Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

[Commenter_XY]

Yes...Happy Thanksgiving VC Conspirators!

There is so much in our lives to be thankful for. And we are truly blessed to be living in the United States.

[hobie]

If the Right is now saying positive things about our country, I'll drink to that as well

[SimonP]

Here's to another peaceful transfer of power! Let's keep the tradition going. The United States is truly unique in the world right now in our ability to get through tough political periods without devolving into catastrophic violence (save for that one time, of course, when we did). Here's hoping that another four years of incompetent governance by the Idiot-in-Chief will mollify the Dr. Eds that murmur darkly to themselves online.

My one hope is that the dipshits who voted for the Idiot-in-Chief will prove to have been an excellent judge of character, seeing through Trump's promises of radical and dramatic upheaval, to the root laziness and incompetence that allowed us to enjoy the Obama economy for another few years.

[Brett Bellmore]

Indeed, happy Thanksgiving!

[Bwaaah]

Indeed, it appears we have been blessed with another day of the miracle of life, and the miracle of cognizance to witness the miracle of existence. And food. And hopefully, with some luck, some fun.

A Happy Thanksgiving to all!

[Moderation4ever]

Second the thought.

[John F. Carr]

It's Christmas, not Thanksgiving, according to the decorative Santa I saw on a porch this morning.

[Mr. Bumble]

Can Valentine's Day be far behind.

[Magister]

It's just the twelve weeks of Christmas, like in the traditional carol.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and all these years I thought it was the 12 days.

[Magister]

That would be the days after Christmas, ending with the Epiphany. The twelve weeks are what stores start doing in September, sort of an anti-epiphany.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://hma.brown.edu/about/history

Yes, an 80 year old guy donates his land and his museum to Brown University in 1955 with the intention that his land and museum remain open to the public.

A bunch of Indians trespass on the land for a month, and instead of being arrested as they should have been, as the Jan 6 protestes have been, Brown decides to give them the land.

It may have been owned by the Indians -- but it *definitely* was owned by Elizabeth and Isaac Royall -- and stolen from them during the Revolutionary War because they were Loyalists. Even though the Treaty of Paris promised that the Loyalists would be compensated, they never were.

So if the Indians have the right to repossess their purportedly stolen land, why don't the Loyalists????

[Dr. Ed 2]

The other relevant url
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/this-is-pokanoket-land-brown-university-deeds-255-acres-why-it-s-a-historic-decision/ar-AA1us5TZ

It's historic all right -- don't donate to universities...

[AmosArch]

The ability to set your own laws and live in a micronation of sorts while also benefiting from and having a voice in the laws of the host country by itself is a really OP perk. Indians get a slew of them because they're the only people in the world to have had their ancestors oppressed apparently.

The only problem is that leftoids have trapped them, (well some of them, a group of the smarter ones are really successful), in a prison of self pity and overfixation on the past which is probably one of the worst crimes inflicted on them. If only there was a gibs we could hand out that could fix this as well.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"leftoids"

Etymology
From left +‎ -oid.

Noun

leftoid (plural leftoids)

(politics, Internet slang, derogatory) Leftist, left-winger

Antonyms

rightoid

Anagrams
dotfile

[Frank Drackman]

in their defense, the Indians had Reservations

[Bwaaah]

Don't we all?

[John F. Carr]

Is there any state review of such actions?

One of the jobs of the Attorney General of Massachusetts is ensuring that charitable gifts continue to be used for their intended purpose. The Attorney General – the office and not Andrea Campbell in particular – does not strike me as effective in this role.

[Krayt]

Given the legal strings attached, you'd think they'd do the necessary to prove it out in court, rather than just unilaterally change things in accordance with "you're a good person" neurons firing in their brains.

[bernard11]

Hard to blame Campbell for this, Brown being in RI after all.

[Joe_dallas]

fwiw - land donations of this type often have provisions that the land reverts back to the donor (or donor's heirs) if the land ceases to be used for the intended purpose.

[John F. Carr]

Doesn't that condition trigger the rule against perpetuities?

[Davy C]

It probably wouldn't yet if it was competently written. This was apparently donated in 1955. There are loads of people still alive that were alive at that time.

[AmosArch]

Whatever happened to the Rev? Sure he could get a bit annoying but I kind of miss his unhinged ranting. It really made the Volokh Conspiracy feel like the Volokh conspiracy. Although I don't agree with his politics at all I hope the guy himself is okay.

[Commenter_XY]

Rev Arthur is alive and well. He crossed the line with Professor Volokh and was shown the door (banned, and 86'ed).

Arthur, wherever you are, this Clinger says: Happy Thanksgiving

You have a good holiday, AmoArch. I need to start prepping the turkey, and stuffing it. Did a dog-friendly brine this year. 🙂

[Mr. Bumble]

...and you know this because?

[Commenter_XY]

Rev Arthur's disappearance came up months ago, Mr. Bumble. I am relating my recollection. Enjoy your holiday today.

[Mr. Bumble]

I realize the Rev. has been gone for months and commented about it at the time. What happened to him is unknown.
In any event have a Happy Thanksgiving.
Turkey is stuffed and in the oven, sides and pies are made.
Looking forward to a peaceful, thankful day with family.
Happy Thanksgiving.

[Bwaaah]

NOVA Lawyer reported the continued life of Resentful Arthur in this post on October 3: https://reason.com/volokh/2024/10/03/thursday-open-thread-211/?comments=true#comment-10746895

Happy Thanksgiving to Resentful Arthur. His "betters" are losers, the "hayseeds" are winners, and there's still plenty of hateful people carrying those torches.

[AmosArch]

So any guesses as to what he finally did that he didn't do all the years of spamming up the place/giving VC its familiar vibe? Or did V just get tired of him?

Thanks for the wishes btw have a good thanksgiving too.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It would appear that this was Kirkland's final post on this blog.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I have to say I disagreed with him on most substantive issues, but he did present the best possible arguments for the views he espoused.

[David Nieporent]

The soft bigotry of low expectations?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Hey, if it's bigotry, I'm in.

[Bwaaah]

Correction. That was written at 10:34 AM. Resentful Arthur posted this last message two minutes later.

In both cases, his last line was his most enduring line and thusly:

"Carry on, clingers."

He spoke in the end as I would have remembered him for the rest of my days had he not.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I stand corrected.

I suspect it's the post I linked to that's responsible for the banning.

[Bwaaah]

I suspect you are correct.

I think the only remarks that sting me here are the ones that cast Conspirators, such as EV, in an undeservedly negative light. It strikes me as a case of shooting the producers...the revenge of the peanut gallery...destructive instincts aimed at a would-be primary source.

[not guilty]

I don't know. Many years ago I was banned for referring to guns as surrogate penises. I was quickly reinstated.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Standards were very different many years ago, when posters would delete even moderately uncivil comments.

Currently, EV has said that his requirement is no vulgar personal insults directed at other commentors, but even that seems to be loosely enforced.

[Bwaaah]

"Many years ago I was banned for referring to guns as surrogate penises."

Good thing I haven't tripped over that one. I'm quite sure I've asserted the same on multiple occasions, and much more expressively than that, but probably not here.

My mother-in-law (god rest her soul) never liked when I talked that way. Still, I didn't like the way she handled her gun.

[Frank Drackman]

The very wrong Jerry Sandusky lost his Internets privileges, he'll be back, like Herpes.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I hope he's reading, this I miss be able to dunk on him over the massive string of Culture Losses our Culture War Betters have been taking lately.

[Bwaaah]

What about Nige? Does anybody remember Nige?

I think Sarc snatched him and locked him inside Sarc's bedroom closet. It was something about, "stealing what little bit of thunder there is for this level of thinking." Sarc gets to feel a little bit of victory every time he hears rustling in his closet.

[Mr. Bumble]

Nige being gone is another thing to be thankful for.
Always thought his style and content mirrored Il Douche's.
and that he was an alternate account.

[Bwaaah]

I thought Nige was typically more coherently wrong, and Il Douche typically less coherently wrong.

They both disappeared at the same time this summer, and then only one, Il Douche, returned. Coincidence?

Anyway, one of 'em gone is better than none.

[Sarcastr0]

What is this mean girls shit?

Stop being obsessed with posters.

[Martinned2]

The highly regarded macro-economists at the Dutch CPB, which does economic forecasting to support Dutch government policy, have released a study of the likely effects of the Trump trade barriers. Most of it deals with the effects on the Netherlands, but it also includes some conclusions about the US.

The CPB considered two scenarios.
1. A 10% import tax on everything, with 60% tax on Chinese imports and 100% tax on cars.
2. Everything in 1) plus a 10% retalliatory tariff on imports from the US into the EU.

For scenario 1 the authors estimate a reduction in US imports of 20.2% and a reduction in exports of 27.2%. The effect on Europe and the Netherlands is much smaller, in the order of 1%-2%.

In scenario 2 US imports fall by 21.3% and exports by 28.7%. The effects in Europe are also higher, but still around 1.7%.

Looking at individual sectors, the basic effect is that US manufacturing increases and services sectors are hurt. The EU effect is basically the mirror of that: less goods export to the US and more services.

https://www.cpb.nl/sites/default/files/omnidownload/CPB-publicatie-effect-van-amerikaanse-invoertarieven-op-de-nederlandse-en-europese-economie.pdf

[Dr. Ed 2]

If the US imports more than it exports, it will be hurt less.

The price of US exports is far more elastic than US imports.

[Martinned2]

If the US imports more than it exports, it will be hurt less.

For the record, that's bad economics. As a country, the position you want to be in is that you send very few goods abroad in return for lots of goods that the rest of the world sends to you. (And likewise for services.)

[Frank Drackman]

Looks like you learned your Economics from Manny, Moe, and Jack, it's not like the rest of the world just sends us stuff, we send them $$$, oh wait a minute, we give them increasingly worthless paper for cool shit, dammit, I'm the one who should listen to Manny, Moe, and Jack

[Davy C]

The problem comes in if/when they want to redeem their paper all at once.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And your tax policy should encourage this.

But if we import more than we export and there is a worldwide 50% reduction in trade, we will be hurt less.

[bernard11]

Why will we be hurt less? Mercantilism is long discredited, though Trump is doing his best to revive it as a policy.

[Nelson]

If you meant what you said (that a trade deficit indicates a healthy and strong capitalist market, and a good thing), I’m impressed. But I think you probably meant it the other way around, because you’re Dr. Ed and saying dumb things is something you’ve dedicated yourself to for the entire time I’ve been here.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Trump's already gotten Mexico to stop the Brown UN/Globalist Invasion of our Southern Border.

There are splash effects of the tariffs that these economists aren't considering.

Trump is good for America, he's good for the world. He's going to save humanity and White people. Today we should all give thanks to President Trump. Especially if you're White.

[SimonP]

Trump declared an emergency that didn't exist; he talked to a head of state who patiently explains why the emergency doesn't exist; Trump declares victory, and his Twitter hordes spread the news.

I am not looking forward to the next four years of this kind of bullshit deal-that-isn't-a-deal. But the MAGA supporters who busy themselves with carrying Trump's water need to understand one thing: this kind of easy manipulation by other world leaders does not bode well for America. Trump will look for false victories that he can spin for domestic audiences, and our rivals in the world are getting better at anticipating and providing these at little cost to themselves. We will lose, on every front, as long as this is how our foreign policy is negotiated.

[Nelson]

Yeah, Trump is as deep as a puddle and as easily manipulated as a teenage boy trying to get laid. It’s going to be a painful 4 years for people like me who love our country.

[Mr. Bumble]

Given the last four years you must have the love of a masochist.

[John F. Carr]

A 100% car tax would be huge. Is the hypothetical tariff on car parts or only on completely assembled cars?

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://dailycollegian.com/2024/11/rep-rashida-tlaib-calls-for-justice-in-gaza-during-sold-out-event/

Rashida Tlaib brags about disrupting a speech by Donald Trump. How exactly is that different from her speeches being disrupted?

At what point does "equal protection of the laws" come to play and preclude prosecution of MAGA folk who adopt the tactics of the left?

Trump is honor bound to pardon most of the Jan 6 political prisoners and what will be the consequences of that? What will be the consequences of Federal civil rights prosecutions of some of the people involved, particularly the jail officials?

Can a sitting Federal judge be prosecuted for civil rights violations without being first impeached?

[not guilty]

"Can a sitting Federal judge be prosecuted for civil rights violations without being first impeached?"

Yes, but why do you ask?

"Trump is honor bound to pardon most of the Jan 6 political prisoners and what will be the consequences of that? What will be the consequences of Federal civil rights prosecutions of some of the people involved, particularly the jail officials?"

Donald Trump is not bound by honor to do anything. He is a stranger to the concept of honor. Trump has the power to pardon whom he chooses. The only effect that a pardon would have on a future prosecution is that either side could compel the recipient of the pardon to testify, since the pardon would extinguish the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

"At what point does 'equal protection of the laws' come to play and preclude prosecution of MAGA folk who adopt the tactics of the left?"

At no point. “In our system, so long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion.” Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978) (footnote omitted). As a result, “[t]he presumption of regularity supports” their prosecutorial decisions and, “in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties.” United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996), quoting United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926).

[Frank Drackman]

Jimmuh Cartuh pardoned (OK, maybe it was some other legal instrument) hundreds of thousands of Draft Dodgers and even Patty Hearst (not a Draft Dodger), OK, he lost his re-erection bid, but "45/47" doesn't have to worry about it(have you heard the scheme to have Cums-a-lot be POTUS for a few weeks, just to screw up Trump's merchandise?)

Frank

[not guilty]

President Carter declared an amnesty for those who evaded the draft. He did not issue pardons.

[Frank Drackman]

Thanks for showing off your legal knowledge, what, no case references?

[Moderation4ever]

NG wrong it was a pardon, but there were conditions and violent acts were precluded from pardon.

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/proclamation-4483-granting-pardon-violations-selective-service-act

[Frank Drackman]

so "Not Guilty" was also "Not Correct"? I think Mark Twain had something to say about peoples like him

[Bwaaah]

Still, he Speaks with Authority!

[Dr. Ed 2]

It was only ten years from 1967 to 1977 and how the society had changed! What the left fails to understand is that rapid change can come again as the country swings right.

[not guilty]

I stand corrected. I was working from memory of an event nearly 50 years ago.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Because these DC judges in collusion with several rogue DOJ civil servants are intentionally violating the rights of many of these J6 political prisoners.

[not guilty]

Supporting facts, JHBHBE?

Who are the violators? Please name names.

What specific rights of the "J6 political prisoners" are being violated?

[Dr. Ed 2]

8th Amendment.

[Nelson]

Yes, the 8th Amendment makes people convicted of crimes through due process into victims who have had their rights violated. That’s totally what it says.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Read the reports about conditions in that jail.

[not guilty]

The Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment does not apply to pretrial detainees, Dr. Ed 2. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.16 (1979). Punishment without an adjudication of guilt violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process clause. The Supreme Court has recognized a distinction between punitive measures that may not constitutionally be imposed prior to a determination of guilt and regulatory restraints that may. Id., at 537. A court considering whether particular restrictions and conditions accompanying pretrial detention amount to punishment in the constitutional sense of that word must decide whether the disability is imposed for the purpose of punishment or whether it is but an incident of some other legitimate governmental purpose. Id., at 538.

Some of the occupants of the D.C. jail have of course been sentenced. But the District Court judges sentencing offenders to confinement order the Attorney General to take custody of the prisoner. At that point, where the offender is housed while confined no longer is within the control of the District Court.

[Nelson]

What, do you think the jail they’re in is the only disgusting, shitty one? Or have you decided that unacceptable jail conditions is an issue that should be addressed immediately and you are dedicating your life to it?

[David Nieporent]

He means that white people shouldn't be subject to them.

[bernard11]

Dr. Ed, vigorous advocate for prison reform.

[not guilty]

"Because these DC judges in collusion with several rogue DOJ civil servants are intentionally violating the rights of many of these J6 political prisoners."

Still waiting, JHBHBE. Who are the violators? Please name names.

What specific rights of the "J6 political prisoners" are being violated?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Hey dipshit, didn't you see what SCOTUS ruled? wtf some "lawyer" you are.

[David Nieporent]

It did not rule that anyone did anything wrong or that any rights were violated.

[not guilty]

What SCOTUS ruling do you refer to, JHBHBE?

And you still haven't answered my questions. Who specifically are the violators, and what specific rights of the "J6 political prisoners" are being violated?

[Nelson]

“ Rashida Tlaib brags about disrupting a speech by Donald Trump. How exactly is that different from her speeches being disrupted?”

It isn’t. Rashida Talib is an idiot. You should ignore what she says, like most people do.

The rest of your post is just weird.

[Krayt]

It isn’t. Rashida Talib is an idiot. You should ignore what she says, like most people do.

Time was, right-wing talking heads called Trump a 4D chessmaster for calling out to national attention "The Squad's" idiocy.

This was hardly the only time talking head apologetics recast his off the cuff, unedited stream of consciousness as a conscious stroke of genius.

[not guilty]

The United States has now moved the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss its appeal in the Mar-a-Lago documents case as to Donald Trump, but not as to Trump's codefendants. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822.79.0.pdf The government's reply brief was filed this past Tuesday. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25418140/usa-reply-brief.pdf

Briefing is now complete, and the Court of Appeals has more than seven weeks to rule before Trump takes office as President. In the event of reversal, Trump's DOJ will no doubt move the District Court to dismiss the indictment as to the remaining defendants, but I surmise that the appellate court is eager to vacate Judge Cannon's abominable order in the meantime.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...but I surmise that the appellate court is eager to vacate Judge Cannon's abominable order in the meantime."
What gives you reason for your surmise?

[not guilty]

Because Judge Cannon has embarrassed the federal judiciary. The Court of Appeals has previously spanked her twice, but she didn't learn her lesson.

Now that Donald Trump is himself no longer at risk of prosecution, I suspect that Trump will actually want broad latitude to appoint Special Counsels himself. I doubt that Trump will be sorry to see Cannon rebuked for the third time.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your TDS is still strong.
Shouldn't the manner of appointment of "Special Counsels" be settled?

[not guilty]

It was settled in 1974 when SCOTUS upheld the Acting Attorney General Robert Bork's appointment of Leon Jaworski. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 697 (1974) ("It would be inconsistent with the applicable law and regulation, and the unique facts of this case to conclude other than that the Special Prosecutor has standing to bring this action and that a justiciable controversy is presented for decision.")

[Commenter_XY]

Is that case US v Nixon 'on all corners', NG?

(hope I got usage right)

[not guilty]

The idiom is "on all fours." And yes, Nixon here is on all fours, despite Judge Cannon's refusal to recognize that. Compare, In re Grand Jury Investigation, 916 F.3d 1047, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 2019) ("The question whether Congress has 'by law' vested appointment of Special Counsel Mueller in the Attorney General has already been decided by the Supreme Court [i]n United States v. Nixon , 418 U.S. 683, 694, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974).) See also In re Sealed Case, 829 F.2d 50 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

[Commenter_XY]

Ah hell....I have to laugh at my inability here, but I will eventually get it right.

Do you think the 11th circuit will rule expeditiously (before Hanukah), or after the new year?

[not guilty]

I don't know when the Eleventh Circuit will rule. The case will not become moot when Trump takes office. Even if it remains pending then and the government moves for dismissal of the appeal as to the remaining defendants, the court need not grant such a motion.

[Riva]

So, the court will just steamroll ahead notwithstanding that Smith has quit and has scurried back to hide from justice at the Hague? Two parties? We don't need no stinkin' 2 parties to retain jurisdiction.

But as for Smith, kind of appropriate to hide out at the Hague since the ICC is lawless. The perfect hole in the wall.

[not guilty]

Assuming the motion to dismiss as to Donald Trump will be granted, the remaining parties to the appeal will be the United States as Appellant and Waltine Nauta and Carlos DeOliveira as Defendant-Appellees.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Assuming the other defendants agree (and it’s hard to imagine why they wouldn’t), then in fact it need. See Fed. R. App. P 42(b).

[Riva]

So, it is irrelevant in your analysis that the office of the thug Smith no longer exists because the little coward will have quit (or been fired if he doesn't)? And you assume the US will still be in opposition and supporting Smith's arguments (such as they are) in the new administration? This case is over. period. paragraph. end of story. Deal with it.

[not guilty]

"So, it is irrelevant in your analysis that the office of the thug Smith no longer exists because the little coward will have quit (or been fired if he doesn't)? And you assume the US will still be in opposition and supporting Smith's arguments (such as they are) in the new administration? This case is over. period. paragraph. end of story. Deal with it."

Wrong, Riva. Jack Smith is not a party to the case. His client, the United States, is the appellant. When Smith leaves office, the United States will continue to be represented by the Department of Justice.

The parties can stipulate to a dismissal of the appeal under Fed.R.App.P. 42(b)(1). For that reason I expect that the Eleventh Circuit will issue its ruling during the seven weeks or so before Donald Trump takes office.

That having been said, now that Trump is out of danger of prosecution himself, I am not sure that Trump's DOJ will want its power to appoint Special Counsels circumscribed, for reasons I have explained elsewhere on this thread. (Especially in cases where Todd Blanche needs to recuse himself.)

[Riva]

When Smith quits his office, the issue of the unconstitutional appoint of this officer ends. The only order that will issue from the 11th circuit is dismissing this appeal as moot. And the DOJ under President Trump and AG Bondi will not continue this lawfare crap.

You're not dealing with reality yet. Put a fork in this case, it's done.

[Kazinski]

Well, I don’t know about that NG, I think it’s clear Trump wants to take a wrecking ball to DOJ, and restricting the nextadministration to Special Counsel’s that have been confirmed by congress seems to fit that bill.

The other co-defendants knowing a pardon is available in the case should be willing to continue the case if Trump wants it to continue.

[Riva]

The passing comments in Nixon are what is known as dicta. Unpersuasive dicta at that. And bad law from the DC Circuit is also not very persuasive in the 11th Circuit.

[Riva]

In sum, the question was in no way decided by Nixon. The issue of the Attorney General’s appointment authority was not raised, briefed, argued, or disputed before the Nixon Court. As noted above, the Nixon passing commentary on this point is DICTA.

[David Nieporent]

Bot doesn't know the definitions of words; just repeats things fed to it from social media. The ruling was not "passing commentary," but rather was essential to the holding, which is the exact opposite of dicta.

[Riva]

You really are quite an ignorant ass. 24/7, 365 days a year. Do I need to repeat that the issue of the Attorney General’s appointment authority was not raised, briefed, argued, or disputed in Nixon? That Nixon argued that the case raised a nonjusticiable political question based on the intra-branch nature of the dispute? That the passing reference to statutory authority was not essential to that analysis and nothing in that decision indicated any reliance on those passing remarks? I guess I do. Because, as noted above, you're an ignorant ass.

[David Nieporent]

Do I need to repeat that you're wrong, that if there was no statutory authority to appoint Jaworski then the case would've been moot, meaning that a finding that there was such statutory authority was essential to the holding. And the Court did find that there was such statutory authority.

[Riva]

They certainly could have made a ruling on the statutory appointment authority, if someone had raised the issue. No one did so they did not decide that question and went on to rule on the matters that were at issue. There was an immunity decision last summer. A ruling on the authority to appoint Smith would have rendered that case moot. Are you seriously contending that Trump v. United States stands as precedent upholding the constitutionality of the Smith appointment?

[not guilty]

"There was an immunity decision last summer. A ruling on the authority to appoint Smith would have rendered that case moot. Are you seriously contending that Trump v. United States stands as precedent upholding the constitutionality of the Smith appointment?"

I can't speak for what David does or doesn't contend, but actually if Judge Cannon's reasoning were correct, SCOTUS would have been obliged to consider the issue sua sponte, in that it goes to whether a case or controversy was present. Only one member of the Court went there, though. So inferentially, Trump v. United States indeed does stand as precedent upholding the constitutionality of the Smith appointment, just as United States v. Nixon is precedent upholding Leon Jaworski's appointment by Robert Bork.

[Riva]

NG, obviously this is your idea of a joke. Not really all that funny.

Judge Cannon's reasoning would in no way have required the Court to consider, sua sponte, the constitutionality of Smith's appointment. That's absurd. Among the authorities cited in Cannon's order: “The Court often grants certiorari to decide particular legal issues while assuming without deciding the validity of antecedent propositions, and such assumptions—even on jurisdictional issues—are not binding in future cases that directly raise the questions.”

Trump v. United States is absolutely NOT authority that upholds the constitutionality of the Smith appointment. Not even that hack Smith tried to allege that.

[David Nieporent]

I actually agree with the bot on that narrow point, but not for his dumb logic — instead, for the reason you boldfaced in a comment yesterday: Smith is not a party to the case. The case is U.S. v. Trump, and whether or not Smith was validly appointed has nothing to do with the existence of a case or controversy between the parties. But of course for that exact same reason, dismissal was utterly unsupportable even if Smith wasn't validly appointed.

[Riva]

Just so you know crazy Dave, the statutory appointment authority of the AG was NOT essential to the determination of the nonjusticiable political question related to the intra-branch nature of the dispute in Nixon. But even more fundamentally illustrative of your trollish ignorance, you have claimed Nixon V US is precedent for upholding the AGs statutory appointment authority of a special counsel and would have been determinative of the case but then argue that the resolution of this issue adversely to the US, if it actually were raised and argued, would really have not have mattered in US v Trump. The only point to draw is the obvious. A-hole trolls like you don't honestly exchange views. Don't know what motivates you. Some studies suggest trolls have characteristics associated with sadism, psychopathy, and narcissism. It may you're just a relatively ignorant activist of some sort, but still, look into the sadism, psychopathy, and narcissism, for your own mental health.

[David Nieporent]

Just so you know crazy Dave, the statutory appointment authority of the AG was NOT essential to the determination of the nonjusticiable political question related to the intra-branch nature of the dispute in Nixon.

Every judge to have considered the question except Aileen Cannon disagrees.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You need to say “four corners” or just “fours”, but yes.

And the answer to your question is yes: the discussion in Nixon was about a special prosecutor appointed under the same statutory authority claimed with respect to Smith: in other words, it was analyzing exactly the same legal issue at play. (If it had been analyzing a different but similarly worded statute, you might say something like, “Nixon isn’t quite on all fours with this situation, but it is instructive.”)

[Commenter_XY]

I am getting there....oh so slowly. 🙂

[Riva]

Nope. The language on the appointment of the special counsel is dicta. And the language you quote has nothing to do with the power, or lack thereof, to appoint the special counsel.

[Noscitur a sociis]

1. Whether or not it’s dicta (NB: it’s not), it’s certainly in all fours, which is the question being asked.

2. The case said:

Under the authority of Art. II, § 2, Congress has vested in the Attorney General the power to conduct the criminal litigation of the United States Government. 28 U.S.C. § 516. It has also vested in him the power to appoint subordinate officers to assist him in the discharge of his duties. 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515, 533. Acting pursuant to those statutes, the Attorney General has delegated the authority to represent the United States in these particular matters to a Special Prosecutor with unique authority and tenure.

Do you see how that might have something to do with the Attorney General’s authority to appoint a special prosecutor?

[Riva]

No I don't see that at all. The issue of the Attorney General’s appointment authority was not raised, briefed, argued, or disputed in Nixon. The passing remarks are NOT binding precedent. As noted by Judge Cannon, the comments were "located within a prefatory, stage-setting paragraph which merely served to tee up the case-or-controversy analysis that followed." As Cannon further explained, "Nixon had argued that the case presented a nonjusticiable political question by virtue of the intra-branch nature of the dispute....To be sure, two features were essential to the justiciability holding: (1) the nature of the parties’ relationship as defined in the very broad delegation of authority in the regulation; and (2) the fact that the regulation had not been revoked. But Nixon’s passing reference to statutory authority was not essential to the analysis, and nothing in the remainder of the decision suggests that the Supreme Court was reasoning from its earlier passing remark…."

And given that these brief, passing comments were neither thoroughly reasoned nor recent, they are no in way persuasive dicta. The legal reality is that the AG has zero such statutory appointment authority. If this case were to proceed, Smith would have lost, if not at the 11th Circuit, definitely in the S.Ct. Or, at least, that dicta alone would not have controlled any ultimate decision.

[not guilty]

Uh, nothing by SCOTUS going to whether a case is or is not justiciable can be dicta. That goes to whether a case or controversy is presented, which is a matter of Article III standing. Every federal court must consider that sua sponte if it is not raised by the parties.

As the D.C. Circuit opined in Om re Grand Jury Investigation, 916 F.3d 1047 (D.C. Cir. 2019):

But Miller misreads Nixon, for the Supreme Court was presented with the question whether a justiciable controversy existed. When the Special Prosecutor issued a subpoena to the President to produce certain recordings and documents, the President moved to quash the subpoena, asserting a claim of executive privilege, [United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S, 683,] 688, 94 S.Ct. 3090,and maintained the claim was nonjusticiable because it was "intra-executive" in character, id. at 689, 94 S.Ct. 3090. The Supreme Court held there was a justiciable controversy because the regulations issued by the Attorney General gave the Special Prosecutor authority to contest the President's invocation of executive privilege during the investigation. Id. at 695–97, 94 S.Ct. 3090. In this analysis, the Attorney General's statutory authority to issue the regulations was a necessary antecedent to determining whether the regulations were valid, and, therefore, was necessary to the decision that a justiciable controversy existed. The Supreme Court's quoted statement regarding the Attorney General's power to appoint subordinate officers is, therefore, not dictum.

Even if it were considered as dictum, the Eleventh Circuit has opined that "there is dicta and then there is dicta, and then there is Supreme Court dicta." Schwab v. Crosby, 451 F.3d 1308, 1325 (11th Cir. 2006). There the Court of Appeals elaborated, id. at 1325-1326):

We have previously recognized that "dicta from the Supreme Court is not something to be lightly cast aside." Peterson v. BMI Refractories, 124 F.3d 1386, 1392 n.4 (11th Cir. 1997); United States v. Becton, 632 F.2d 1294, 1296 n.3 (5th Cir. 1980) ("We are not bound by dicta, even of our own court. . . . Dicta of the Supreme Court are, of course, another matter.") (citation omitted); see United States v. City of Hialeah, 140 F.3d 968, 974 (11th Cir. 1998) ("Even though that statement by the Supreme Court . . . was dictum, it is of considerable persuasive value, especially because it interprets the Court's own precedent.").

Judge Loose Cannon, who has long been in the tank for Donald Trump, simply got it wrong. I expect that the Eleventh Circuit will rebuke her for the third time.

[Riva]

Why the book long nonsense? Do you think it somehow is more convincing? There will be no decision from the 11th circuit, apart from dismissing the appeal. The lawfare ends when the “office” of the special counsel ends. Smith is quitting and scurrying back to The Hague. Next up is some accountability for this crap. Deal with it.

[Riva]

Cut and paste the entire DC circuit decision in response if you like, the bad reasoning doesn’t become more compelling.

[David Nieporent]

There will be no decision from the 11th circuit, apart from dismissing the appeal.

He's desperately hoping it's true because he knows that if there is a decision it won't come out his way.

[SimonP]

It's remarkable to me that your read on, "Trump's likely to be in favor of an outcome that protects himself while preserving power," is just "TDS."

Trump is not a complex or principled man. Isn't it obvious that - if someone could explain the legal ramifications to him perhaps via a picture book - he would agree that he wants "special counsel" authority, as a useful tool for going after enemies?

[Magister]

It seems unlikely that he would care about any circumstance that might prompt his own appointees to recuse; those who won't mete out his retribution will be fired and replaced by more sycophantic lackeys. That resulting convictions might be thrown out by some court is largely irrelevant; we've heard here that the process is the punishment and that the prosecutions won't depend on actual crimes anyway.

He might want special prosecutors for the same reason he wanted military parades and record inauguration crowds, to self-aggrandize in comparison to other presidents.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump has declared his attention to nominate his lead criminal defense lawyer, Todd Blanche, as Deputy Attorney General. The DAG is traditionally the official who runs the day to day operations of the Department of Justice.

If Blanche is confirmed, and of the Trump Administration is serious about pursuing criminal prosecution of those officials who have investigated and/or prosecuted Trump while he was out of office, the potential for conflict there is gargantuan. Even if Blanche were to recuse himself from particular matters, he would remain in the chain of command of those who are prosecuting.

The prudent thing to do would be to appoint a Special Counsel as to any matter as to which Blanche would himself be conflicted. If that doesn't happen, future defendants in those matters could seek disqualification of the entire DOJ, and the grounds therefor could be compelling.

I seriously doubt that the incoming Trump administration wants to be hamstrung regarding the appointment of Special Counsels.

[Riva]

I would say the potential for accountability and justice to finally be done is gargantuan. And if President Trump wants to constitutionally appoint special counsel himself to address this matter, I'm good with that.

[not guilty]

So you are now good with the appointment of Special Counsels, Riva? As Tommy Duncan sang with Bob Wills and the Texas Playboys, Time Changes Everything. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT3o2NrW6Es

Except that Riva remains just as full of shit as ever.

[Riva]

"Full of shit"? I guess the holiday spirit is over. But before you lose yourself in more bad music reveries on youtube, you should probably reread my comment. I did not suggest another unconstitutional appointment by the AG. I made reference to a constitutional appointment by the president.

[John F. Carr]

"Prudent" is not a word I expect to guide the Trump administration's retaliation plan. What legal principle governs involuntary disqualification of prosecutors based on conflicts elsewhere in the Department of Justice? Even a special counsel is responsible to the Attorney General.

[Riva]

What was embarrassing was Smith’s appellate brief. I confess that I didn’t have much faith in the 11th circuit’s ability to faithfully review this matter, but Smith’s brief was so strikingly lacking that I had new hope.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Has Jack Smith been getting paid since Judge Cannon’s order was issued? If so, that would be a vehicle to get a binding decision on this without continuing the actual prosecution. I agree that his institutional interests now support the validity of special prosecutors, although it’s anyone’s guess whether he or Bondi are likely to be able to recognize that.

[John F. Carr]

Seven weeks is quick by the standards of federal Courts of Appeals. I predict, without much confidence, that the court will wait to see if the Trump administration dismisses the rest of the appeal. There is no reason to rush to issue an advisory opinion on a question that arises so rarely.

The case could become moot in other ways too. The US Attorney for Florida could ratify the actions of the special counsel or seek new indictments. Trump could pardon the remaining defendants.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Thursday, November 28, 2024, as a National Day of Thanksgiving. I encourage the people of the United States of America to join together and give thanks for the friends, neighbors, family members, and communities who have supported each other over the past year in a reflection of goodwill and unity.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2024/11/27/a-proclamation-on-thanksgiving-day-2024/

Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you for your service.

[Mr. Bumble]

He forgot to include thanks that Donald Trump was elected president rather than his vice president.
Something to be truly grateful for.

[Martinned2]

Thanksgiving for what?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Poor Joe Biden, he spent all his life wanting to be President and now doesn't even know that he is.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Former New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez asked a judge on Wednesday to grant him a new trial in his bribery case due to news that prosecutors found improper evidence placed on computers accessed by jurors.

His legal team filed papers in Manhattan court, saying a new trial is “unavoidable.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/3245024/menendez-requests-new-trial-prosecutors-admit-error/

[Commenter_XY]

Accidentally, on purpose? = error by prosecution

[not guilty]

Why would the prosecution want to risk having to try the case twice?

[Commenter_XY]

NG, they don't try it again. That was the 'accidentally on purpose' aspect.

[not guilty]

No, the remedy for an error such as this is a new trial. If the District Court grants a new trial, or if that court and the Second Circuit find the error to be prejudicial rather than harmless, I expect the DOJ will retry Menendez.

[Noscitur a sociis]

With respect, this doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. If they didn’t want Menendez to be convicted, they could have just not charged him in the first placed.

[Mr. Bumble]

Because they are a bunch of stupid Martinets who think they can do whatever they want and not be held accountable?

[Brett Bellmore]

Or a ploy by the defense, I suppose.

[not guilty]

How so, Brett? That doesn't make a lick of sense.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure it does: If he's heading into a sure conviction, additional evidence of his guilt before the jury doesn't hurt him, but it just might get him a second trial.

[not guilty]

So defense counsel intentionally tank the first trial based on a remote chance of getting a do-over at a second trial, where the evidence that you speculate was "heading into a sure conviction" will be introduced all over again? With Melendez (likely) sitting in prison during pendency of the appeal and then while awaiting retrial? (In federal court bail pending appeal is the exception rather than the rule.)

No, Brett, jury trials don't work that way.

[Noscitur a sociis]

According to the article, the evidence as documents trying Menendez to military aid to Egypt, which had been specifically excluded. Also according to the article, it he defense team had a chance to review the laptops before they were given to the jury.

Certainly the most likely explanation is that everyone just missed it. But I don’t think it’s completely crazy that the defense realized the prosecutors had goofed and decided to sandbag them by planting the seeds for a new trial. Not likely, maybe, but conceivable. As opposed to Commenter_XY’s “theory”, which isn’t.

[David Nieporent]

I think that's completely crazy. Laypeople always come up with this idea where defense attorneys deliberately screw up so that it can create an IAC defense if their clients are convicted, giving them two bites at the apple. It's just insane.

[Commenter_XY]

David, what stops the prosecution from deciding that although a new trial was granted, the interests of justice would not be served by moving forward.

This is not at all possible, not in any universe. Is that correct?

BTW, what happened the last time Senator Menendez was tried?

[David Nieporent]

This is not at all possible, not in any universe. Is that correct?

No, that's not correct. In state court (which doesn't apply to Menendez) that could certainly happen. In federal court — as we've discussed before — once a criminal case has been commenced it can only be dismissed if the judge agrees. But the judge effectively can't force a prosecutor to prosecute, so if the DOJ decides it won't move forward, the case is effectively over.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What is everyone thankful for?

In the worldly sense, I'm thankful for family (most of them) and friends.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thankful to be Living in the USA and not Ukraine.
Things are looking pretty bleak there.
https://thespectator.com/topic/how-could-ukraine-survive-deserter-crisis/

[Riva]

Let’s just hope the Big Guy doesn’t provoke WWIII by allowing Ukraine to lob long range missiles into Russia. Then things will be pretty bleak everywhere. Trump’s inauguration can’t come soon enough.

[Nelson]

Yeah, sure. Ukraine is going to start WWIII and it’s going to be Biden’s fault. It’s almost like you have forgotten who started the war in Ukraine in the first place.

Hint: it’s the failed, irrelevant nation and their psychopathic leader, Vladimir “why does everyone think the Soviet Union was evil” Putin.

[Riva]

Long range US made and supplied missiles with US support and US permissions. Imagine if Cuba had Russian missiles and Russia gave the green light to target the continental US? Wait. You don't have to imagine. It was called the Cuban missile crisis. And it nearly provoked WWIII without any missiles being placed or fired.

And, just so you know, Russia retaliated for the Ukraine strike, with a missile fully capable of carrying a nuclear payload, forturnately it did not. This time.

[David Nieporent]

There were not U.S. troops in Cuba at the time of the Cuban missile crisis.

[Voize of Reazon]

Well ... Guantanamo Bay Naval Base wasn't abandoned, though 2700 civilians were evacuated.

[Riva]

What? I have no idea WTF you're trying to say. Are you drunk already? What is your point?

[David Nieporent]

That after A invades B, A cannot complain when B responds. If the U.S. had invaded Cuba, then the missiles placed there would've been justified.

[Riva]

You grasp of the danger here is Biden level inept. The thing that perturbs the Russians is the US made long range missiles being fired into their territory, which is why they responded with a missile that very well could have been nuclear. Their message was don't f'ing do it again or you won't like the next response. Nuclear powers don't like it when other nuclear powers have their long missiles missies fired into their homeland, even when proxies do it and regardless of A invading B or whatever.

[David Nieporent]

Nobody likes having missiles hit them, but Russia is the aggressor. "How dare you fight back after we invaded you?!?!?" is not a thing.

Putin is evil — which is why he and Trump are on the same side — but there's nothing to indicate that he's suicidal, which is what his use of nuclear weapons would be. You pro-Putin people have been playing the "World War III is imminent" card every time we increase assistance to Russia in any way. And of course it never happens, because it's just a talking point.

[Riva]

Putin is a bad actor. But virtue signaling righteous indignation over his wrongs with nuclear war threatening provocation is probably not the most prudent way to go.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Putin doesn't have the balls to start WWIII. If the encountered serious resistance from the west, he'd leave Ukraine tomorrow.

[Brett Bellmore]

Relative health, and a loving family.

[SRG2]

I go along with that,

[John F. Carr]

Most Wanted terrorist Daniel Andreas San Diego has been captured in Wales. He is a vegan Linux fan. More relevant to the FBI, he is suspected of involvement of two bombings in California in 2003, probably in support of some animal rights agenda. I think that was around peak animal rights violence and things have calmed down a lot in the past two decades.

https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/daniel-andreas-san-diego

[John F. Carr]

X (ex-Twitter) has objected to the purported sale of Alex Jones' and Infowars' X accounts. The accounts, distinguished from the content, are not transferrable personal property.

Accounts on X are governed by the X Terms of Service (“TOS”). Under both the Prepetition TOS and the Current TOS, all right, title, and interest in and to X Corp.’s services, including X Corp.’s various websites, SMS, APIs, email notifications, applications, buttons, widgets, ads, commerce services, and other covered services (collectively, the “Services”) are X Corp.’s “exclusive property. ” See Prepetition TOS § 4; Current TOS § 4. X Corp., as the owner of the Services, grants each user “a personal, worldwide, royalty-free, non-assignable and non-exclusive license to use the software provided” to use the Services. See Prepetition TOS § 4 (emphasis added); Current TOS § 4 (same). In contrast to the Services, the account holders own the Content (as defined in the TOS) they submit, post, or display on or through the Services; however, the Content is distinct and separate from the Services.
[...]
For the reasons described herein, X Corp. respectfully submits that the X Accounts may not be sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred as part of the Sale nor can any X account, including any maintained personally by Jones, including the Jones X Account, be sold to any third party.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsb.459750/gov.uscourts.txsb.459750.937.0.pdf

The document cites In re Celsius Network LLC, 647 B.R. 631, 648 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2023), which I have not studied.

[Voize of Reazon]

In Re: CTLI, LLC, 528 B.R. 359 (Bankr. SD Texas 2015) found that Facebook and Twitter accounts were assignable property of a company's estate in bankuptcy. It concerned control of the accounts, not of the hardware and software (X's "Services") or Content (that X admits it doesn't own).

[Krayt]

Yes, but do they legally have a monetary value, and so count for paying down financial judgements?

Does such a judgement include transfers of $0?

[Voize of Reazon]

X disputes the ownership of the accounts, not their sale price.

[John F. Carr]

If X locks the accounts after the sale, is that a contract dispute or contempt of a bankruptcy court?

[Voize of Reazon]

Is there a court order that compels them to not lock the accounts?

[John F. Carr]

Bankruptcy law comes with injunctions and I don't know if the sale is legally an order, a declaration of rights, something else, or a combination of the preceding.

[Voize of Reazon]

So far there is only a proposed order but it says in relevant part:

[T]he Trustee is authorized to assume and assign the agreements related to the Social Media Accounts and listed on Exhibit A (the “Assumed and Assigned Contracts”) attached to the Motion free and clear of all liens, claims and encumbrances of any kind or nature whatsoever.
[...]
The Assumed and Assigned Contracts shall remain in full force and effect for the benefit of the purchaser(s) in accordance with their respective terms, notwithstanding any provision in any such Assumed and Assigned Contracts [...] that prohibits, restricts, or conditions such assignment or transfer.

So, nothing that restricts X. The only recent change is to clarify that contracts listed in the schedule don't transfer if it is determined that they are not owned by the estate after all.

[Frank Drackman]

Wales? imagine his surprise when he found out Welsh Rarebit (For years I thought it was "Welsh Rabbit", maybe don't rely on Gomer Pyle episodes for your culinary knowledge) doesn't contain Rabbit. Here's wishing him many years in fabulous Gitmo (would being only miles from several wonderful Jamaican/Cuban restaurants be considered "Torture")

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Parkinsonian Joe blithering about the Jizz-bulla/Israel Ceasefire, he hollerin bout the back rent, ain't gonna get none of it, will someone tell him there was a "Ceasefire" with Ham-ass on October 7?

Frank

[John F. Carr]

A Chinese ship is suspected of cutting two telecommunications cables in the Baltic sea and doing so under direction of Russian intelligence. The cables are laid on the sea bed and a large ship can easily cut them by dragging its anchor. The water in the shipping lane is so deep that there is no reason to intentionally drop anchor there.
In other news, a German intelligence official said

The extensive use of hybrid measures by Russia increases the risk that NATO will eventually consider invoking its Article 5 mutual defence clause.

Happy WW3, everybody. Perhaps it will be non-nuclear.

[Dr. Ed 2]

At least in American waters, cable areas are clearly marked -- they were purple on the old paper charts, not sure about the new electronic ones.

As I understand International law, the ship that dragged the anchor is responsible for replacing the cable, it doesn't matter if it is an accident or not.

A 50% tariff on all Chinese goods would be a wakeup call for Peking.

[John F. Carr]

The location of the cables is well known and marked on some electronic charts.

[Krayt]

When the first plane hit on 9/11, I wondered what kind of mistake it was.

When the second hit, I tried to imagine what kind of systemic error was happening that would guide two planes into oblivion on a clear day, did the pilots go pee right as a cocked up buggy guidance system flew the plane?

I stopped assuming the honest, best behaviors of people were the default that day.

[Nelson]

“ A 50% tariff on all Chinese goods would be a wakeup call for Peking.”

Yeah, Americans paying more for pretty much everything will really show those Chinese bastards.

Are the MAGA faithful really so ignorant that they still believe tariffs aren’t going to hurt American consumers?

[Commenter_XY]

Maybe you can answer this one. Why didn't inflation and prices spike the last time Pres Trump imposed tariffs? That is the objective data. Can you explain it?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

They did, you ignorant retard.

[Commenter_XY]

I recall very benign inflation. Certainly lower than what we have experienced under POTUS Biden (who kept the tariffs in place).

[Sarcastr0]

You not noticing the effects of the targeted tariffs doesn't mean they weren't deleterious.

Washing machine prices sure did go up (https://www.nber.org/papers/w25767)
The steel industry just cut jobs (https://econofact.org/steel-tariffs-and-u-s-jobs-revisited).

The proposed wider tariffs would likely not be similarly beneath your notice.

That being said, Trump's choice for Treasure Secretary has basically said it's all a negotiation tactic and not to worry:
https://www.barrons.com/articles/trump-scott-bessent-treasury-secretary-4d5525f1

I don't like the risk here, but the smart money based on this pick is on Trump declaring an early victory and moderating a lot.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Watch this and perhaps you might be less of a worthless idiot.

https://youtu.be/_V8mE3xmtLw?si=Hj4vRpQu8Dd0_E9l

[Bwaaah]

Have you considered advancing arguments in which you don't include evidence of your douchebaggery? They would be more compelling.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Your inability to process information unless it is presented with candies and blowjobs is not my problem. I am not now, nor will I ever be kind to that bloodthirsty shit.

Notably, it seems that you have nothing to say about the tariffs themselves, or the video, or C_XY's blatant lie.

[Malika the Maiz]

All Presidential Thanksgiving proclamations collected here:

https://pilgrimhall.org/thanksgiving_proclamations.htm

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Ooh, I like this one from 1863:

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – A PROCLAMATION

The year that is drawing toward its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the
source from which they come, others have been added which are of so extraordinary a nature that they can not fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the everwatchful providence of Almighty God.

"In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign states to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere, except in the theater of military conflict, while that theater has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defense have not arrested the plow, the shuttle, or the ship; the ax has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege, and the battlefield, and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

"It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens.

"And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners, or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore if, as soon as may be consistent with the divine purpose, to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity, and union.

"In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be
affixed.

"Done at the city of Washington, this 3d day of October A.D. 1863, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-eighth.

"ABRAHAM LINCOLN

[Brett Bellmore]

A reminder of why we can't just ban gerrymandering: Democrats and Republicans have different ideas of what the word means!

On the left is how NC Democrats drew NC-12. On the right is how NC Republicans drew NC-12.

Democrats insist that the map on the right is gerrymandered, and the map on the left isn't... All they mean by "gerrymander" in the end is, "not advantageous to Democrats."

[Mr. Bumble]

There is the King's English, American English and Democrat English.

[Moderation4ever]

Maybe the answer is that neither Republican nor Democrats should be drawing the boundaries. Perhaps the best case for all states is to have a nonpartisan committee draw the boundaries.

BTW - neither Republicans nor Democrats draws the boundaries, paid consultants do the work.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe have AI give it a try.

[SRG2]

No - don't you see? It's bad when Democrats do it, but when Republicans do it it's ok because Democrats did it.

[Mr. Bumble]

It's bad when either party does it. See Brett below.

[Don Nico]

Look, gerrymandring is as old as the US. During the FDR years, Team-D gerrymandered districts that led to 40 years of a D-controlled House. Obviously one cannot gerrymander the Senate.

Sso, top whining, what goes around comes around.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Or we could actually try to control it to make things better. Gerrymandering is one of the prime culprits ruining the institutions of government in this country.

[Nelson]

THIS!!!!

[Don Nico]

That never has worked for >200 years. As humans, we are no better now than we were then.
Sorry to be so cynical. Happy Thanksgiving.

[Brett Bellmore]

I have personally advocated a system where a computer is used to generate a large set of potential maps, all of which are generated without any information concerning race or politics, but which satisfy criteria of compactness, equal population, and respecting natural boundaries.

You would then allow each of N ballot qualified parties to eliminate 1/(N+1) of the maps, in a process similar to voir dire.

Then the map to actually be used would be selected from the remaining maps by bingo cage.

[Brett Bellmore]

This would be very hard on incumbents, but that's a feature...

[Nelson]

I would call that a major selling point.

[Don Nico]

No that would make it nearly impossible to pass into law.

[Nelson]

True. But I didn’t mean a major selling point to politicians.

[SRG2]

That is an excellent idea.

[hobie]

Yes, I would favor Brett's suggestion. Because it is not enough to ban politicians from choosing their own voters. As Noscitur alludes to below, a redistricting commission is just more partisan humans which makes for more possible shenanigans. Take all humans out of it and give AI a crack. Matter of fact, I'm now throwing my support for ChatGPT as president

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I like it!

[Nelson]

This is an excellent plan. Unfortunately it would have to be passed into law by the very people who would be threatened by it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

And how would the member of this commission be selected?

[Mr. Bumble]

By partisan politicians?

[Malika the Maiz]

Democracy is not about land but people (demos). Any districting which allows consistent majorities in the legislature with minorities of the vote of the people is immoral, call it what you will.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We live in a REPUBLIC, not a democracy.

[SRG2]

Why is it that only right-wing Americans make such a stupid and ignorant or unthinking claim? Do you really not get taught basic political concepts at any point in your life?

We are a republic because sovereignty is invested in the people, not a monarch king/queen or emperor, etc. Republics: US, Mexico, Italy, Germany, France, etc. Monarchies: UK, Spain, Netherlands, Japan, etc.

We are a democracy - more precisely, an indirect or representative democracy - because we elect representatives - not delegates - to legislate and run the country. In a direct democracy, citizens directly vote on legislation. Democracies: US, Mexico, Italy, Germany, France, UK, Spain, Netherlands, Japan, etc.

Hence, like Mexico, Italy, Germany, France, etc., the US is a democratic republic. But for some reason all too many American right-wingers repeat the claim you made. I have no good idea why this error of ignorance is so persistent. Perhaps you would care to explain why up until now you didn't realise why you were wrong.

That 250 years ago "democracy" often enough meant direct democracy doesn't mean that it's still the prevalent definition.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In a republic, minorities have rights -- and I mean minority in less than the majority and not the way it commonly means today.

For example, say that two wolves and a lamb are deciding what to have for supper. In a democracy, the vote is 2-1 and the lamb *is* dinner. But in a republic, the majority can't vote to eat someone.

In a republic, every individual has a right to life, liberty, and property which the majority can't vote to take away.

THIS is the reasons why I make the distinction.

[hobie]

That's why we have laws and a constitution, Ed. So the lamb won't get eaten.

[Bwaaah]

Your attempted disagreement with Dr. Ed is an affirmation of his point. Why the trouble?

[SRG2]

You really are ignorant to suppose that this is the distinction. Where were the rights of slaves in the US republic-not-a-democracy?

And a supermajority of the US can assuredly take away rights through constitutional amendments.

Do you even think before you post?

[David Nieporent]

THIS is the reasons why I make the distinction.

You make the distinction because you're a semi-educated dumbass. The definition of republic is not "minorities have rights."

[Bwaaah]

Dr. Ed didn't say that was the definition of a republic. Do you practice misunderstanding, or does it just come naturally to you?

[hobie]

"I have no good idea why this error of ignorance is so persistent"

It's all part of the Southern Strategy. The federal government took away state's slaves, gave women the vote, bussed the negro children etc. They want all that back, but that pesky national majority and supremacy is in the way. So what they need to do is try and dismantle the federal government (sound familiar?) and triple down on states rights over all...you know...a republic

[Malika the Maiz]

As Professor Volokh has noted here before the Founders used the words democracy and republic interchangeably.

[SRG2]

Because there is no historical instance of a country which was a direct democracy and was not a republic - hence though the two are not the same in theory, in practice it made no difference. But once the definition of democracy expands or is more generally used for representative or indirect democracies, the two no longer mean the same thing, as my response to Dr Ed above shows.

[hobie]

Old Ron Reagan was so wrong I guess:

"No, democracy is not a fragile flower; still, it needs cultivating. If the rest of this century is to witness the gradual growth of freedom and democratic ideals, we must take actions to assist the campaign for democracy."

[David Nieporent]

We live in a REPUBLIC, not a democracy.

Democracy and republic are the same thing.

[ThePublius]

Let's bookmark this comment! No, they are not the same thing! What are you thinking? A democracy is three wolves and a chicken voting on what's for dinner; in a Republic based on individual liberty, the chicken would not be on the menu.

[Sarcastr0]

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/01/19/the-u-s-is-both-a-republic-and-a-democracy/

[ThePublius]

Yes, and they are not the same thing.

[Sarcastr0]

"In the 18th century, “democracy” and “republic” were relatively distinct terms, with the former referring mainly to what we would today call “direct democracy,” of the sort practiced by the ancient Athenians. But today, the word “democracy” is routinely used to describe any government where all or most political leaders are chosen by popular election. Moreover, governments are regularly described as “democratic” even if they have a variety of constraints on the powers of elected officials, such as federalism, separation of powers, judicial review, and so on. By this definition, the United States surely qualifies as a democracy, even if it can also be called a “republic.” The two terms have become largely interchangeable, with the exception of the fact that a democracy that has a figurehead constitutional monarch as head of state will usually not be called a republic."

https://volokh.com/2013/10/28/democracy-republic-mutually-exclusive-terms/

[David Nieporent]

Both mean rule by the people. Republic does not mean "liberal democracy." There's nothing inherently liberal about a republic or inherently illiberal about a democracy.

[Bwaaah]

"Yes, and [democracy and republic] are not the same thing."

Correct. Good luck with Mr. and Mrs. Truther here, and their deconstruction of semantics. Perhaps you're relying too much on language with these guys?

[Don Nico]

Strange morality you have. From whence does it derive?

[Malika the Maiz]

The Declaration of Independence.

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

that all men are created equal

The moral justification for government is consent of the people with each with an equal say.

[SRG2]

Albeit, at the time of writing, a nice fiction.

[Don Nico]

Exactly SRG, Happy Thanksgiving.

[Malika the Maiz]

An ideal, but that’s how ethics and political philosophy is often discussed.

[Don Nico]

The DoI is not a moral treatise

[Malika the Maiz]

Of course it is.

[Don Nico]

No, it is a political manifesto.

[Malika the Maiz]

Give it up, Don. The part I pointed to uses the word “just:”

just
adjective
based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.
"a just and democratic society"

[Don Nico]

Again, you actually don't know what a ethical treatise is. You are just blinded by your politics to gives a a mini-rant bout the US Federal system.

[Sarcastr0]

"I have said that the Declaration of Independence is the ring-bolt to the chain of your nation's destiny; so, indeed, I regard it. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost."

I think this is a yes and situation.

Political philosophy has had a moral foundation since the Enlightenment.

[bernard11]

We can't ban gerrymandering because parties in power want to consolidate and expand their power, and John Roberts and SCOTUS get all antsy when someone suggests that approaches that involve arithmetic are proposed, so the courts are no help.

[Don Nico]

That's right, bernard.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think the answer is stop trying.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Not much to be thankful for this Thanksgiving. We're about to put back in office the man who tried to take over the government by violent means, and who his highest-level advisors have told us is a fascist and not fit for office.

Also feel bad about Jimmy Carter, who will not die happy.

[ThePublius]

You're delusional. DJT did NOT try to take over the government by violent means. That's just nonsense. And those in the administration who spoke and acted against him are just deep state operatives, and in many cases, like Gen. Milley, treasonous.

[Malika the Maiz]

“One of the former president’s aides allegedly received a call confirming that Pence had been taken to a secure location, rushing to tell Trump the news in hopes that he’d "take action to ensure Pence’s safety."

However, the filing alleges, "The defendant looked at him and said only, 'So what?' "

[Dr. Ed 2]

I would have said the same thing -- as would any reasonable and responsible person.

WHAT would you have had Trump do upon learning that?

He knows that "secure locations" are secure, and had faith in the USSS. He's supposed to interfere and make a mess out of something that was working? Pence was safe -- but might not be if Trump got involved in it.

Remember the mess that LBJ made by demanding to personally approve bombing targets instead of leaving those decisions to the commanders in the field?

[Malika the Maiz]

so what
idiom
—used to say that something should not be considered objectionable

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/so%20what

[Dr. Ed 2]

The word "and" technically is a conjunction but my response to being told what Trump was, in such a situation would have been :

"And?!?"

The USSS could have contacted Trump directly if they'd wanted to, in any number of manners including through his personal USSS detail. So this information was irrelevant -- the USSS had the situation under control and all Trump could do would be make the situation worse.

I don't know if you've ever been in a situation like this -- I have -- and when the police are dealing with stuff, you don't interfere.

Imagine if he'd tweeted "please stop rioting at the Capitol" -- 90% of the people who received it wouldn't have been *at* the Capitol but many would have instantly gone there just to see what was going on.

So you bring MORE people into a situation that the police do *not* have control over?!? That would have been legitimately impeachable...

[Malika the Maiz]

“Ok, what he said doesn’t really mean what I’d have liked it to but what if he’d said something else!”

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don't know if you've ever been in a situation like this -- I have

I am thankful for the ever entertaining, never changing Dr. Ed.

[Mr. Bumble]

Capt., you really should seek professional help.

[SRG2]

Is this not true?
"We're about to put back in office the man who tried to take over the government by violent means, and who his highest-level advisors have told us is a fascist and not fit for office."

Resistance to reality is more needing of professional help. Ask your regular supplier of oxy whether he can get you some thorazine.

[Mr. Bumble]

No, it is not true.
As David Notimportant would sa " simple answer to stupid question.

[SRG2]

He sicced a mob onto Congress to stop the counting, and some of his senior officials have called him a fascist.

I guess thorazine deliveries are running a little slow.

[Mr. Bumble]

Feel free to believe what you want. You got what you wanted and Biden was selected to give us four years of real Facists and now Trump is back.
Gonna be a fun four years.

[SRG2]

Feel free to believe what you want.
'
I feel required to believe what is true. YMMV

[Mr. Bumble]

Congratulations on your promotion to decider of what is true.
I'm reminded of a line from JC Superstar: :we all have truths are mine the same as yours?

[SRG2]

I decide for myself what is true. Who decides for you?

[Mr. Bumble]

I do, so the question stands whose "truths" are in fact true?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Ah yes, that famous role model, Pontius Pilate.

(Hint: I’m pretty sure the other guy in that exchange is the one you’re supposed to model your behavior on.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Snarky but you didn't answer the question.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The answer is pretty simple:To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

People have lived under tyrants throughout time & found something to be thankful for. We can do it too.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes, that is true.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Dan, even if everything you wrote were true -- and it isn't -- the left *deserves* someone like whom you describe. It started about 40 years ago in the purgatorial cesspool of academia which overflowed into the larger society about a decade ago with the left running wild with impunity.

Enough is enough and if it comes down to clearing protesters off Interstate Highways with double-winged snow plows, a balance is going to be restored. ANTIFA identified and prosecuted the same way the Jan 6th cadre was (cell phone records and credit cards), leftist leaders subjected to lawfare and the rest.

Senator Lindsey Graham put it best during the Kavanaugh hearings -- "God help this country if you folk ever get power." The Dems did and we've seen what happened. And scream "fascist" enough and you might actually get one.

I do feel sorry for Carter -- he was/is an honest man and didn't need to live to see his party become the thugs they now are.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Who hasn't been called a fascist nowadays?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem is that the word no longer has any meaning. Nor does Hitler -- who (along with Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and a few others) were UNIQUE in their evil nature.

If everyone is a fascist, no one is going to notice the true fascist.

[Noscitur a sociis]

“Hitler was unique, along with all of these other people who were the same.”

Never, ever change.

[David Nieporent]

Also feel bad about Jimmy Carter, who will not die happy.

Maybe he'll hang on so he can vote in 2028.

[SRG2]

Happy thanksgiving, er, "y'all".

[John F. Carr]

The Australian parliament has approved a ban on social media accounts for children under 16. The Prime Minister wants children to play cricket instead. Seriously. One article quotes him saying he wants children "off their phones and onto the footy and cricket field, the tennis and netball courts, in the swimming pool."

The details will take a year to work out. It is not clear a this time whether an American style policy requiring children to lie about their age will be compliant.

WhatsApp and YouTube may be granted exceptions because children need those services. That's what the article says.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There *is* a lot of legitimate educational stuff on Youtube.

I don't know about Australia, but the US has a *REAL* problem with childhood obesity which is largely caused by screens -- instead of playing outdoors like we did, children today are into video games, social media and other "screen" activities. (It was bad enough when they just watched MTV or BET all day.)

[SRG2]

It doesn't help that such a high proportion of US adults are obese.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Millennials are now in their 30s...

[SRG2]

It's not just the younger generations.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db360.htm
The age-adjusted prevalence of obesity among U.S. adults was 42.4% in 2017–2018. The prevalence was 40.0% among younger adults aged 20–39, 44.8% among middle-aged adults aged 40–59, and 42.8% among older adults aged 60 and over. There were no significant differences in prevalence by age group

[John F. Carr]

YouTube currently allows anybody to watch most videos without an account. You need an account to interact – like, comment, or follow.

If the law requires effective blocking of children from viewing content that will be a big deal. It will be equivalent to the porn age verification laws in the United States. First, an obstacle to all potential viewers. Second, a list of viewing habits tied to your government-issued ID.

[Don Nico]

' You need an account to interact"
Or to turn off ads. Well worth the $14/mo.

[Dr. Ed 2]

For those claiming that climate something is making more violent storms, here is an interesting article about a violent storm 74 years ago, in a place that had seen violent storms in 1839, 1842, 1856, 1878, 1888 and 1933 -- https://downlighthouseroad.substack.com/p/a-storm-for-the-ages-at-matinicus?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

For those with small children, this is the lighthouse that Abby Burgess kept going in 1856, putting her sick mother, younger siblings, and her chicken up into the towers when the waves washed over the island -- keeping both lights burning for a week until her father got back. (There were two lights then, one subsequently removed because it interfered with the other.)

Various fictionalized versions of what is a true story are out there, someday I will write mine just to piss off the feminists who won't like the fact that what was then the US Lighthouse Service had already appointed a 17-year-old girl as Assistant Keeper of a lighthouse in 1856 -- that merit counted back then.

But there were a lot of automobiles in 1856 (or even 1950), weren't there? Yet we haven't had winter storms like this since the two in 1978. And what is truly amazing is how long it has been since New England has had a hurricane -- a real one and not something like Bob in 1991 which is the most recent. There was the Hurricane of 1938, another in 1944, Carol & Edna in 1954, Hazel and a few more.

If CO2 really *was* causing more severe storms -- wouldn't we be having *more* severe storms than we were 70-90 years ago?!? And these storms are all well documented because the Federal Government has had to pay to fix the damages. First the US Lighthouse Service, which got absorbed into the US Coast Guard around WWII, and now the weather data is done by NOAA. It's "buoy" number MISM1 now.

[John F. Carr]

Almost all of the writing about climate change in mainstream media is the ignorant ramblings of climate cultists. Where once upon a time people blamed the gods, now they blame anthropogenic climate change.

When Helene hit North Carolina I read that this was unprecedented. It happens a few times a year. I know because I browse the National Hurricane Center storm warnings. A few times a year a hurricane hits a mountain range and dumps way too much water. The difference this time is the flooded people speak English.

Then there are the warnings about what climate change could do to the atmospheric rivers that hit California. Climate change is bound to make them worse, I hear. I wonder if they will be as bad as in 1862.

I'm not commenting here on scientific journals. The news is garbage. Give me the weather, not your judgment on humanity's sins.

[Malika the Maiz]

The press often sensationalizes, that doesn’t make them cultists. It’s hard to capture the precision and nuance most topics deserve and they gotta sell papers.

[Bwaaah]

Interesting factoid...

During the Obama administration, NOAA changed the hurricane category scale (the "Category 1" to "Category 5" monikers) previously known as the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. That scale had previously qualified storms based on three measures: (1) top sustained wind speed (per a 1 minute period), (2) high-to-low air pressure differential, and (3) storm surge scale.

In 2009, they changed the name to Saffir-Simpson Hurricane *Wind* Scale, dropped the air pressure and storm surge qualifiers, and relied simply on wind speed for qualification. As a result, it takes much less power/danger in a storm to rate on the new scale. They did not go back and re-rate old storms based on the new scale. As a result, we have significantly more "category" class storms after 2009 for that reason alone, aside from any possible climatological changes.

If you look into this, you'll see how they've glossed over the change. I stumbled onto it when a friend told me that, "We've had as many hurricanes in the past 5 years as we had in the previous 15." (That was a bullshit statement, but still, the "data" is being manipulated to make storms look worse and more frequent.)

[ThePublius]

Wow, that's interesting. Thanks for sharing.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and the results are still being counted three plus weeks later.
Florida
Harris 43.0 Trump 56.1
(100%)

REP Hold
Georgia
Harris 48.5 Trump 50.7
(100%)

REP Pickup
Hawaii
Harris 60.6 Trump 37.5
(99%)

DEM Hold
Idaho
Harris 30.4 Trump 66.9
(100%)

REP Hold
Illinois
Harris 54.6 Trump 43.8
(96%)

DEM Hold
Indiana
Harris 39.6 Trump 58.7
(99%)

REP Hold
Iowa
Harris 42.5 Trump 55.7
(99%)

REP Hold
Kansas
Harris 41.0 Trump 57.2
(99%)

REP Hold
Kentucky
Harris 33.9 Trump 64.5
(100%)

REP Hold
Louisiana
Harris 38.2 Trump 60.2
(100%)

REP Hold
Alabama
Harris 34.1 Trump 64.6
(99%)

REP Hold
Maine
Harris 52.0 Trump 45.6
(99%)

DEM Hold
Maryland
Harris 63.0 Trump 34.3
(99%)

DEM Hold
Massachusetts
Harris 61.2 Trump 36.0
(99%)

DEM Hold
Michigan
Harris 48.3 Trump 49.7
(100%)

REP Pickup
Minnesota
Harris 50.9 Trump 46.7
(100%)

DEM Hold
Mississippi
Harris 37.3 Trump 61.3
(95%)

REP Hold
Missouri
Harris 40.0 Trump 58.4
(99%)

REP Hold
Montana
Harris 38.3 Trump 58.1
(99%)

REP Hold
Nebraska
Harris 39.1 Trump 59.6
(99%)

REP Hold
Nevada
Harris 47.5 Trump 50.6
(100%)

REP Pickup
Alaska
Harris 41.4 Trump 54.5
(99%)

REP Hold
New Hampshire
Harris 50.7 Trump 47.9
(100%)

DEM Hold
New Jersey
Harris 51.8 Trump 45.9
(95%)

DEM Hold
New Mexico
Harris 51.9 Trump 45.9
(100%)

DEM Hold
New York
Harris 55.6 Trump 43.9
(99%)

DEM Hold
North Carolina
Harris 47.6 Trump 50.9
(99%)

REP Hold
North Dakota
Harris 30.5 Trump 67.0
(100%)

REP Hold
Ohio
Harris 43.9 Trump 55.0
(99%)

REP Hold
Oklahoma
Harris 31.9 Trump 66.2
(100%)

REP Hold
Oregon
Harris 55.3 Trump 41.0
(99%)

DEM Hold
Pennsylvania
Harris 48.7 Trump 50.4
(99%)

REP Pickup
Arizona
Harris 46.7 Trump 52.2
(100%)

REP Pickup
Rhode Island
Harris 55.5 Trump 41.8
(99%)

DEM Hold
South Carolina
Harris 40.4 Trump 58.2
(100%)

REP Hold
South Dakota
Harris 34.2 Trump 63.4
(100%)

REP Hold
Tennessee
Harris 34.4 Trump 64.1
(99%)

REP Hold
Texas
Harris 42.5 Trump 56.2
(99%)

REP Hold
Utah
Harris 37.8 Trump 59.4
(99%)

REP Hold
Vermont
Harris 63.8 Trump 32.3
(100%)

DEM Hold
Virginia
Harris 51.8 Trump 46.1
(99%)

DEM Hold
Washington
Harris 57.6 Trump 39.3
(98%)

DEM Hold
West Virginia
Harris 28.1 Trump 70.0
(99%)

REP Hold
Arkansas
Harris 33.6 Trump 64.2
(100%)

REP Hold
Wisconsin
Harris 48.8 Trump 49.6
(99%)

REP Pickup
Wyoming
Harris 25.8 Trump 71.6
(99%)

REP Hold
California
Harris 58.5 Trump 38.3
(99%)

DEM Hold
Colorado
Harris 54.2 Trump 43.2
(98%)

DEM Hold
Connecticut
Harris 56.4 Trump 41.9
(99%)

DEM Hold
Delaware
Harris 56.6 Trump 41.9
(100%)

DEM Hold
D.C.
Harris 90.3 Trump 6.5
(99%)

DEM Hold

Disapprove57
Disapprove +37
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Harris
Atlas Intel
Trump50
Harris49
Trump +1
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Harris
The Hill/Emerson
Trump49
Harris48
Trump +1
Ohio: Trump vs. Harris
Atlas Intel
Trump54
Harris45
Trump +9

[Krayt]

From the First Amendment? We don't need no stinking First Amendment department, Australia bans social media for under 16s.

IIRC, this is a ban, not a ban-unless-parents-approve. Yep.

Countries including France and some U.S. states have passed laws to restrict access for minors without a parent's permission, but the Australian ban is absolute

"It's safe for democracy to wield the power of tyrants!", said tyrants whose specialty is blowing the winds of political passion.

[Malika the Maiz]

Cooking question came up today:

Is salt a condiment? What about lettuce (on a sandwich) or relish (on a hot dog)? If they are t what are they?

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't think lettuce would count (you wouldn't consider tomato a condiment) but your other items seem to be.

condiment /kŏn′də-mənt/
noun

A substance, such as a relish, vinegar, or spice, used to flavor or complement food. Something used to give relish to food, and to gratify the taste; a pungment and appetizing substance, as pepper or mustard; seasoning.
Similar: seasoning Something used to enhance the flavor of food; salt or pepper for example.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

[Malika the Maiz]

I dunno, why do we put lettuce on a burger if not to compliment the taste?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Salt is a seasoning.

[Moderation4ever]

Well, salt, pepper, and herbs I would classify as seasonings. Most grocery stores have a condiment section with ketchup, mustard, pickles and other things. Most interesting question is about fresh items. Are vegetables that you might put on a sandwich like lettuce and onions condiments? What about cheese slices? My vote is vegetables on a sandwich are condiments and cheese stand-alone by itself, no condiment.

[Mr. Bumble]

So is a BLT sans the B a condiment sandwich?

[Nelson]

When places have a “vegetarian” sandwich that’s basically a sub without the meat, I call them toppings sandwiches.

[Moderation4ever]

[Dr. Ed 2]

I see that 20 member of the Hamas Fan Club were arrested for blocking the Macy's parade.

They'll get away with it...

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2024/11/27/18-ags-file-briefs-in-support-of-middleborough-student-who-wore-there-are-only-two-genders-shirt/?p1=hp_primary

18 state AGs are joining the "there are only 2 genders" appeal to SCOTUS.

[Frank Drackman]

"Gender" is a grammatical term, the correct word is "Sex"

[Frank Drackman]

Flicking through the selections at a Holiday Inn Express, started watching the remake of "True Grit" great acting, scenery, I knew without looking it had to be the "Fargo" guys, you know, I think that Hailey Steinfeld might have a future,
great movie right up to where she gets bit by a Rattlesnake,
I hate snakes, I hate em!
don't tell me how it ends

Frank

[Krayt]

Hint: Never watch the John Wayne one.

[Krayt]

Well, here goes nothing. Brother's serving a turkey bought on sale for 5 cents a pound, in September.

Of last year.

[Bwaaah]

How'd that go?

[Krayt]

Update: It's 18 hours and counting, no issues. In my one incident with true food poisoning*, it started about 6 hours in.

The turkey was moist and delicious.

* Punch line: "The mayo's use by date is, hey, still two days in the future!" "Yes, when first opened, not six months ago."

[Bwaaah]

In my household, when food is expired, it becomes mine to eat. (I'm living competition for the garbage pale.) Good as that is, I didn't expect "moist and delicious."

Admission: I always do a smell check before eating expireds.

[Brett Bellmore]

Who sells turkey for 5 cents a pound? A grocery story that's had a freezer fail? Even at 49 cents a pound, it's a loss leader.

In my experience, though, a frozen turkey in a good deep freeze will keep just fine for several years. The USDA says "indefinitely", and even Butterball says they're good for a couple years before the flavor starts suffering, and they have every reason to want you to throw that one that got forgotten for several years out, and buy a new one.

[Bwaaah]

I once went to a cheese store to buy a wedge of blue cheese.

The person behind the counter held up a large half a wheel of cheese (over a foot in diameter). "We have some nice ripened blue cheese."

I asked him for a wedge about yea big (indicating about 2 inches with my fingers). The guy said, "I'll give you the whole wheel for the price of the wedge."

How could I say no?

Moral of the story: nothing in life is free, and any amount of over-ripe blue cheese is more than you want in your kitchen, in your home, anywhere indoors. "Is that the smell of the best deal you ever got, or did something die in here?"

[John F. Carr]

A divided panel of the Fifth Circuit has ordered DHS not to unnecessarily cut concertina wire placed by Texas near the Mexican border. The District Court found that Border Patrol agents were cutting wire without a legitimate enforcement purpose, apparently just to let migrants into the country and then not detain them. Border Patrol agents are allowed to trespass on private property near the border "for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States." 8 USC 1357(a)(3). The injunction prohibits interfering with the barrier "in instances where Defendants have the necessary access to both sides of Texas’s c-wire for immigration law enforcement purposes."

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-50869-CV1.pdf

The main question on appeal is whether the Administrative Procedure Act waives sovereign immunity for a state law trespass claim and whether the Immigration and Nationality Act unwaives sovereign immunity. The APA says you can get non-monetary relief for damage to property. The INA says you can't get an injunction against immigration policy.

The dissenting judge is a recent Biden appointee. The Senate has recently agreed to confirm a large number of Biden's District Court picks and block a smaller number of his Circuit Court picks.

This is not about the barrier Texas placed right on the border, in the middle of the Rio Grande. Texas is currently in the lead in that case.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>The District Court found that Border Patrol agents were cutting wire without a legitimate enforcement purpose, apparently just to let migrants into the country and then not detain them.

What vile pieces of garbage Democrats are. They are supporting the invasion.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Just a few years ago, this is what the State of California mandated for you on this day:

- No more than 3 households present
- Parties no longer than 2 hours
- Guests must stay outside
- Avoid singing, chanting, and shouting

Under penalty.

TrUsT thE SciEnCE and tHe STaTe!

[ThePublius]

Wow, that thread petered out quickly. Must be due to the holiday.

Any piano aficionados on here? Interested in Steinway vs. Mason & Hamlin. Could be a fun debate.

[Brett Bellmore]

Saw that coming, didn't you.

Hardly matters, though: He doesn't have the self control to not get in trouble again.