believe in making abortion illegal in all cases, voters in red states have consistently supported abortion rights.
PErhaps when the gov't supports living children and their parents, people feel better about having children?

[damikesc]

What in the blue hell are you going on about?

[M L]

I struggle to see why "David French" is a thing that anyone pays attention to. Just an odious shill and a lying opportunist, from what I can tell.

[bernard11]

Did you read the article?

[M L]

As far as I can tell, the Trump policy platform, such as it is, is basically a 1990s Democrat platform.

Meanwhile today's Democrat platform is a monstrosity of lunatic far left policy, wokeism, and death cult elements.

But the Republican party, from its inception all the way through today, has consistently been a pretty standard big government, centralist, corporatist, and imperialist sort of party.

[rloquitur]

The two words that best describe David French: execrable and insufferable.

French is an awful scold who traffics in morality play type analysis. He pretends to be religious, but averts his eyes to the fact that Democrats believe that abortion should be legal, for any reason, up until birth. He averts his eyes to the awful racial spoils system that Dems are trying to impose on us. He pays no mind to Kamala Harris' divisiveness when it comes to her support of Jussie Smollett. Etc. Etc.

[tylertusta]

Whatever sympathy I may have felt for French's attempt at a principled stand evaporated once he suggested voting for Harris. What ever Trump is for the conservative movement, Harris is inescapably worse.

[Brett Bellmore]

In the end, French's only principle is that the GOP needs to be controlled by people who agree with David French, or lose. Rule or ruin.

Not voting, or voting for a third party, might have been a principled move if he really disliked Trump. But it wouldn't contribute to the GOP losing, and it's not about French not being complicit, it's about the GOP falling in line with him or suffering.

[damikesc]

Remember, he felt John "I don't know much, but I do know I hate the First Amendment" was a good candidate and anybody who did not vote for him was not really conservative.

So I lost my "conservative" stances in 2008, I guess.

[Sarcastr0]

You didn't read anything he said, did you?

[Brett Bellmore]

French has decided to put his essay behind a paywall, I found this archived version.

Let's see. Trump lies. OK, I agree, he does. Mostly it's bragging, I think he's actually been more honest when talking about policy than most politicians. Is French under the impression that Harris doesn't lie?

Some of Trump's supporters make threats. Well, geeze, at least he's willing to admit this isn't unique to Republicans. Compare him to Harris; Which has bailed out more rioters? I think Harris wins that competition running away.

I can't speak to what's going on in evangelical churches, I'm a Roman Catholic, and it's all pretty sedate here. We did get a lecture from the pulpit a while back on the topic of "Stop expecting us to offer up partisan prayers, isn't happening."

"It is fascinating to me that there are voices online who still claim that a person can’t be Christian and vote for Democrats, when the Trump campaign watered down the Republican platform on abortion to such an extent that it’s functionally pro-choice."

Here's that platform.

"4. Republicans Will Protect and Defend a Vote of the People, from within the States, on the Issue of Life
We proudly stand for families and Life. We believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no person can be denied Life or Liberty without Due Process, and that the States are, therefore, free to pass Laws protecting those Rights. After 51 years, because of us, that power has been given to the States and to a vote of the People. We will oppose Late Term Abortion, while supporting mothers and policies that advance Prenatal Care, access to Birth Control, and IVF (fertility treatments)."

Maybe you want to compare that to the Democratic party platform on the same topic, (I'm out of links.) to see what French IS willing to vote for. I think his stance on this is the very definition of making the perfect the enemy of the good.

"For example, how many Republicans would have predicted that voting for a Democrat would be the best way to confront violent Russian aggression and that the Republican would probably yield to a Russian advance?"

Man, you have to be delusional to pen those words.

Most of the rest consists of his failing to recognize that he and his allies failed. He points to a long list of negative trends in the GOP that predated Trump, and blames them on Trump. Well, guess what, buttercup: You're looking at the world you and your friends created by being so above the fray, and allowing the left so may unopposed victories. The GOP is merely adapting to the world you helped usher in by your fecklessness, rather than becoming irrelevant.

[damikesc]

Indeed. If Republicans will not actually stop the continued advancement of progressivism, why, exactly, should anybody give a shit what they want or think?

The GOP is the least bad option, but the Republicans are horrid. The GOP is Mussolini to the DNC's Hitler.

[tylertusta]

Wasn't there an elected Republican who made hot-mic comments where he insulted Republican voters?

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, good point, the rot’s already in. You tylertusta and damikesc are in the anti-liberal cult of personality at this point and willing to forgive all and twist any policy so Trump comes out as correct.

That you spent so much time and trouble complaining about Harris as though she will have jack to do with conservativism really shows it.
French is asking for something you have already given away.

[damikesc]

What, EXACTLY, am I supposed to not vote for Trump over?

I've seen Biden's policies and Harris is tied to every single one of them and has not distanced herself from any. Her new "No Taxes on Tips" bullshit ignores the reality that she was the deciding vote in making it a problem in the first place.

[damikesc]

"French is asking for something you have already given away."

French had near-infinite more influence on "conservatism" for a decade or so than I have ever dreamed of having.

He applauded while the GOP decided that doing what the Dems wanted, just three years later, was a great plan.

If I WANTED what the Dems wanted, I'd have voted for them.

[Sarcastr0]

You're still utterly missing the point.

This is not a discussion about US policy.

[tylertusta]

Your replies make less and less sense as the day goes on, Peanut. Are you doing OK?

[David Nieporent]

MAGA hates French because MAGA all claim to be devout Christians but never act like it, while French does, and thus makes them look like the hypocrites they are.

[bacchys]

The Republican Party is no longer conservative. It has been taken over by the wannabe fascist MAGA crowd. Until that faction is proven to lead to nothing but defeat at the polls, the GOP won't be a conservative party again.

It's not that Harris is a conservative or will support conservatism. It's that no one will while MAGA controls the GOP.

[damikesc]

Feel free to list these "fascist policies".

Securing the border? Is that fascist now?
Reducing inflation? That was certainly Mussolini's first move.
Avoiding being involved in more wars? That sounds like the jackboot of fascism right there.

[bacchys]

Like all wannabe fascists, you're willing to flail at strawmen.

Trump and his MAGAts don't want to secure the borders. They want to use illegal immigration to justify turning America into a police state. They're promising a massive "deportation army" which will encompass the entire country demanding we show our papers to prove we're citizens.

Trump's idiotic trade policies will worsen inflation.

As for more wars, Trump's saying he wants to wage war in Mexico. He's not opposed to new wars: he's opposed to America's world order. He wants to let Russia and China dominate the world.

[Kevin Carson]

Two-thirds of the justices in Blackman's "last independent branch of government" were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote. One of them got on the Court because Senate Republicans blocked confirmation of Obama's nominee in his last months on office, on supposedly principled grounds; the other one because they railroaded through Trump's nominee in the last MONTH before the election.
Shut up and go back to salivating over Barrett's feet pics, Josh.

[damikesc]

"Two-thirds of the justices in Blackman’s “last independent branch of government” were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote."

And?

The Atlanta Braves scored more runs than the NY Yankees in the 1996 World Series. Yet the Yankees won the Series. HOW CAN THAT BE? Super Bowls have been won by the team that gained more yards.

I mention these because they hold the identical relevance to the popular vote.

If you win NY by 1 vote or 10,000,000 --- you won NY. Nothing more.

[Randal]

And if you win Congress and the presidency and pass a law changing the size of the court from 9 to 13, that's just as legitimate. It's like changing the extra point distance.