Today in Supreme Court History: November 6, 1989

11/6/1989: Employment Division v. Smith argued.

Employment Division of Oregon

Comments

[AmosArch]

As the post election commentary kicks into overdrive an unappreciated point is the genius of Elon Musk. Love him or hate him he's taken a lot of big gambles and sticking his neck out for Trump so brazenly may have been the biggest and riskiest so far. If things had gone wrong he would have faced a hostile executive branch who hated him even more than ever. Maybe he would still be to succeed but with their new powers the Kamala admin could have complicated things. But he took a huge if calculated risk and came out on top and now has an extremely powerful and extremely grateful ally on his side with at least 4 years to help his companies rocket past even further from the competition.

[apedad]

Yeah, billionaires looking after billionaires is awesome for the US.

[Frank Drackman]

The Business of Amurica is Business, I just made that up! and classy move by Cums-a-lot to go cry in her bedroom like a teenage girl, if they can only find 5 million votes in the "Provisional" ballots!!!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Oh man the salt that's gonna get mined on this site is just going to be amazing.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Spreading vicious lies over and over, so that a large segment of the public believes them, has an ugly history. I’m surprised that you admire the practice.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh, that "Trump says Liz Chaney should go before a Firing Squad" bullshit? looks like the only peoples who believed it already had their minds made up.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Don't forget one of their most outrageous ones, "the insurrection". That's actually led to the a Democrat DOJ targeting and oppressing innocent patriots.

I hope we finally see justice at the Department of Justice. Atleast half those evil bastards deserve prison.

[not guilty]

So prosecuting opposition political figures is outrageous when done by a Democratic administration, but hunky dory when done by Republicans?

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1841).

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Prosecuting someone for breaking the law is always okay.

Broadly interpreting the law or the facts to prosecute a political opponent is never okay.

Trump is about to do the first to a bunch of "not guiltys' who did the latter, God willing.

[not guilty]

What statute(s) do you anticipate that Trump's DOJ will invoke, and what supporting facts would the prosecution allege, JHBHBE?

Pretend for purposes of this question that you are an Assistant United States Attorney drafting indictments in the relevant jurisdiction for presentation to a federal grand jury. Whom would you charge, and what would you aver in the indictment?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The same one that somehow found Trump guilty of raping a woman 35 years ago based upon her fuzzy memories alone and fined him $70M for it.

That one.

[not guilty]

"The same one that somehow found Trump guilty of raping a woman 35 years ago based upon her fuzzy memories alone and fined him $70M for it."

JHBHBE, the First Rule of Holes is "STOP DIGGING!"

What actually happened is that a federal court jury in Manhattan found Donald Trump civilly liable for sexual assault upon E. Jean Carroll and awarded $5 million in damages in her favor. In a separate lawsuit Judge Lewis Kaplan granted partial summary judgment to Ms. Carroll as to liability on her claim that Trump had defamed her, with the amount of damages to be determined by a separate jury. The jury in that suit ordered Trump to pay $83.3 million in additional damages to Ms. Carroll.

What is wrong with your characterization above? Where do I start?

Statutes do not find a civil defendant guilty of a crime in a tort suit. Trump was never found guilty of raping a woman -- he was found liable for what under New York law amounts to conduct less culpable than rape.

A suit for damages in tort is distinct from a criminal prosecution. The former is brought by a plaintiff claiming to be aggrieved in a civil lawsuit (where the offending conduct may or may not also constitute a crime), while the latter is brought by the sovereign against a criminal defendant. The standards of proof in the two actions are different.

A fine is different from a civil damage award -- the former is payable to a governmental entity, while the latter is payable to a civil plaintiff.

You have not yet answered the questions I posed to you upthread. If you were an Assistant United States Attorney drafting indictments in the relevant jurisdiction for presentation to a federal grand jury, whom would you charge, and what facts would you aver in the indictment?

If you don't have a clue, then go ahead and admit your ignorance.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, JHBHBE.

Much of what you say here is so stupid that I wonder whether you are spoofing us to illustrate Poe's Law.

[not guilty]

At the risk of casting pearls before swine, Matthew 7:6, I have an observation regarding commenters here who take potshots and then, when challenged to defend what they have said, run away like a scalded dog.

No human is omniscient. There is no shame in admitting that one does not know something.

When one is challenged to defend an ipse dixit assertion, however, simply making shit up is shameful -- at least for someone who has a soupçon of self-awareness.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

$85M for saying "I didn't rape her 35 years ago".

She couldn't even say when.

[not guilty]

Doofus, you were talking upthread about criminal prosecutions, to-wit:

"I hope we finally see justice at the Department of Justice. Atleast [sic] half those evil bastards deserve prison."

"Broadly interpreting the law or the facts to prosecute a political opponent is never okay.

"Trump is about to do the first to a bunch of 'not guiltys’ who did the latter, God willing."

Now you are kvetching about a judgment in a civil suit brought against Trump by a private party.

Are you actually too stupid to appreciate the difference? (This is not a rhetorical question. I genuinely don't know whether you are or are not that dumb.)

FWIW, the Washington Post article you link to contains no reference to any $85 million judgment. The article is dated July 19, 2023. That was before Judge Kaplan on September 6, 2023 granted Ms. Carroll's motion for partial summary judgment as to liability in the defamation case. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790.214.0.pdf And it was long before the judgment for $83.3 million in damages was entered on February 8, 2024. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790.285.0.pdf

[Kazinski]

The risk isn't over.

Its just been kicked down the road 4 years, but I think their will still be knives sharpened for Elon.

I think he is right about the urgency of this election, Kamala or another Biden term would have been a disaster.

But if I were him, after 2 years or so getting the efficiency initiative going, then I'd start receding back to business.

[Martinned2]

You're right. Musk will have no choice but to buy the US government permanently. Fortunately his constitutional right to do that has been upheld by a long line of Supreme Court cases.

[Kazinski]

I haven't seen an accounting, but im guessing Elon put less money into getting Trump elected this cycle than Zuckerberg spent getting Biden elected last cycle.

But in any case the election was not bought, its no secret Kamala had significantly more money than Trump did in this campaign.

Money is necessary to compete in elections, but it can't buy them, and its the best candidate and campaign that wins, not the most money.

[Malika]

"im guessing Elon put less money into getting Trump elected this cycle than Zuckerberg spent getting Biden elected last cycle."

Zuckerberg spent money for grants for funds to cover COVID-related polling site accommodations like Plexiglass dividers, additional poll workers and more counting machines and more Democratic leaning counties applied for the grants.

Elon directly spent for Trump.

[Frank Drackman]

Told you, Bee-otches

[Malika]

This is like getting excited and bragging about picking the Titans to "upset" the Patriots last week.

[Frank Drackman]

My prediction from 11-4 is looking pretty good.
"45/47” in the Drawing Room, with the Candlestick, (ever seen the Brass ones? you can fuck someone up with those) and 303 EV"
Anyone know how Iowa turned out?

Frank

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Someone noted yesterday that we are all Americans.

We are all Americans. Some people who comment here in my personal view poison the well. They will be happy today. Some gleefully so. So it goes. They like the others are still Americans.

We shall go on. The best we can.

I will now comment on today’s case. The case involves a core concern of religious liberty: the practice of religious sacraments.

The result makes some sense. A generally applicable criminal law is acceptable even if it limits religious exercise.

Nonetheless, religious liberty warrants some caution. The case could have been narrowly decided on unemployment benefits grounds. I think it should have.

[Commenter_XY]

That was me, and yes: We Are All American.

The People have spoken. Decisively.

[Malika]

You mean Harris shouldn't just throw the votes out at the certification?

[Commenter_XY]

There is a process for objections to be made (need 20% of Congress to agree, seems like a low hurdle to me) and to contest EC votes; use it.

[Kazinski]

Not really, takes 20% for Congress to debate it, then each house votes, then you need a majority.

But they changed the law to make it harder in the aftermath of Jan 6th.

And it will be a new Congress voting, its not entirely clear what that looks like yet. the Senate flipped it will be 53-55 GOP, so no tiebreaker for Kamala, The House is 197-188 so the GOP needs 21 of about 50 seats remaining to be called for control.

[Commenter_XY]

My prediction wasn't too far off, LOL.

[jdgalt1]

It's far from certain that the Electoral Count Act will be upheld if tested. The Vice President's power to challenge electoral votes is granted by the Constitution, not by Congress, and was used by both John Adams and Jefferson, in each case resulting in the House awarding him the presidency.

But I'm not at all worried this time, because even if Republicans narrowly lose the House when the votes are all in, they'll certainly control a majority of state delegations and a majority of Senators.

[not guilty]

Uh, John Adams's and Thomas Jefferson's service as Vice-president predated the Twelfth Amendment.

And Adams was not awarded the presidency by the House of Representatives. He was elected president in 1796 with 71 electoral votes, one more than was needed for a majority. Jefferson received 68 electoral votes and was elected vice president. Adams's running mate Thomas Pinckney, a Federalist, finished with 59 electoral votes. Several electors cast one vote for a Federalist candidate and one for a Democratic-Republican.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Harris shouldn’t just throw the votes out "

Lacks the balls to do that!

[Frank Drackman]

You'll see a real gallows then, (and I won't be involved, I've always been kind of a pacifist. When I was a kid, my father told me, "Never hit anyone in anger, unless you're absolutely sure you can get away with it." I don't know what kind of soldier I'm gonna make, but I want you guys to know that if we ever get into really heavy combat... I'll be right behind you guys. Every step of the way.

[Dan Schiavetta]

When we liberals say “we are all Americans” (the theme of the Harris campaign) there is a noticeable lack of reciprocity from the other side. When Harris counts the electoral votes on Jan. 6 there will also be a noticeable lack of inciting rhetoric and a noticeable lack of a large mob breaking into the chamber, causing the legislators to flee.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

81,283,501 - 66,251,503 = 15,031,998
.

There were 15,031,998 many reasons why there was a Stop the Steal protest the last time electoral votes were counted.

[Malika]

Yeah, there's really no other explanation as to why a then-incumbent who barely won the first time and was the second time coming off the pandemic got more votes against him last time than this time running against the VP of the current administration during a time of high inflation other than THEFT! Lol.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe the popular vote is the way to go.

[Commenter_XY]

Reciprocity? Interesting term, captcrisis.

So 'encouraging' the DOJ to launch investigations of political opponents for political reasons, do you mean that kind of reciprocity?

Or prosecuting and imprisoning members of the opposing party for contempt of Congress, maybe you mean that kind of reciprocity?

Like I said, you used an interesting term, reciprocity. Be careful what you ask for, you might actually get it.

[Martinned2]

If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

That's why there's a whole mess of Democrats and other assorted bureaucrats who are seriously sweating this morning.

[Kazinski]

Well at least some of the time, pardons are definitely on the agenda.

[Dan Schiavetta]

“So ‘encouraging’ the DOJ to launch investigations of political opponents for political reasons”

That was Trump, who ordered his DOJ to investigate Hillary Clinton. (They didn’t find anything to get her on.) Didn’t happen under Biden.

“Or prosecuting and imprisoning members of the opposing party for contempt of Congress, maybe you mean that kind of reciprocity?“

Don’t you think Jan. 6 merited a Congressional investigation? If you don’t answer the summons, you’re in contempt.

[David Nieporent]

That was Trump, who ordered his DOJ to investigate Hillary Clinton. (They didn’t find anything to get her on.) Didn’t happen under Biden.

He also ordered them to investigate Strzok and McCabe and Page…

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The FBI agents who illegally spied on his campaign?

Oh noes, FBI agents cant' break the law and spy on Presidents! However will our Sacred Democracy Survive!

[David Nieporent]

No, they did not (a) illegally; (b) spy on; or (c) his campaign. You're 0-for-3.

[not guilty]

It is difficult to find a silver lining here.

It is disappointing that too many of the voting public have chosen four years of kakistocracy, but vox populi vox dei.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The last part didn't quite work when the majority voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

[David Nieporent]

It is difficult to find a silver lining here.

Trump's old and in poor health.

[Kazinski]

Well I agree we all are Americans, and I think we should take the temperature down.

But it would be nice to acknowledge that a majority of Americans spoke fairly decisively voting for Trump. And those who have denigrated Trump supporters as somehow defective or damaged have been repudiated.

I don't think Trump denigraters are defective or damaged, for the most part, although some are consumed by hate, but I hope they can start putting it behind them and get back to the normalcy of partisan bickering, not all out resistance.

As one headline said:

"Trump's triumph sends major message. It's the working class and middle America that run our country"

That's the message to take from this election, and their agenda needs to get back to the forefront.

If the Democrats take that to heart then they will be back in the Whitehouse in 4-12 years.

[Malika]

"But it would be nice to acknowledge that a majority of Americans spoke fairly decisively voting for Trump. And those who have denigrated Trump supporters as somehow defective or damaged have been repudiated."

Nobody look up Kaz's comments in 20!

[Dan Schiavetta]

Weeth v. New England Mortgage Security Co., 106 U.S. 605 (decided November 6, 1882): the Supreme Court used to have jurisdiction when a “certificate of division” was presented to it, where there was a disagreement between the District Judge and the Circuit Justice (from the Supreme Court); here (in a dispute over loan repayment) a certificate was rejected because it called upon the Court to get into fact-finding

Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido, 139 S.Ct. 22 (decided November 6, 2018): 20-employee minimum required for liability under Age Discrimination Act of 1967 does not apply to state entities (here, a local fire department)

Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (decided November 6, 1990): Jones Act allows wrongful death claim (extending the holding of Moragne v. States Marine Lines, 1970, from longshoremen to seamen) (I remember Moragne from first-semester Torts class; at the time I thought: “wrongful death”? is there such a thing as rightful death?)

[Commenter_XY]

For my Kamala supporting friends today.

I want you to know that I feel your pain; I do. 🙂

https://youtu.be/wDYNVH0U3cs

[Martinned2]

What's done is done. No point in arguing about the campaign or about the election. No one (sane or important) is going to claim the election was rigged, or storm the Capitol.

Now we have to figure out how to restructure the international rules-based order without the US. Presumably that means resetting EU relations with China, spending vast amounts of money on defence to keep the Russians from invading EU territory, and lots of other things that we wouldn't have wanted to do and that are going to waste vast amounts of money. It is what it is.

[Mr. Bumble]

Funny you think providing for your own defense is wasting vast amounts of money but were fine with the US wasting US taxpayer money.

[Martinned2]

The whole point of something like NATO is that collective deterrence makes defence cheaper for everyone. Are you going to pretend that you don't understand that logic?

[Mr. Bumble]

Are you going to pretend that NATO members were meeting their obligations?

[Martinned2]

Yes. Feel free to point out which part of the NATO Treaty NATO members weren't complying with:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm

[Commenter_XY]

The fact is, NATO members were not meeting their agreed spending levels. That will change.

[Martinned2]

Yes, being attacked by the Russians definitely tends to encourage additional military spending. Ask the Ukranians.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and who has been the major contributor to the Ukraine' defense?

[Martinned2]

1. Europe: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/

2. The Biden administration

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

As a % of GDP? All of Europe grouped together?

lol, what sort of commie bullshit is that?

[Commenter_XY]

UKR is not a NATO member, nor are they an EU member.

[Martinned2]

They are not. Were you under the impression that I was confused about that?

[Commenter_XY]

No, I have the impression that you're dazed and confused today, just as a general starting proposition. Are you familiar with the term, 'copium', by chance? Sounds like you might need some.

It is mid-afternoon on your side of the pond, maybe have a few pints now, and get an early start. Just don't drink and drive, ok? 😉

[Mr. Bumble]

Article 3

In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

Yell me that the majority of members are fulfilling this article.

[Martinned2]

They have been. Art. 3 does not require NATO members to overspend on defence like the US does, in order to placate domestic constituencies and in order to safeguard its capacity to invade countries all over the world.

As long as everyone in NATO is committed to complying with art. 5, the historic spending levels of 1%-2% of GDP are more than sufficient. (Leaving to one side that expressing defence spending as a % of GDP is not ideal, because the level of spending you need to comply with art. 3 depends on lots of things that are not GDP/population/size of the country, like where the country is located.)

[Mr. Bumble]

As an example from the Financial Times:
UK submarines hit by ‘underfunding’, warns former First Sea Lord
New ‘hunter killer’ subs are stuck in port due to lack of repair docks, raising concerns over health of Britain’s attack flee

[Martinned2]

Yes. And what makes you think that either the UK or Europe needs submarines for defence? Who is going to attack Europe from overseas?

[Mr. Bumble]

I guess Russia doesn’t have submarines.
One of the roles of the UK sub fleet was to track Rusian sub movements.
I guess you forgot that the US and Canada are also a part of NATO and would be a prime target for a Russian sub attack.
You are becoming as incoherent as Biden.

[Martinned2]

Wait, your claim is that the UK isn't doing its job of defending the US? You're getting nuttier and nuttier.

Either way, it doesn't matter. NATO is dead.

[Martinned2]

Meanwhile, I'm just going to quote some bits of the UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

A Member of the United Nations which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions to the Organization shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two full years.

The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.

[David Nieporent]

Are you going to pretend that NATO members were meeting their obligations?

There were no such obligations; Trump lied to you, and you fell for it.

[Mr. Bumble]

SarcastrO (Il Douche) has taken the week of and is being replaced by David Notimportant.

[David Nieporent]

Sorry if the truth hurts your feelings, but facts don't care about your feelings.

[Mr. Bumble]

For a lawyer you seem to have a lot of trouble with facts and truth.
You saying so does not make anything a fact or the truth.

[Kazinski]

I hope you aren't going to pretend Europe is pulling its weight in NATO.

I hope you take the lesson of Russia-Ukraine to heart about how vital it is for Europe to take its NATO responsibilities seriously.

[Commenter_XY]

No, they're still in the denial stage, Kaz. They'll be angry next, and then bargaining. Won't matter.

[Malika]

Commenter, why should the US send aid to Israel but not Ukraine?

[Mr. Bumble]

Haven't we been sending aid to both?

[Frank Drackman]

So does this mean that “45”, Oops, I mean "47" won’t be going to jail?

[Krayt]

That’s a good question. Having badly abused the government power of investigation in many, many initiatives over 8 years now, they could conceivably double down on it now as a last second stopper.

We still have to deal with pleas for faithless electors, the idea Congress could vote to cancel him out as an insurrectionist at the last second, probably other stuff that’s only a gleam in a clever operative’s eye.

What his opposition should do is fight him to a draw on his initiatives as last time. And I and others have to keep hammering letting dictator tanks roll through Europe is not an American value.

[Krayt]

BTW, when I say "We still have to deal with", I mean we the nation, not we his supporters, of which I am not. I've made very clear my stance on using little trickies to get a political opponent, of which the above list represents a sample, as well as the larger issue that rolling tanks through Europe is a showstopper for me, and should be, for America.

[Martinned2]

I guess Employment Division v. Smith is high on the list of important Supreme Court cases that are not long for this world now.

[Commenter_XY]

It should be looked at. 🙂

[not guilty]

Should Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), which held that religious duty was not a defense to a criminal indictment, be revisited?

[Commenter_XY]

NG, is there a case in any federal docket that addresses the 'four corners' (squarely on point, correct)? Anyone challenging Reynolds? Not that I have read about.

[not guilty]

I haven't done a deep dive into that, but I seriously doubt that there is a federal case. Reynolds was in federal court because Utah was then a territory. Polygamy is ordinarily prosecuted under state laws.

There may have been some federal prosecutions for such things as welfare fraud in camps where polygamy is practiced, but I don't know of anyone raising a First Amendment defense in a case of that nature.

Tom Green was convicted of four counts of bigamy in Utah in 2001. He raised a Free Exercise challenge on appeal. The Utah Supreme Court ruled against him, State v. Green, 2004 UT 76, 99 P.3d 820 (Utah 2004), recognizing the continuing validity of Reynolds, 99 P.3d at 825-826, as well as analyzing the challenged statutes under more current authority.

[Noscitur a sociis]

a case in any federal docket that addresses the ‘four corners’ (squarely on point, correct)

That is not how you use that phrase.

I’m certainly familiar with cases where defendants have attempted to raise a religious obligation defense to criminal charges. These generally don’t fare well given the unfavorable precedents, but I’d expect to see them proliferate pretty fast if the Supreme Court opens the door by overruling Smith. (Witness the explosion in challenges to criminal gun restrictions following Bruen.)

[Commenter_XY]

Nas...Yeah, I am trying to figure out the right way to use it. NG introduced me to the phrase, and I liked it.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Barrett (joined by Kavanaugh) argued in Fulton v. Philadelphia:

While history looms large in this debate, I find the historical record more silent than supportive on the question whether the founding generation understood the First Amendment to require religious exemptions from generally applicable laws in at least some circumstances. In my view, the textual and structural arguments against Smith are more compelling.

but didn’t go along with Alito (with Thomas & Gorsuch) to dispose of it because (1) it was not necessary to decide the case and (2) what to replace it with is complicated.

Roberts wrote an opinion that avoided the question. But, on some matters, Roberts no longer leads this Court.

Smith does look to be on shaky ground though as with Fulton, it is unclear if the Supreme Court will find it necessary to overrule Smith since it can support the same ends another way.

[Krayt]

We have seen, as with free speech and cake design, Hobby Lobby (or Little Sisters of Some Flower or something) and abortion, and other cases, the facetious-meisters all run to the standard defense of “It’s a generally applicable law!”…

…so they get the honor of hampering religion, but, curiously, when you look at them, they’re all swearing at it qua religion, like the church people at the end of Ths Graduate. Silent, but you can see the words they are mouthing and the rage in their eyes.

[Krayt]

Now if you wannna have a hate fest on religion, I'm down for it. Worship a creature that lets babies get raped to death? I don't think so.

But no little trickies are allowed here, either.

[not guilty]

It is quite ironic that the most strident opponents of abortion rights claim to be serving God. If the Old Testament is to be believed, Yahweh is a major league baby killer.

He put a targeted hit on Bathsheba's firstborn, causing the poor infant to suffer for a week before dying. The Great Flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the Tenth Plague did not exempt the babies from the carnage.

Yahweh and his Chosen People were also huge fans of genocide, including the mass slaughter of infants and children. All quotations here are from the original Revised Standard Version.

"However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you." Deuteronomy 20:16-17.

Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ ” I Samuel 15:1-3 (emphasis added)

"Sama'ria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open." Hosea 13:16 (emphasis added)

"Then they utterly destroyed all in the city [of Jericho,] both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and asses, with the edge of the sword." Joshua 6:21

"And the LORD said to me, 'Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land over to you; begin to take possession, that you may occupy his land.' Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Jahaz. And the LORD our God gave him over to us; and we defeated him and his sons and all his people. And we captured all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed every city, men, women, and children; we left none remaining[.]" Deuteronomy 2:31-34

"So the LORD our God gave into our hand Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people; and we smote him until no survivor was left to him. And we took all his cities at that time--there was not a city which we did not take from them--sixty cities, the whole region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. All these were cities fortified with high walls, gates, and bars, besides very many unwalled villages. And we utterly destroyed them, as we did to Sihon the king of Heshbon, destroying every city, men, women, and children." Deuteronomy 3:3-6

"And Joshua took Makke'dah on that day, and smote it and its king with the edge of the sword; he utterly destroyed every person in it, he left none remaining; and he did to the king of Makke'dah as he had done to the king of Jericho. Then Joshua passed on from Makke'dah, and all Israel with him, to Libnah, and fought against Libnah; and the LORD gave it also and its king into the hand of Israel; and he smote it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it; he left none remaining in it; and he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho. And Joshua passed on from Libnah, and all Israel with him, to Lachish, and laid siege to it, and assaulted it: and the LORD gave Lachish into the hand of Israel, and he took it on the second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it, as he had done to Libnah. Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish; and Joshua smote him and his people, until he left none remaining. And Joshua passed on with all Israel from Lachish to Eglon; and they laid siege to it, and assaulted it; and they took it on that day, and smote it with the edge of the sword; and every person in it he utterly destroyed that day, as he had done to Lachish. Then Joshua went up with all Israel from Eglon to Hebron; and they assaulted it, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and its king and its towns, and every person in it; he left none remaining, as he had done to Eglon, and utterly destroyed it with every person in it. Then Joshua, with all Israel, turned back to Debir and assaulted it, and he took it with its king and all its towns; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed every person in it; he left none remaining; as he had done to Hebron and to Libnah and its king, so he did to Debir and to its king. So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings; he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. Joshua 10:28-40

[Krayt]

HOLY SHIT I was listening to music videos on YouTube and it played me a Hobby Lobby ad.

W
T
F

The panopticon is complete. I mentioned it, therefore it must be reasonable I might want to shop there.

[Kazinski]

It didn't stay long when it was handed down.

Congress effectively reversed it when it passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

I don't know why you think there is some burning need to reverse Smith when its already pretty much a dead letter, and it was Congress that voided it.

[David Nieporent]

Incorrect. The reach of RFRA was severely limited by SCOTUS in City of Boerne v. Flores, making Smith very far from a dead letter.

[Armchair]

Some thoughts on the election.

Biggest Winner: Donald Trump
-This is a major victory, solid in the popular vote and the EC. Roughly the same as Obama's win over Romney in 2012. It should bring the lawfare against him to an end.

Biggest Winner 2: JD Vance.
-This sets him up very well in 2028

Biggest Loser: Kamala Harris.
-It's hard to see where her political career goes from here. She's 60, but she may be done.

Biggest Surprise: The margin of Trump's victory in both blue and red states. The states people anticipated to be close (Wisconsin, PA, etc) were close. But I think my initial biggest surprise was the 13 point victory Trump had in Florida. This was a state that used to be competitive, and it just wasn't anymore. The other end of that was the surprisingly narrow Harris victory in several traditional "Blue" states. New York is sitting at just an 11 point victory. New Jersey at just 5 points. And perhaps most surprising Illinois at just 4 points.

Unexpected biggest winner: Hunter Biden
-This opens up Joe to pardon Hunter, without adverse consequences. And if he doesn't, Trump said he might pardon Hunter instead.

[Martinned2]

It's that projection thing again. Because you're fully bought into the idea that all politicians are corrupt, and that that's OK, you think Biden is going to pardon his son. He's not going to do that. (Nor is Trump. Even you can't believe that he would.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"He’s not going to do that."

He can unilaterally save his only surviving son from prison and won't? C'mon man!

[Commenter_XY]

Time to fire up the FedSoc pipeline; there are judges to vet right now and get onto the bench quickly. The first hearings should be early March, with getting them on the bench by April 2025. Might be time to consider expanding the size of the Federal judiciary to handle the backlog of cases. Could the Senate get ~100 judges done in 2 years? Maybe.

The border wall and border security is a 'must do ASAP', pass enabling legislation quickly (before Feb 2025).

Deportations have to start day 2. The worst of the worst must go immediately, start there. Just ship their ass back to their home country.

DOGE....start Day 1. The DC administrative state needs to be shaken, not stirred. Let Elon Musk determine who is 'essential' and who is 'non-essential' in Washington, DC. Those very same people were only too happy to arrogantly tell us back in 2020 who they thought was essential. Now the shoe will be on the other foot.

After that...make peace.

[SRG2]

What makes you think that Musk's expertise in a commercial setting translates effectively to a government one? The skills and the metrics are very different

[Martinned2]

When has that ever stopped anyone in the Trump administration?

[Commenter_XY]

How do I say this....?

It isn't rocket science to vastly reduce the number of DC bureaucrats. The skill set is quite simple (it is as easy as saying, 'Your position has been eliminated') and the metrics simpler still (net reduction of bodies in DC bureaucratic workforce).

DC needs a massive 'right-sizing'. That is what we call it in private business.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Under Trump, as we’ve seen, it is a matter of eliminating expertise and substituting unqualified lackeys.

[Commenter_XY]

I figure that the civilian Federal workforce in the DC Metroplex area (meaning MD, VA) numbers around 2MM or so. Are all 2MM essential? Not a chance, not even half. As a taxpayer, I sure would appreciate the labor dollar cost savings of RIF'ing 1MM DC administrative bureaucrats, and not having their higher future pension liability (time for defined benefits plans to go and be replaced by defined contribution plans).

That right-sizing sure would solve the high housing price issue in the Metroplex area. There would be many houses quickly coming on to the market. Were I a speculator, I'd hoard cash now....because there will be good real estate deals ahead. I am assuredly not a speculator. 😉

[Dan Schiavetta]

To cut that number down you would need experts in various governmental fields to determine what can be cut and what can’t. I can’t imagine Trump hiring such people.

[Commenter_XY]

Expert? Heh, see my reply above to SRG2. People typically flatter themselves, believing they are essential and indispensable. They are not. Here is Right-sizing Reality, in the Real World.

"Your position has been eliminated. Person X from HR is here to explain your severance package. Best of luck in your future endeavors. Maybe learn to code?" (ok, ok, the last was sarcastic)

KPI: Net Reduction in civilian federal workforce in MD/VA area

[Dan Schiavetta]

You’re not seriously dealing with the question.

[Commenter_XY]

captcrisis, maybe you should try taking that test.

[SRG2]

People typically flatter themselves, believing they are essential and indispensable

That does not mean that someone else with no knowledge can determine who is essential and indispensable, though by implication that is what you are saying.

[SRG2]

“Welcome to the Commenter_XY Obesity Clinic! We guarantee you a return to a healthy weight! Now then, you’re 250 pounds and five feet ten, so you should be around say 170 pounds. We can get you down to that almost immediately!”

“How can you do it so quickly?”

“Well, under anesthetic, we do some lipo, cut off one of your legs and one of your arms, and hey presto, 170 pounds! A healthy weight..."

[Commenter_XY]

An inapt analogy.

I understand. You're still in shock. It will subside. Or maybe not.

[SRG2]

I'm not in shock. I am slightly surprised at the size of the victory. I am more surprised at the highly unexpected and uncharacteristic degree of stupidity you have shown today.

[Kazinski]

It will be culling process, not a replacement process.

The federal workforce is aging anyway, maybe a lot of them will just retire.

[Martinned2]

Yes. The difficult part is to eliminate positions without ending up with, to borrow a phrase, an "oops". For example, you probably don't want to fire the 10,000 people who are working to stop nuclear waste from leaking into the Columbia River: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site

[Life of Brian]

Not what you intended I know, but Hanford is actually a splendid example. Just because 10,000 people have been perpetually employed (with apparently ~20 years to go!) under the mantle of preventing something Very Scary from happening doesn't mean that 10,000 people actually are needed to so prevent it.

Let's start with an accounting of what all 10,000 are actually doing, so we can size up the core group that's actively involved in the remediation, vs. ones doing the nuclear-waste equivalent of standing around all day leaning on shovels and yakking like a typical road construction crew, vs. utterly play-pretty ancillary tasks like cultivating Umtanum Desert buckwheat.

[Martinned2]

It's your country. If you want to make it glow in the dark, go ahead. That's an excellent example of fallout from this election that does not have externalities beyond the US borders. Unlike other things that have been mentioned in this comments section.

[Life of Brian]

If only you truly subscribed to "it's your country" -- the comments around here would be far less cluttered (you've authored 36 out of 147 just in this thread!).

But seriously, ignoring the practical considerations I raised and diving right back into oooh-scary-glow-in-the-dark rhetoric just makes my point for me.

[David Nieporent]

Let’s start with an accounting of what all 10,000 are actually doing,

Well, you've already undermined (no pun intended) C_XYs proposal to just show up and hand pink slips to half the people there.

so we can size up the core group that’s actively involved in the remediation,

Which takes both time and SME, which Musk doesn't have.

[Commenter_XY]

I would not just show up with 10K pink slips, David, on Jan 21, 2025.

Although, that is what I would call a jolly good start.

[SRG2]

You need to know which positions need to be eliminated which means knowing what they do and whether it's necessary, which also means knowing how it fits into the workings. Simply carrying out a decimation strategy is really stupid - and yet you seem to be implying just that.

DC needs a massive ‘right-sizing’. That is what we call it in private business.

The term is used when the person using it is too chicken shit to call it downsizing. No firm ever went on a hiring spree and called it right-sizing. Why afraid to call it by the proper term?

[Life of Brian]

You need to know which positions need to be eliminated which means knowing what they do and whether it’s necessary, which also means knowing how it fits into the workings.

It seems to me that's exactly how we've gotten to today's blizzard of self-licking ice cream cones. There's not a doubt in my mind that every last bureaucratic appendage on the books can come up with some sort of facially compelling sob story about how necessary (or even important) their particular job is, and how it's SOOOO interconnected with a bunch of other Really Important Jobs that can't possibly go away either.

When you're faced with that level of stupefying cruft with no apparent actual benefit, sometimes for better or for worse the best move is just to hack it out with a blunt instrument and then replace anything that may have been over-pruned and is demonstrably (rather than purportedly) needed. As C_XY originally alluded to, private industry has to make dispassionate decisions like that to keep the cruft from capsizing the broader enterprise. The only reason governmental agencies don't similarly collapse under their own weight is because we 1) pretend resources are infinite, and 2) don't demand actual demonstrated value in exchange for those resources. We need to get over both of those fictions.

[Commenter_XY]

I have to laugh at what I am reading from some of these people. And the meltdowns I am seeing are funny AF. I would like to say that I sympathize, but I don't in this case.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Guess that “we’re all Americans” shtick didn’t last very long.

[Commenter_XY]

Sure, We Are All Americans, Nas. That is true. And I believe that in my heart. I don't think that 75MM Kamala supporters (the minority of the electorate) are without any redeeming value whatsoever. They're as American as I am. It isn't a personal difference.

But heck, don't people laugh at America's Funniest Home Videos when dogs and people do mind-blowingly stupid stuff? That is what we are witnessing, writ large = funny AF Tik Tok meltdowns. I can laugh at that.

I will simply say, it is rare that so many smart people did not see what was coming.

[Syd Henderson]

Also big winners: any Democrats who want to run for President in 2028. The race will be wide open.

[Martinned2]

I like your optimism. Why would anyone want to run against Trump in 2028, even assuming they'd realistically be able to?

[SRG2]

Trump can't run again.

[Martinned2]

Sure he can. The 22nd Amendment plainly says that someone can't run for re-election more than twice, but this year Trump didn't run for re-election so that doesn't count.

[Frank Drackman]

I don't think your 22nd Amendment is the same as my 22nd Amendment.
"Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

It seems that Martinned has become a serious day drinker much like Kamala.

[Martinned2]

If you put enough Trumpists in the courts, it turns out the Constitution doesn't mean what we all thought it meant. The sky is the limit!

[SRG2]

Nope. "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice"

[Martinned2]

You are so naive. Josh Blackman is working feverously as we speak to publish a series of at least 10 blog posts explaining why you're wrong.

[Kazinski]

That's not what it says, it says: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice".

And Trump is 78, he's had his vindication, he knows his legacy in in JD Vance, or possibly Don Jr.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

and someone who previously took an oath to support the Constitution cannot hold federal office if they engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid and comfort to our enemies.

(so I hear)

[Commenter_XY]

There is a non-zero chance Pres Trump dies before taking the oath of office; he has survived two assassination attempts in 4 months. It is abundantly clear that there are people who think that assassination is justifiable, and have said so (ala threat to democracy). I cannot imagine the stress and pressure of his USSS protective detail feels right now.

POTUS Trump will not be a young man. His probability of death in any given year is approaching 5%. Constitutional bar aside, Pres Trump has emphatically stated this is it for him; no more elections.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Biden could order the assassination of Trump and not be criminally liable. Under recent Court precedent.

[Frank Drackman]

Are you sure he didn't already?

[Martinned2]

Trump is like Netanyahu. As soon as he leaves office, he'll get in trouble with the law again. So he needs to cling on to power until he dies.

[Malika]

"Biggest Winner 2: JD Vance.
-This sets him up very well in 2028"

I wouldn't bet on that, unless things dramatically improve. The general tide lately is anti-incumbent and establishment.

[David Nieporent]

Biggest Losers from last night, in order:
1. The American people.
2. Kamala Harris.
3. Volodymyr Zelensky and his people.
4. Pollsters.
5. Campaign consultants, who worry about things like 'ground games' and such.

[SRG2]

We now have two clear-cut positions and time will tell who is right.

The Trump supporters: Trump will provide us with a strong economy – partly due to tariffs, low inflation, low unemployment, a well-managed deficit (if not actually declining), an improved healthcare system replacing ACA, the fixing of illegal immigration problems, a major cutback of regulations, a rational somewhat isolationist foreign policy, and will demonstrated that he is not cognitively challenged.

The Trump opponents: Trump will lead a revenge presidency, will fill the government with people loyal to him, not the US, will be a pushover for Putin and others, will implement tariffs that hurt the US economy, will blow up the deficit, will put people in place to implement much of the Project 2025 agenda, will intentionally cause unnecessary suffering to immigrants and asylum seekers, and will empower white supremacists and increase the level of intolerance against minorities in general, and his cognitive decline will become increasingly apparent.

IMO some of the things that the Trump opponents claim will happen are actually desired by many of his supporters – the revenge presidency, the empowerment of white supremacists, and the intolerance.

If I am wrong, I will say so. Likewise if I am right. I doubt most Trump supporters will admit it if they’re wrong. The Trump cult is very strong – possibly the strongest cult yet seen in the US – far more so than #2, the Mormon Church. This does not mean that all supporters are cultists, of course.

[Martinned2]

The dollar is already up, because traders expect higher interest rates (because higher inflation).

[Syd Henderson]

If Trump goes through with the tariffs he’s proposing, we could have a repeat of the effects of the McKinley Tariff and Smoot-Hawley. (The former was big cause for the economic problems of the Benjamin Harrison and Cleveland administrations, including a major depression, and the latter did a lot to make a Depression into a Great Depression.)

[Martinned2]

It's called stagflation, a combination of stagnation and inflation.

[Frank Drackman]

The tariffs Sleepy Joe was too demented to cancel??

[Commenter_XY]

We heard this Parade Of Horribles catastrophizing before, back in 2017-18.

It was wrong then. Why is it any more right today?

[SRG2]

None of this has happened yet, so we don't know whether it will be right or not. But Trump has had years to think about what to do,. and has a stronger corpus of loyal support in Congress, the anti-Trump Republicans having been largely rooted out.

But in advance I'll mark you down as "will deny it if Trump fails" - because that seems to be where you're headed.

[Commenter_XY]

Drinking might help what ails you today, SRG2.

[SRG2]

It appears from the tenor of your comments today that you have been on the celebratory champagne all night. You have really become crass and stupid overnight.

[Mr. Bumble]

So are stock market futures.
The market likes higher interest rates?

[Martinned2]

Bond markets do, equity markets don't. (But equity markets do like tax cuts.)

[Mr. Bumble]

FWIW gold has dropped like a stone.

[Martinned2]

Yes, gravity will do that. But if you were thinking that gold prices tell you anything about anything, I would counsel against that.

[Commenter_XY]

Don't let politics cloud investment judgment. That has a toxic effect on one's investment portfolio. I am quite serious about that.

[Martinned2]

Diversify and don't look at it until you retire. Obviously. Buy whichever broadly diversified ETF charges the lowest costs.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes! Totally agree!!! = low cost index mutual funds (my preference) or their ETF equivalent.

[Swede425]

The hardest part about today?
Knowing how disappointed Michelle Obama is in me right now.
Somehow I'll have to find a way to soldier on.

[Swede425]

I hope Hollywood, academia, and the MSM have learned their lesson here.
And that is next time they need to go much harder.
I felt like they really held back, which is a shame because their opinions are so very crucial in these elections.
Next time they call me a garbage white supremacist nazi misogynist, say it like you mean it. I don't like it when they're coy.

[Martinned2]

I'm sorry, I didn't realise you didn't agree that you're a garbage white supremacist nazi misogynist. If you meant to disagree with that description, you haven't been doing a very good job of it.

Fortunately it doesn't matter anymore. From now on the garbage white supremacist nazi misogynists get to run the US. Everyone else is in damage control mode.

[Swede425]

I'm sorry.
I meant to add foreign nationals to the list of highly sought out opinions that matter so much to our elections.
As Michael Caine's character said in the Austin Powers movie: Two things I can't stand in this world - people who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch.

[Martinned2]

The hardest part about today?
Knowing how disappointed Swede425 is in me right now.
Somehow I’ll have to find a way to soldier on.

[Swede425]

Oh honey.
Nobody is disappointed in you.
We're getting exactly what we expect.
A foreigner's perspective that's worth exactly what we paid for it.

[Ska]

After reading the op-eds at the Times - that's one group going out of their way to avoid the lesson. But it's only been a matter of hours. I think a one week cooling off period is reasonable.

Then they can go right back to ignoring the results by demographics and insisting they were right all along - racism for white people, misogyny for nonwhite people. Oh, and NYC and NJ must have been flooded with racists and misogynists since 2020.

[Frank Drackman]

Does "47" get a free spot on SNL this weekend?
I know he'd rather be on a network somebody actually watches, like TVLand or "Grit"

Frank

[hobie]

Heaven help poor Ukraine

[Swede425]

Heaven, certainly.
But mostly Germany and France.
As it should be.
They can toss their euros at it.
Then their military equipment.
Then their sons.
But Europe acts like they don't really give a shit.
So why should I?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Not a responsible or even an adult comment.

[Swede425]

As an American taxpayer, it was and is a very responsible comment.
This is happening in the backyard of Germany and France.
And they're doing fuck all about it.
I'll accept the not an adult comment.
I'm feeling sassy today.

[Malika]

"I’ll accept the not an adult comment."

After all, he's used to it!

[Krayt]

The amounts are small for the size of the effort. Concern for costs was introduced as a red herring. Stopping aggression in Europe is a value for America, and worth that amount the US can easily afford.

Thanks, Gramps!

[Swede425]

LOL!
"Your concerns are invalid. In fact, they're just a red herring".
I know it's still early on, but if you keep this up you'll prove that you learned nothing about the concerns of literally the majority of people who just changed our government.
A mistake I'm entirely ready to concede to you because I have no faith in your ability to learn from the drubbing you just witnessed.

[Malika]

It's funny you're so clueless you think Krayt is a Democrat.

[Swede425]

That's your assumption. I don't know how he votes.
What I do know is that he thinks it's no big deal that billions of American tax dollars go to some corrupt Eastern European country to defend themselves against an incompetent invader who is absolutely bogged down and that pride won't let retreat/fall back.
Not our job. And the results of this election make that point more valid. If this invasion was the catastrophe everybody says it is, then the EU would be acting like it. They're not. Not even close. Let me know when Germany and France are ready to repel the Russians with their blood and treasure. I might be slightly more interested once they're a lot more interested.

[David Nieporent]

What I do know is that he thinks it’s no big deal that billions of American tax dollars go to some corrupt Eastern European country

That's not even right. We are not sending dollars to Ukraine; we are sending billions of dollars of weapons and materiel to Ukraine. We are then spending the money in the U.S. with American military suppliers to replace the stuff we're sending.

[Krayt]

He wanted Putin free reign, so he starts tossing out negatives, one of which was “well, it’s expensive!”

Except it isn’t on this scale. That’s a lie and a red herring to get dupes on board with giving Putin free reign.

And even “expensive”, if true, is a shit reason to let tanks roll through Europe. Again, you have been duped.

Is "expensive" a reason to abandon Israel? No, not there, either.

You have been duped.

[Krayt]

Just playing contrarian to Democrats on this is also a terrible reason.

[Swede425]

Free reign to do what?
Fail at invading a neighbor? Being so bogged down that they have to throw prisoners and North Koreans at their stupid mistake? Some genius up thread said "Doh my god, putin's gonna invade Poland next!!". Putin can't even extract himself from Ukraine. And he can't conquer it. So, no, I don't think it's worth American tax dollars to expel an invader that the Europeans don't think is worth expelling. Let me know when the Russians reach Canada or Mexico.

[Bob from Ohio]

hobie, you are alive! I was afraid the election in Ohio would have you turning on the gas.

your gerrymandering amendment losing, Trump state landslide, Moreno, all 3 supreme court justices.

Welcome to Ohio!

[hobie]

The sum of all fears, Bob. I'm incapable of rational thought at the moment

[Commenter_XY]

Listen, I have some good mixed drink recipes, hobie.

I can rename one of them to 'Hobie's Copium' - do you have a hard liquor preference?

[hobie]

What I need to do is disengage from politics. I only became active in my mid thirties when my two little sisters came of age where rape could destroy their lives. As their big brother it was my duty to see that they were protected. I would say that there are now enough states where abortion is now beyond the hands of the misogynists, that I can probably rest easy.

[Bob from Ohio]

"incapable of rational thought" seems to be your default

[Commenter_XY]

Do you have a hobby? = What I need to do is disengage from politics.

[Frank Drackman]

So what's new?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Ukraine is gone — or at least however much Putin wants of it. He has made no secret of his designs on Poland and with Trump sure to renege on our NATO commitment it will be a big mess.

Our international credibility, briefly restored under Biden, is now destroyed, with Trump either agreeing to do or refusing to do something based on what ever he decides to tweet on any given morning based on what he saw on TV or whoever talked to him last. This is not a debatable question — it is the testimony of those who worked under him. It’s odd that people think of this as a good thing.

[Martinned2]

We should have restructured the international community so that it doesn't rely on the US decades ago. Given that the US doesn't ratify treaties, the US position on anything is just up to the whims of whoever is elected president, and in a winner-take-all system that can change wildly from one period to the next. You can't build anything if your foundations are shaky like that.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The U.S. has often been the lazy rich kid everybody has to suck up to, but until Trump came along we were fairly decent at honoring our international commitments.

[Martinned2]

It's all relative. Historically hegemons have always done whatever they felt like, and 1990s/2000s US was no exception. It invaded and/or bombed countries willy-nilly (aforementioned art. 2(4) UN Charter notwithstanding), messed around with climate accords, etc. Whether that counts as "fairly decent" depends on what you compare it to.

[Krayt]

Regardless of your words, dictatorships like Russia should be thwarted on principle in their expansion.

Using words like "hegemon" to try to bundle the US into the same boat as them does not make it so.

[Bob from Ohio]

"restructured the international community so that it doesn’t rely on the US decades ago"

So jealous of us!

[Swede425]

AHAHAHAHAHAHA!
So it's jokes from you today?
That's fine. We all deal with grief in our own ways.
Here's some facts for you: Russia is a paper tiger who has fumble fucked their way into, and are now stuck in, Ukraine. The EU is wealthy enough to take care of it's internal problems but they haven't felt the need to because Uncle Sugar will do it for them. Or so they thought. This is their problem, and like all big boys, they need to deal with it.

[Commenter_XY]

Do you really think POTUS Biden restored our credibility, internationally?

May I recommend you take the test I posted about last week, 'Do You Live In a Bubble', based on Coming Apart, a book by Charles Murray. Do you see what the electorate sees, captcrisis?

Because a majority of the country does not seem to agree with your POV.

[Dan Schiavetta]

All you have to do is ask foreign leaders.
Biden is an internationalist who did some hard things and was willing to work things out. He was a grownup.

[Krayt]

And in a sense, does it really matter? Trump building international respect of dictators by giving them a free hand is not even a value.

[SRG2]

Do you really think POTUS Biden restored our credibility, internationally?

Why not actually find what the rest of the world thinks? I have come across a number of now fellow Americans who have talked about how well Trump is perceived internationally, and none of them have ever bothered to look at what the rest of the world actually thinks.,

[Martinned2]

If you read books by Charles Murray, you are definitely in an alt-right bubble.

[Commenter_XY]

I read books by Cornel West, does that make me a communist?

[Malika]

It will be fun to see the many ostensible "libertarians" on this site and others cheering on such laissez-faire initiatives as tariffs, a huge expansion of federal government law enforcement, a gigantic eminent domain project, etc., for the next couple years.

[Martinned2]

Haven't you heard? There are no libertarians on this site. At least, that's what I'm always told whenever I make the point you just made.

[SRG2]

People’s political and economic views are largely derived from deeper positions, and support for an authoritarian leader is a deeper position than confidence in the benefits of capitalism and free trade.

[Jerry B.]

Apparently, based on the Presidential and Congressional results, the stock markets ae soaring.

https://apnews.com/article/stock-markets-rates-china-93421462d761eb1402d813cb381fe6e9

[Martinned2]

Crony capitalism will do that. But remember, the stock market is not the economy.

[Krayt]

I was assured by C here that inflation was no big deal for America because his investments kept him well ahead of it.

Hmmm. On retrospect, that probably wasn’t a good thing to trumpet.

[apedad]

Estimates on when the case hits the Supreme Court for Trump's self pardon?

May 2026?

And actually, who would be the plaintiff?

[Martinned2]

That's what they'd be arguing about: standing. It'll be Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine in reverse.

[Krayt]

As the Constitution does not forbid it, it should be allowed. And America should pass an amendment to stop it in the future.

They've been warned of this for years and did nothing.

Also, how dare he use a trick to thwart dozens of tricks we used to git 'im!

[F.D. Wolf]

I don't see any constitutional issue with a self-pardon. The argument that the president can pardon anyone in the world except for himself is not particularly compelling. But even if it were, the President, per the 25th Amendment, could temporarily transfer power to the Vice President, who, as Acting President, could then issue a pardon.

[SRG2]

Trump will instruct the DoJ to drop all cases. I don't think any case will be tried and concluded before Trump assumes office.

[F.D. Wolf]

There's no need, as he, as the head of the executive branch, and hence ultimately of the Justice Department, will simply dismiss the cases against him, and by the time his term ends, all the statutes of limitations will have expired.

As with any pardon, any case would arise as a motion to dismiss a criminal case based on the pardon.

[loki13]

Well, that sucked.

As an American, I will say that I hope that I am completely wrong. That Trump loves America more than himself, and that he will make the country a better place. That he will accomplish his goals (even ones I disagree with) while still valuing the structures, ethics, and norms that have made this country ... great.

In other words, I desperately hope that I am wrong. I would much rather eat crow for America's benefit than enjoy telling people, "I told you so," because Trump actually does what he has been saying he will do.

[Commenter_XY]

He cannot do it alone = make the country a better place

We are all Americans, and on the same team. We are all responsible for doing our part.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Is that how you’d characterize your comments here?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

His first term led to a lot of harm. The question is now how much.

[loki13]

Look, I really think that the next four years are going to suck hard.

And I think that there is going to be a lot of remorse on the part of, well, some of the people* who voted for him.

I am gravely concerned about our institutions. The first term there were guardrails, and he didn't have the "absolute immunity" and much desire to act out on his worst ideas (because of the more responsible people around him). This time? Eh.....

But I have to hope that I'm wrong. Look, I'm not looking forward to Justice Thomas retiring and a shortlist of .. oh, Ho, Cannon, and heck, Josh Blackman to replace him. That said, I have real fears about what the next four years could bring, and I think a lot of people have been complacent because, hey, it's "Murikuh, nothing bad can happen.

I don't think I've ever wanted to be wrong so badly in my life.

*The ones who just want to see the world burn and own the libtards? Naw. They won't care.

[Noscitur a sociis]

he didn’t have the “absolute immunity”

Not sure this makes much difference: it was well established that he couldn’t be prosecuted while he was president, and even if the Supreme Court decision had come out differently, he’d still be able to use the pardon power before leaving office. (Which I’d think is fairly likely, especially if a democrat wins next time. To the extent there’s an issue with a self-pardon, he can just resign 30 minutes early and have Vance do it.)

Your other points do have some force, particularly regarding the likely dearth of responsible people interested in high level service in this administration.

[loki13]

"Not sure this makes much difference"

Maybe. But I think that SCOTUS constitutionalizing the Nixon doctrine ("When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal") even in the face of hypothetical Seal Team Six questions, certainly informed Trump that if any subordinate pushes back (like they did previously) he can safely ignore them.

Again, I don't know. Maybe this will be fine! I hope so. I hope the people that voted for him because of gas prices and the fear of bad hombres (?) eating their pets don't end up with serious buyers remorse- because if they do, we all lose.

But I have listened to what he said. And I've seen Trump and how he acts since the '80s. I've got a bad feeling about this.

He gets to do what he wants now. So ... guess we will see how that works.

[Frank Drackman]

Since it looks like "47" is going to win the Popular Vote, does he get the Electrical Votes of DC, MD, NJ, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, MA, Vermont, CA, Rhode Island, NY, CT, CO, Delaware, NM, Oregon, Minn-a-Soda and Maine?? You know, under that "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) "??

Frank

[Swede425]

Aaaaaaaand Trump takes Michigan!
I knew something was up 90 days ago when I saw all the Trump signs up in Manistee, Michigan.
Deep blue Manistee.
That being said, it's still a disgrace that it took this long to determine his victory in Michigan. Florida did it in no time flat.
I guess ol' Jocelyn couldn't figure out a way to overcome the Trump votes.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I listened to the original oral argument (today’s date deals with the follow-up) and re-read the lower court opinion.

I hold to my sentiment addressed above. The Supreme Court reached out to decide an issue it did not need to decide.

The Supreme Court earlier had a chance to go a new way in free-exercise cases. Jensen v Quaring involved a woman who didn’t want to take a driver’s license photo for religious reasons. She was a Jehovah’s Witness and she saw it as a graven image.

The Court split 4-4. The case originally was 5-3 & she lost her case.

https://law.siu.edu/_common/documents/law-journal/articles-2008/fall-2008/1-mcgreal.pdf

As to the last footnote, I emailed the author years ago about the article. He said he was busy with other matters & never completed it. Meanwhile, the draft was somehow lost.

A quick search suggests it was never completed though it sounds like an interesting project.