Friday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Z Crazy]

It turns out Laken Riley was murdered because her killer wanted a piece of pussy.

Now he has a lifetime to practice how to pretend that his asshole is a pussy!

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

common to him and you is the filthiness of spirit that turns a man into a pig. Don't defend him, it exposes what you would rather keep hidden

[Martinned2]

One of the many weird things about the US is how often even liberals act like prison rape is somehow good or funny.

Even if you're incapable of acting like a decent human being, you realise that the dire prison conditions in the US can often make it pretty difficult to get people extradited even in non-capital cases? https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1407&context=faculty-publications

[RedheadedPharoh]

Stop interfering in our Sacred Democracy. Go talk about that 3rd world shit hole you live in about all the Paki rape gangs targeting White children on some forum relevant to brown hellscapes.

[SRG2]

So you approve of prison rape.

[RedheadedPharoh]

I do when a Democrat state lets trannies serve time in women's prisons.

Sometimes people need to feel the visceral consequences of their choice of government.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Wait, you think that it’s good when transgender prisoners rape other inmates?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Maybe not a "moral good" in some absolutist, individual sense.

But people suffering consequences of their delusions and actions can serve the greater good. And peoples delusions hitting head first into reality, can also serve the greater good.

How long do you think they'll tolerate transgenders serving in women's prisons? How many real women are going to get raped in service of Leftist nonsense?

The Left thinks it's good for transgenders to serve in women's prisons. Why can't I think it's good that they suffer the consequences of that delusional belief?

[Noscitur a sociis]

But people suffering consequences of their delusions and actions can serve the greater good.

But the people suffering the consequences (the female prisoners getting rapes) aren’t the people making the decisions.

And frankly, if you’re at the point of considering whether people being raped “serve[s] the greater good”, it may be time to take a step back and reassess your moral calculus.

[RedheadedPharoh]

I'm not the one who thinks it serves the greater good to put transgenders in these women's prisons to rape women to begin with.

How else does society correct from this transgender delusion? The pushers of it don't listen to reason, ignore reality, rewrite history, and condemn anyone criticizing them.

From a utilitarian perspective, which is worse? The people putting these women at risk to begin with or the people, like me, who believe whatever makes them stop the soonest saves more women from being raped by trannies?

How long are Democrats going to tolerate women getting raped in prisons? How many women getting raped is okay so transgenders can feel like real women?

Why aren't you stating these people who create this risk for women should reassess their moral calculus?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don’t see anyone here arguing in favor of putting transgender prisoners in women’s facilities. If one of the people who thinks that’s a good idea shows up, I’ll respond accordingly. In the meantime, we have you, saying that you think women being raped is good.

[RedheadedPharoh]

You have me taking a merciful, utilitarian position.

It's the trolley problem. So what.

>In the meantime, we have you, saying that you think women being raped is good.

And we have you pretending putting transgenders in women's spaces knowing rapes are going to occur isn't the mainstream (and only accepted) position in your political tribe.

I say "One woman getting raped by tranny that ends tranny rapes of women serves the greater good".

You say "countless women getting raped by trannies serves the greater good because tranny dignity is more important that women not getting raped".

I like my position over yours. Either way, trannies are raping women. I want it to end, you don't seem to.

[Noscitur a sociis]

And we have you pretending putting transgenders in women's spaces knowing rapes are going to occur isn't the mainstream (and only accepted) position in your political tribe.

Whatever my “political tribe” may be, I can assure you it’s not a pro-transgender one. I would hope you consider yours a to be an anti rape one, though!

I say "One woman getting raped by tranny that ends tranny rapes of women serves the greater good".s

You did not, in fact, say that. You said, “ I [approve of prison rape] when a Democrat state lets trannies serve time in women's prisons.”

You say "countless women getting raped by trannies serves the greater good because tranny dignity is more important that women not getting raped".

I did not, in fact, say that. Nor would I, since I don’t think transgender, biologically prisoners should be put in women’s facilities, in part (but only in part) because of the increased risk of violence and sexual assault. But when those placements do happen, I still hope that the violence doesn’t occur, and think it’s bad when it does.

[RedheadedPharoh]

>You did not, in fact, say that. You said, “ I [approve of prison rape] when a Democrat state lets trannies serve time in women's prisons.”

And then the next statement was:
>Sometimes people need to feel the visceral consequences of their choice of government.

with the obvious inference of "so they won't continue to vote for twisted fucks like Democrats".

I don't understand why you're struggling with this.

>I did not, in fact, say that. Nor would I, since I don’t think transgender, biologically prisoners should be put in women’s facilities, in part (but only in part) because of the increased risk of violence and sexual assault.

Do you vote for and donate to people who promote policies of putting transgenders in women's prisons?

>But when those placements do happen, I still hope that the violence doesn’t occur, and think it’s bad when it does.

You still hope it doesn't occur? That's as stupid as hoping the sun doesn't come up tomorrow. "I'm going to light this fuse on this stick of dynamite... hope it doesn't explode!!!" lol good grief. That's a pointless and meaningless platitude.

Things can be bad in the micro while good in the macro. Sure it sucks for those particular women to get raped by a lunatic tranny because of Democrat policies. But in the big picture, if it triggers the end of Democrat policies, then it's good.

This is the real world. There's often a duality at odds with itself. This duality exists in all over the place.

e.g. Sure it sucks for that Riley chick to be murdered and raped by an illegal, but Democrats (and others) think illegal immigration is good. So they hold a "bad in the micro"/ "good in the macro" view just like I do.

[Davy C]

>How else does society correct from this transgender delusion?

If your method of stopping it involves lots of rapes I'm not sure it's *worth* stopping that way. Your ends do not justify your means.

>the people, like me, who believe whatever makes them stop the soonest saves more women from being raped by trannies?

So they have to get raped to... stop being raped? I'm not sure your argument works so well.

[Frank Drackman]

as William S. Buckley famously said, if Rapes are going to occur, better they occur to men in Central State Prison than women in Central Park.

[Brett Bellmore]

I actually agree. I don't think prison should be particularly pleasant; The food should be nutritious but bad tasting, the blankets scratchy, the beds just padded enough to prevent bed sores and no more, maybe play out of tune elevator music in the background, just low enough you can't quite make out the lyrics. It should be a life of continual minor irritations. "Minor".

But if you're holding somebody confined, you have an obligation to give them security.

I'd actually build them to physically isolate the prisoners from each other. You need a bit of social interaction to maintain your sanity, but that doesn't mandate that you ever be able to touch somebody.

[Michael P]

I would skip the elevator music, unless it's only during the day and there's a decent argument that it preserves order (e.g. by deterring napping, inmates sleep through the night more), but I agree entirely on security. From the administration to the individual guards, I would impose a duty to strongly deter violence and similar offenses against inmates.

There's a worthwhile debate about how strong of deterrence should be mandated, but I think current policy is below any defensible level.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think there's a serious limit to how effectively you can deter violence, when you take people specifically selected on the basis of violent inclinations and poor impulse control, and put them in close proximity to each other. Physical separation is the way to go.

But maybe the elevator music was a bit mean.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or the "Escape From New York" scenario.

[Michael P]

Yes, the inherent difficulties in controlling violent behavior by serious inmates are why the debate is worthwhile. It's a hard line to draw. For example, putting relatively well-behaved convicts in minimum security prisons is probably a good way to balance security once we decide to incarcerate them -- prisons that go harder on separation and prevention can be reserved for the more violent convicts.

[Joe_dallas]

There are anecdotal stories of shop owners in moderate crime areas who play classical music outside the store as a method to deter loitering and the associated crime.

[Martinned2]

Aren't there gadgets that make a sound that only young people can hear for the same purpose?

My sense is that that's all broadly fine (although I also have a reasonably strong opinion that public spaces are for the public to use without a particular member of the public telling other members of the public that they shouldn't be there). Of course, in prison where the prisoner can't escape the sound, that's all part of sound and noise-based torture.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/08/health/music-in-torture-intl/index.html

[Joe_dallas]

The classical music is being played on private property, such as convenience store ie private property not public property.

[Martinned2]

That's not the rule. Nuisance is a thing.

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

But what I was trying to describe was more the principle of the thing. Public spaces belong to us all equally, and should be open to being enjoyed by us all equally.

[Joe_dallas]

you keep changing the facts

The music that I described is being played on private property

[Martinned2]

Yes, and when doing something on private property interferes with the use of adjacent private or public property, that might amount to a tortious nuisance.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, and when doing something on private property interferes with the use of adjacent private or public property, that might amount to a tortious nuisance.

Don't make me defend Joe_dallas. As he said, you are changing the facts.

[Voize of Reazon]

Well ... Joe described what I recall being reported, that shop owners were playing classical music outside the store. The purpose was to deter loitering, sometimes in private spaces (parking lots) but sometimes (as in the linked article) in adjacent public spaces, so though the speakers were on private property the effect wasn't necessarily so limited.

[ducksalad]

Hard to come up with good prison policy when it's being used to serve competing, sometimes contradictory purposes.

Some criminals are badly deserving of retribution but aren't particularly dangerous or likely to repeat.

Some impulsive types aren't really evil but are too dangerous to be running free; some compulsive types aren't really evil but are unable to stop unless locked up.

Some inmates need to be prepared to go back into society.

Some inmates need to be prevented from going back into society.

Some inmates need the fear of even worse conditions to keep them in line while spending their life in prison, which implies the existence of somewhat better default conditions.

Some inmates need the promise of better conditions to motivate rehabilitation, which implies the existence of somewhat worse default conditions.

[Martinned2]

True. That's why my sympathy for this little old lady is limited:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/09/failure-justice-gaie-delap-prison-government-climate-activist-tory-law

She might be reasonably harmless, but she does seem like a considerable risk of reoffending.

[jimc5499]

Can't do it. The Liberals say that not letting prisoners interact with each other is Cruel and Inhumane Punishment.

[Martinned2]

It is, which is why Brett said: "You need a bit of social interaction to maintain your sanity".

[Brett Bellmore]

But it doesn't have to be physical interaction. Just talking to somebody through a lexan barrier will fulfill that requirement.

[Martinned2]

I agree

[Commenter_XY]

May I suggest an endless loop of barney music instead of elevator music? That is definitely irritating. 😉

[Frank Drackman]

You missed the best part of the Murderer/Rape-ists D-fense.
It was "Con-sensual" yes, it was a Consensual Murder/Rape. And the (thankfully former, although the new one isn't much better) District Attorney didn't even go for the Death Penalty (only Laken got the Death Penalty in this case), Oh, did I tell you her name is Deborah Gonzalez?? (no relation to the Rodent, oh wait a minute.......)

[Kazinski]

The Longshoremens strike was settled.

And the Union President credited the President of the United States:

"In a separate statement, the head of the dockworkers union, Harold Daggett, heaped praise on Trump for helping smooth the way for a deal, saying Trump — who had criticized industry’s automation plans — “gets full credit.” He cited the president-elect’s public support for the labor group after a meeting late last year."

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/08/port-strike-avoided-union-credits-trump-for-deal-00197212

I'm definitely not cheerleading though, my father was in the merchant marine in the 50's, and the seamens union being an American union often didn't recognize the Longshoremens strikes, at least partly because because they were dominated by Harry Bridges, a foreign born communist. So my father had to keep a 2x4 or baseball bat in the car to be able to cross the picket line.

[santamonica811]

Congrats to Trump for whatever role he did play. A good way for him to start his second term. A pity that labor deliberately gave Biden the middle finger, by not mentioning him at all . . . warts and all, he was the most pro-union president I can recall in my lifetime. (Which apparently meant diddly-squat to the rank-and-file, as the Nov election showed.)

[Mr. Bumble]

"...he was the most pro-union president I can recall in my lifetime."
Apparently not the opinion of the rank & file.

PS:
Thanks for the response on the Fani Willis thread.

[hobie]

All them union boys are about to learn how pro-union Trump and this Congress really are. Can't say they weren't warned

[Bob from Ohio]

Pro union and pro worker are different things.

[hobie]

Then why are them good old boys in these unions? They could be just plain old workers if they wanted.

[Bwaaah]

Protection rackets can be beneficial for the insiders who are served by those rackets. They profit not from increased production, but from extracting higher prices in exchange for not causing losses. For everybody else, for outsiders, protection rackets cause a net loss; they result in inflated prices for no incremental benefit.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Have either you or Bob actually been in a union, or involved with one to any extent? Your knowledge on the subject strikes me as largely theoretical.

[Bwaaah]

I have a lot of experience with unions, mainly Teamsters, but some others as well. They have been friends, and they have been foes. Their members have been friends, and they have been foes. I've negotiated contracts and cut "deals." I once made a large under-the-table payoff to one (at their "request"). I've been threatened by unions. And much more common, I've seen union members threatened by unions.

I was always especially friends with shop stewards, who were typically the most genuinely interested and energetic advocates for the working people they represented. But they were the best of people with the best of interests, and invariably, found themselves to serve as a pretty face on the coldest of institutions who, in the final analysis, were primarily a few opportunistic bullies extracting personal benefit through coercive forces of collective power.

That you would describe as "largely theoretical" my likening of their behavior to a protection racket suggests you either don't know about the history of unions in the U.S., or you play an ignorant side in the game. You certainly don't have extensive experience with tough labor unions, or you wouldn't be talking that way.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

So the good can't be good because some bad thing once happened.
You should be cheerleading else your post is just another brake appllied to real progress. Either they strike or they don't. Does either one seem better to you? THen shout it.

[Kazinski]

Actually the bad is still happening, the strike was over whether the ports could add.automation to make make them more efficient, and safer, and less vulnerable to strikes.

[Martinned2]

There is never any downside to saying nice things about Donald Trump in front of a bank of cameras. He is literally the vainest president the US has ever had. See also: businesses tripping over themselves to donate millions to the inauguration thing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Obama wasn't????

[Martinned2]

No

[RedheadedPharoh]

Little White girls are being gang raped by feral Paki's in your neighborhood and you're in here licking Obama's taint.

Have you no sense of dignity?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

You are the weakest link. Goodbye.

[SRG2]

You have to understand that when crackers like Dr Ed see an educated and articulate black man. they think he's uppity, and when he presents an air of confidence that in a white man would be regarded as laudable, in a black man it's a sign of vanity and narcissism.

[Frank Drackman]

Dr Ed's about as much a Cracker as Chucky Schumer. "Educated and Articulate"? you know it's bad when you're using Fuck Joe Biden material from 2008, just admit it gets on your last Hemorrhoid that Clarence Thomas exercises more power in one Slip Opinion than Cums-a-lot has in her entire Political "Career" (I guess you could call fucking Willie Brown a "Career")
and just a warning you Fucks, you want "Kind & Gentle"? This is as Kind & Gentle as it's going to get for the next 4 years. where's Charles Henri Sasoon when you need him?

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Obama is a White man who was raised by his White mother and her parents. Clarence Thomas is a Black man, raised by his Black grandmother.

And Obama *is* vain -- look at his estate on Martha's Vineyard...

[Martinned2]

He wore a tan suit for Christ's Sake! Have you forgotten about that national trauma so quickly???

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

[Frank Drackman]

Same thing happened when Ronaldus Maximus wore a brown one, have you forgotten the 80's so quickly?

[Mr. Bumble]

Now do "Brown Shoes Don't Make It".

[SRG2]

His estate is not greater than GWBush's ranch in Crawford, nor do I think it's notably greater than Reagan's in LA. And then there's Trump's residences.

But only Obama is "vain". Perhaps "vain" is the new "uppity".

[Dr. Ed 2]

Value per square foot...

[SRG2]

That would be Reagan and Trump. And maybe still GWB.

Obama is vain because...he spent more money per square foot on his residence than other presidents?

But of course if you have to resort to that wriggling, it makes your bigotry all the more clear.

[not guilty]

Clarence Thomas is an oreo, raised primarily by his grandfather. (I still don't understand why he gave his autobiography a title suggestive of incest. -- Think of Faye Dunaway's character in Chinatown, her grandfather's daughter.)

[Commenter_XY]

A very peculiar choice of words, NG.

[David Nieporent]

I really wish you wouldn't do this. It hurts your credibility.

[not guilty]

Clarence Thomas is a quisling in the struggle for racial equality. I don't for a moment regret pointing that out.

Those who genuflect to him are unlikely to agree with anything I say on that or on any other topic.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I don't genuflect to him, I find him corrupt and misguided, but you calling him an oreo made me cringe. Besides, I happen to like Oreos. The original kind, not the more recent abominable variations.

[David Nieporent]

Clarence Thomas is a quisling in the struggle for racial equality. I don't for a moment regret pointing that out.

Clarence Thomas is a judge who makes some good rulings and some terrible ones, does not have a judicial temperament, and has ethical issues. That he does not agree with you about the way to advance racial equality does not make him a quisling. But even if it did, it is entirely possible for you to criticize him for that — or anything else — in non-racial terms. That you choose not to hurts your credibility.

[mulched]

And there it is. Fucking racist couldn't keep the fucking racism inside his head.

If you can't stop being a fucking racist, NG, at least keep the fucking racism to yourself.

[not guilty]

I have never understood how Justice Thomas's acolytes deem any criticism of the man to be racist.

If I were to condemn Luigi Mangione's murderous conduct, would that ipso facto make me an anti-Italian bigot?

When Justice Scalia contrasted his jurisprudence with Justice Thomas's by saying, "I'm an originalist and a textualist, not a nut," was that racist?

Are the MAGA cult commenters on this thread who routinely refer to "Judge Shitcan" all racists? What about referring to Rep. Bennie Thompson as "Uncle Remus"?

[mulched]

I can't speak for everyone since I've got some of the obvious antisemites and such on block.

Criticize who you want, but when you start using racial slurs to refer to people, yeah, you're a racist.

So criticize Justice Thomas without racial slurs, and you'll be a better man for it. Or at least you'll be thought a better man for it.

[Davy C]

>When Justice Scalia contrasted his jurisprudence with Justice Thomas's by saying, "I'm an originalist and a textualist, not a nut," was that racist?

Is "nut" a racial term in any way? Is "Oreo"? Do you seriously not see the difference?

[Bwaaah]

You should try to hide some of the real you. It spits.

[Frank Drackman]

So he's so vain? Does he think this song is about him? Does he watch himself with one eye in the mirror while he Gravottes? Did he go to Saratoga to see the Bobtails run and then take Trumpforce 1 to see a Total Eclipse of the Sun? Does he spend his time with Underworld Spies and Wifes of his close friends?

Frank "Who let these Clowns in my Coffee??"

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

a silly post by you...
Obviously , saying bad things about Trump never has any downside.as the past months have witnessed in super-spades.
https://www.npr.org/2017/10/02/555092743/study-news-coverage-of-trump-more-negative-than-for-other-presidents

Many former Presidents were more vain. MANY. Why don't you put up a Billoborad : I know shtall about American History 🙂

donating to the inauguration is a good thing, in fact it is none of your business, right.

[David Nieporent]

Is this guy like Drackman's retarded twin brother? Drackman is the only other commenter here who is as incoherent and spelling and grammar challenged as this guy. (Or is it just a Drackman sock puppet?)

[Martinned2]

I just muted him, just like I have Drackman muted.

[Frank Drackman]

Go ahead Ya mute! 2 can play at that game, now I muted YOU, see how you like it, Total mute-ness, totally mute, muted,

[David Nieporent]

Yeah. I don't mute people because I don't like what they have to say — not even the Nazi trolls. Drackman is the only one I have muted on the VC, and it's because he's so incoherent that he makes threads unreadable. I had him muted for several months, and then I tried unmuting him to see if he had improved, and… he hadn't, so I put him back.

This guy is going to join him, though, for the same reason.

[SRG2]

PKTMLB is well-read and not unintelligent. However, he is not widely read and appears to be unable to question what he has learned from his narrow range of sources.

Hence to use Groucho's line, " 'He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot.'"

[Drewski]

It's a pattern of diction common to those with disorganized thought disorders such as schizophrenia.

[SimonP]

Premature. The union members still need to vote on the deal, the details of which aren't publicly known yet.

I'm not sure that having Trump micro-manage every deal, with the implicit threat of the federal government coming down more harshly on you, will be beneficial for the economy, or that it won't come back around to bite the unions in the ass. Adams, in NYC, tends to manage that way - always needing to "save the day" and be the center of attention, he runs around focusing on putting out fires, but losing sight of the big picture.

[Davy C]

>focusing on putting out fires

Maybe they should trade him to LA for a month or so.

[John F. Carr]

Two inmates on death row have refused to accept Biden's commutation of their sentences. They think, probably correctly, that they are more likely to get out of prison alive if they are sentenced to death. This is a valid condemnation of our justice system. The case Biddle v. Perovich means they will join the ranks of forgotten lifers anyway.

[santamonica811]

John,
For those of us lawyers who don't practice crim law (and for all the non-lawyers who follow the VC); can you explain a bit about this? A quick Google tells me that one of the two did it for very pragmatic reasons: He is claiming actual innocence (and, as far as I can tell, always has maintained his innocence), and he has been getting free legal representation as long as he is officially on Death Row...and this will now vanish.

The two articles I quickly skimmed pointed out that the recipient of a presidential commutation has no legal ability to block the commutation process. (Cf, a pardon??)

John, is it your understanding that this is accurate--that a prisoner can protest being given one, but that doesn't actually stop it from taking effect?

[John F. Carr]

Being under a formal sentence of death in America means you get lots of legal aid, lots of sympathy, and lots of deference from the courts. Otherwise it's a life sentence. You're more likely to die in prison than be executed.

Having the sentence commuted means most of the sympathy goes away. Relatively few people care about innocent people serving prison sentences compared to the number who care about guilty people being executed.

If you are certain even a celebrity petition won't be enough to get you out, the commutation slightly raises the chance you will rot in prison instead of frying. The Supreme Court says you can't force the government to pretend to intend to execute you, so the choice is not real.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Man, that is a high stakes gamble! Especially with Trump coming back into office.

[Frank Drackman]

Death Row is usually a form of Solitary Confinement and hence safer than mixing with the General Population as Jeffy Dahmer learned. Love how the Nattering Nabobs (ht S Agnew) think sharing a Cell with the late great Dr Hannibal Lecter is better than a Cell to yourself

Frank

[not guilty]

All but one of Jeffrey Dahmer's killings took place in Milwaukee. Wisconsin does not have the death penalty.

The first one, however, occurred in Ohio. Speculation was that authorities there did not seek a death sentence because of the tradition of serving the condemned prisoner whatever he wants for his last meal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWUrU5ge1kU

[David Nieporent]

Two inmates on death row have refused to accept Biden's commutation of their sentences.

Rather, they have said that they don't want their sentences commuted. A commutation is not something one can "refuse to accept." It is a directive to the justice system, not an offer to the convict.

(Worth noting that the concept of a conditional commutation does exist; so if Biden had said, "If the prisoner does X, his sentence will be commuted," then the prisoner could effectively turn it down by not doing X.)

[Martinned2]

I interpreted that statement more in the non-legal sense, like meaning 6 here: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/accept

So indeed, they didn't like the commutations. Whether they will (try to) argue that they're not legally valid is a separate question.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It is settled law, I think, that a life sentence is a lesser sentence than a death sentence, but the concept is not beyond dispute.

Arguably an inmate could say look, I was never sentenced to life, and a commutation can't increase or fundamentally alter the nature of my sentence (unless I accept conditional commutation) so you have to either execute me or set me free.

But as J. Carr points out above, this is forclosed by Biddle v. Perovich.

[Martinned2]

I didn't say it was a plausible (or even colourable) argument, I just suggested that two guys sentenced to life in prison might want to make it at some point.

[John F. Carr]

Reuters reports on the financial aftermath of the 2017 Grenfell fire. Tall residential buildings around Britain were wrapped in flammable insulation and Grenfell could have been the first of many tragedies. The national government wanted this unsafe material replaced. In theory builders and building material suppliers were responsible. The lawsuits would take years and the government wanted the structures made safe sooner. The government paid repair costs and asked local councils to reimburse it from the proceeds of lawsuits. The councils already had the money so why were they going to sue? The companies who were supposedly responsible paid less than 1% of the cost.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/ghosts-grenfell-no-penalties-uk-firms-that-used-deadly-building-material-2025-01-06/

[Dr. Ed 2]

Doesn't the British system have subrogation?

[John F. Carr]

I think the national government set up the program wrong. The program could have been a loan. It could have let the councils keep half of what they got in lawsuits.

There can be a similar bad incentive in America with subrogation. Let's say you get $100,000 from an insurance company and you can sue the wrongdoer for $150,000. The first $100,000 of your recovery goes to the insurance company, the next $50,000 goes to your lawyers, and the next $0 goes to you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

My understanding is that the insurance company sues for it's $100,000 itself...

[John F. Carr]

There are different scenarios.

One is the insurance company sues for covered damages only and the rule against claim splitting prevents you from suing for other damages. Massachusetts law allows claim splitting in the case of car accidents because of the insurance problem.

Or the insurance company pays policy limits.

Or the insurance company thinks the cost of a lawsuit is too high and pays out of its own pocket. Say you suffered $2,000 damage in a car accident. That's not worth the insurance company's time to sue over. Insurance pays $1,500 and you are out the $500 deductible. You could go to small claims court but the first $1,500 you win goes to the insurance company.

[David Nieporent]

There can be a similar bad incentive in America with subrogation. Let's say you get $100,000 from an insurance company and you can sue the wrongdoer for $150,000. The first $100,000 of your recovery goes to the insurance company, the next $50,000 goes to your lawyers, and the next $0 goes to you.

Um, when your insurance company pays out $100,000 and the wrongdoer is on the hook for $150,000, it's your insurance company that files the suit. That's the whole point of subrogation.

[Brett Bellmore]

And the point of the insurance was to make you whole, having been made whole, why would YOU have a claim against the perpetrator?

[Michael P]

Does insurance often cover intangibles like emotional distress? Civil liability can also include special (punitive) damages.

[bernard11]

That doesn't sound right, John.

You get $100K from the insurer and then win a $150K judgment. So you have $250K, repay the insurer's $100K and pay your lawyer $50K, leaving you with $100K just as if you had won $150K with no insurer involved.

As an aside, I don't care for contingency fees that are simply a percentage of amount won. They seem to me to set up a conflict between lawyer and client.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Is no one doing anything about the looting going on in CA because of equity or something?

[santamonica811]

The police are arresting every looter they find. What exactly are you whining about today? Or is this an example of a chatbot/AI troll throwing chum in the water?

[RedheadedPharoh]

lol no they aren't. There's countless videos of Trayvon Martins and Obama Sons looting homes just like they have been looting stores.

[Frank Drackman]

With all the toxins they're inhaling they'll all have Cancer in 20 years and blame the Global Warming

[Brett Bellmore]

Worse, it's California: Things that aren't carcinogenic anywhere else are known to cause cancer in California, it's some sort of medical curse on the state.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, I love the labels on extension cords warning me. Should the label be labeled?

[SRG2]

I trust neither Califiornia over claims that X is carcinogenic nor the rest of the US over claims that Y isn't.

[Frank Drackman]

It's just that California thinks it's citizens are too stupid (they're probably right) to know that Jet Engine Exhaust isn't healthy to breathe. Seriously, they have a sign right before you get on the Jet,
"WARNING!' Jet Engine Exhaust contain chemicals which are known to the State of California to cause Cancer and Birth Defects" (Explains a lot)
So when you're in that line of unwashed Asses waiting in the Jet Bridge to get your fat ass into a narrow hard seat in Steerage, while I'm sipping a Martini in First Class, just remember, hold your breath.

Frank

[TwelveInchPianist]

From what I understand, you have to have a sign if you have anything around anywhere that California thinks causes cancer, and it costs a lot to figure that out.

But there's no penalty for having a sign if you don't have cancer stuff.

So everybody has a sign.

[Frank Drackman]

I guess nobody's told Gavin New-Scum what causes 90% of Skin Cancers

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Those signs serve as great reminders that initiative-made law is often badly made law...

[Harvey Mosley]

At work we get these Prop 65 labels to put on cars. The box they come in has a different label saying the labels are carcinogenic.

[Don Nico]

Makes sense. In CA, living is carcinogenic

[Michael P]

"The police are arresting every looter they find."

Are the police looking? Usually one must look for something to find it.

The left coast has also shown us there are many life hacks to work around isolated cases of police doing their jobs; for example, refuse to charge them because the evidence does not meet an unreasonably high burden, dismiss charges in the interests of racist justice, release them immediately because underfunded jails have no room, etc. It's easy for criminals to be back out on the street quickly.

[Don Nico]

Michael,
The National Guard has been called to patrol burned out areas.

[Michael P]

Is that because the police aren't doing their jobs or because they couldn't keep up? The former makes sm811's claim deeply misleading, and the latter makes it a lie.

[Don Nico]

It is because there aren't enough police to have significant presence over such a large area.

[Commenter_XY]

Special shout out to Josh R and not guilty for their excellent explication of interlocutory appeal in the mid week thread. I very much appreciate the time you took to write it out so a layman like me could understand it.

My legal education continues, one question at a time.

Now, if I could only get 'on four corners' right. lol (I will).

[not guilty]

You are quite welcome. I'm glad to be of help.

[Commenter_XY]

I really do appreciate the time you take to explain things. It is why I come here; to learn.

[Dr. Ed 2]

More about the dry hydrants in the higher parts of Burning LA.

The problem is lack of pressure on the higher ground because (a) the standpipes/towers/tanks they have on the high ground are empty and they can't push enough water through the system to refill them while (c) it is also being used at intermediate (lower) locations. The system reportedly used four times the volume of water it had ever used before.

OK, I have questions:

1: How much should a water system be overbuilt in anticipation of firefighting needs? What do engineering groups and fire prevention groups recommend? Is 4:1 enough per specifications? And when you have high ground like Pacific Palisades, what should your standpipe capacity be, knowing (a) the distance you have to go to refill them and (b) that there well might be intermediate consumption.

2: Iron water pipes (that aren't lined with lead) have rust growing inside them so that after decades only a little bit of water can get through them. That was the problem at the 1973 Chelsea (MA) fire -- they had to relay from fire truck to fire truck to fire truck because the water couldn't get through the pipes to the hydrants.

Given that California hasn't maintained infrastructure in the past 40 years and these lines were probably installed 30-60 years before that when the land was developed, what shape are the pipes in? As an aside, Boston is *still* finding wooden water pipes -- hollowed out trees -- that date back to the 19th Century -- a lot of water mains nationally are 100 years old and essentially now on borrowed time.

3: Knowing the limits on her water supply, the lesbian fire chief ought to have been more worried about getting more tank trucks than more lesbians. (OK, maybe lesbians *driving* the tank trucks, but still...) Much of this involves weight limits (water weighs over 8 lbs a gallon) but a straight 10 wheel truck can carry 4000-5000 gallons and an 18-wheel truck (think gasoline truck) can carry 8000-9000 gallons. (Most of the gasoline trucks can physically carry 12,000 gallons if all their compartments are full -- most have 3-4 compartments and the product is measured when put into the truck and then just dumped into the underground tank as the truck can't measure it.)

The Water Authority has some tank trucks which are in use, but the fire chief ought to have thought about getting more if needed. National Guard comes to mind, milk trucks (California has a major dairy industry) come to mind, heck at this point even gasoline trucks.

4: They appear to be overly dependent on air drops. They know that they have high winds and that you can't fly in that kind of weather.

I question their tactics and their planning.

5: How much of this was NIMBY related? Did they want to build more water towers with the neighborhoods saying "not here"?

This is not a simple issue -- the right will say that the hydrants ought not have gone dry and the left will say overwhelming demand and both will be wrong. The real questions are (a) what should the system have been expected to deliver, (b) did it, and (c) was it upgraded over the past 60 years as the population grew?

Oh, and yes, you *can* draft (pump) water directly from the ocean. (I've done it.) At the very least you want to run a lot of fresh water through the truck immediately afterwards to flush it out, and salt water isn't particularly good for it, but what do you think that fireboats use...

The problem is the 8 lbs per gallon thing -- you are talking miles of distance and a lot of fire trucks in the middle to relay the water.

[RedheadedPharoh]

These people are getting what they voted for. From the scummy Gov down to the lesbian mayors and fire leadership.

They'll also get what they voted for when they spend years working through all the Sarcastr0s to try and rebuild their homes.

[Michael P]

Today's TGIF from The Free Press linked to an interesting article -- from October -- about controlled burns, or the lack thereof:
Forest Service Halts Prescribed Burns in California. Is It Worth the Risk?

[DeAnnP]

https://interagencytrackingsystem.org/

[VinniUSMC]

How much water should a water system have if a water system should have water?

[Frank Drackman]

How about an old fashioned (love Old Fashioneds) “Bucket Brigade”? You could even have Calvin New-Scum and Cums-a-lot make Cameos (remember Cameo?) I hope Rockford was able to save his Firebird. Now if they could only do the same to San Fran Sissy-Co

[Dr. Ed 2]

Something I have been warning about for a decade now -- half the colleges that existed in 2019 won't by 2030...

https://www.npr.org/2025/01/08/nx-s1-5246200/demographic-cliff-fewer-college-students-mean-fewer-graduates

[Martinned2]

Why is it a bad thing if a reduction in demand leads to a reduction in supply?

[RedheadedPharoh]

It's not. There's been degree inflation going on for a generation, saddling people with a lifetime of debt and making them beholden to the Democrats for relief the Democrats caused.

Let these rotten Democrat-filled institutions fail and put the sick Democrats out on the street who operate them.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

Because you are confusing your demands. Why is supply going down is the question.

"There is really nothing very mysterious about why our public schools are failures. When you select the poorest quality college students to be public school teachers, give them iron-clad tenure, a captive audience, and pay them according to seniority rather than performance, why should the results be surprising?"
~ Thomas Sowell

[bernard11]

Please, Martinned2, a reduction in quantity supplied - a point, not in supply - a curve.

[apedad]

The traditional college experience is definitely changing but not necessarily in a wholly bad way.

Adult Continuing Education (or Adult Lifelong Learning), is growing tremendously and it's one of the US's greatest assets.

"Roll forward to 2023, and some sources project the size of the U.S. continuing education market as USD 93.25 billion by 2028, with generative AI being a major driver of growth. Other sources have valued the global continuing education market at USD 33.55 billion in 2022 and project it to grow to around USD 58 billion by 2030."

Many industries are getting on board too and one way to increase staff retention is to create a culture of learning.

I'm optimistic in this point.

[VinniUSMC]

I would expect the amount of continued education would eventually plateau and then decrease as the share of young people who go to and graduate college increases.

[Bob from Ohio]

"half the colleges that existed in 2019 won't by 2030"

A good start

[Commenter_XY]

In a few short hours, Pres Trump is expected to be formally sentenced in his NY 'Hush Money' case and get tagged (forever) with a 'convicted felon' label. That has got to hurt. And The Donald has a tremendous ego.

The Donald has emphatically stated that he will appeal the the case.

Does Pres Trump get the conviction reversed, in the end (yes, No)?
Why or why not?

[Martinned2]

Presumably he can't/won't appeal while he's President, because he'll be too busy and a criminal case would interfere with his duties as President. (Or so I'm told.) And after 2028 I'm not sure he'll live long enough to see the case through to a judgment in the NY Court of Appeals.

[Riva]

That’s hilarious. Isn’t the abuse of the rule of law funny? Democrats never learn and always go too far. I don’t think you’ll be laughing in a couple of months.

[David Nieporent]

See what I mean, Naziboy JHBHBE/RHP? The Trump fans are hysterical about this.

[RedheadedPharoh]

I made this post:
>RedheadedPharoh 5 hours ago
I don't think anyone but the TDS'ers really give a shit about this. It's clearly just another political hit job that just rolls right off ol' Teflon Don.

Why is it always the same people who lie so effortlessly about White people? Especially us Patriots.

[Bob from Ohio]

"criminal case would interfere with his duties as President. (Or so I'm told.)"

Not the appeal, only the lawyers spend time. A client only spends the time needed to pay the fees.

Its forcing the President to sit in court that interferes with his duties.

[RedheadedPharoh]

I don't think anyone but the TDS'ers really give a shit about this. It's clearly just another political hit job that just rolls right off ol' Teflon Don.

[Commenter_XY]

That is a separate question...Does it matter?

[Brett Bellmore]

That's what I've been wondering. Forget the lack of any specific penalty in the sentence, he's being convicted of a felony fraud.

Does this have implications for his ability to continue to do business in the state of New York?

[David Nieporent]

I don't think anyone but the TDS'ers really give a shit about this.

Agreed. Trump and Trump fans, who suffer from TDS, are hysterical about this.

[RedheadedPharoh]

No, dude they are not. They're pissed at how unbelievably biased the justice system is, but no one's mind is going to be changed on whether or not Trump gets some fake & gay felony from some corrupt judge in NY.

Meanwhile for millions of hyperpartisan lunatics like not guilty this gives them some closure that "confirms" all their delusions about Trump.

"He's a convicted felon! " They'll say as Trump and MAGA Patriots are draining the swamp and restoring liberty and freedom all over the globe.

[DixieTune]

Exactly. Anyone saying "He's a convicted felon" is someone who already disliked him for whatever reason, as no one sensible gives any credence to this "conviction."

[Riva]

Well, they don’t like republic ending lawfare. And here’s something you seem to be incapable of grasping crazy Dave, neither does the voting public in general. Have your little fun. It ain’t going to last.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Well, they don’t like republic ending lawfare.

If think that’s called proving the point.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

He's already been convicted.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not formally under NY law until sentenced.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Oops, I didn't know that. I learn something new every day.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's been mentioned here a few times, otherwise I wouldn't know it myself.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I can see him punishing NY...

[John F. Carr]

I bet executive branch discretionary decisions will break against New York. I don't think there are enough MAGA votes in Congress to reduce federal aid by statute.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I can think of a dozen ways he can kill the badly needed new train tunnels, starting with declaring a national monument in the river where they are proposed to run.

They are badly needed -- the ones the Pensky installed 115(?) years ago both lack capacity for current needs and were damaged when filled with salt water during Hurricane Sandy.

[Martinned2]

Unconstrained executive power FTW!

[Commenter_XY]

Yes = I bet executive branch discretionary decisions will break against New York.

It will hurt.

[Frank Drackman]

Can't wait for the "Sentencing". How many years should Merchan get?

[apedad]

Trump is actual OK with this decision.

“They called for an appeal. So, I read it, and I thought it was a fair decision, actually,” Trump said at a prescheduled event at Mar-a-Lago minutes after the court issued its ruling Thursday evening.

“So I’ll do my little thing tomorrow. They can have fun with their political opponent,” he continued.

Trump’s comments were notable for not lambasting the five justices who sided against him — the court’s three liberals as well as Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump appointed, and Chief Justice John Roberts — given Trump’s frequent attacks on judges who rule against him.

In a separate Truth Social post, Trump wrote that “I appreciate the time and effort” by the Supreme Court for “trying to remedy the great injustice done to me.”

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5078243-trump-declines-to-criticize-supreme-court-after-justices-greenlight-sentencing/

And Prof. Blackman (in his story), seems to have missed "appeal" meaning since (according to Trump), this is a hidden message that once the appeals hit the SC, everything will be wiped away.

[Commenter_XY]

Do you personally think it gets overturned on appeal?

[apedad]

Legal merits, not overturned.

Supreme Court cocksucking, yes.

[Michael P]

What prior Supreme Court "cocksucking" led to results you like?

[VinniUSMC]

If those are legal merits, then legal merit has no merit.

[Kazinski]

Absolutely gets overturned.

Hope Hicks "devastating" testimony was not allowable because she was testifying about a conversation that was in the course of her official duties at the White House.

Clearly it was barred under the immunity ruling.

And there is a good chance NY Courts will strike the verdict first, for that and the nutcase theory it was tried on anyway.

[David Nieporent]

Hope Hicks "devastating" testimony was not allowable because she was testifying about a conversation that was in the course of her official duties at the White House.

Hope Hicks' devastating testimony was allowable because it was about stuff that was said before Trump became president, or was about stuff other than about Trump's duties. She also testified briefly about a conversation with Trump that might have been related to his duties.

(Note that "in the course of her official duties" is irrelevant. The made-up doctrine of presidential Immunity applies only to the president himself in the course of his official duties.)

Admitting that minor bit of testimony — even if Trump's objection to it was preserved — was harmless error.

[Kazinski]

No, Trump talking to a subordinate about her official duties in the Whitehouse is part of his official duties as much as hers.

And a conversation between a president and a subordinate about their official duties isn't allowed under the majority decision in Trump v US.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"No, Trump talking to a subordinate about her official duties in the Whitehouse is part of his official duties as much as hers."

What he did before he was President clearly has nothing to do with her 'official duties.'

Wipe the Trump off your face, moron. He's a criminal.

[Riva]

Can you clowns honestly discuss anything related to President Trump? The fat slob Bragg offered testimony from Communications Director Hicks and Executive Assistant to the President Madeleine Westerhout about confidential internal WH discussions regarding WH communications strategy. The fat slob further offered evidence of Tweets from President Trump’s official twitter account regarding communications to the American people on matters of public concern; evidence of President Trump’s alleged involvement in federal investigations and his use of the pardon power (a core executive power by the way); and evidence of information submitted on official forms required in his role as Chief Executive.

[Kazinski]

Jason get triggered too easily to apply any rational thought process to the facts, then throws his bottle and starts dropping f-bombs, that's why I muted him.

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't rain on David's parade. Trump is now officially a "convicted felon" just another thing to add to his list of firsts and on Jan. 20th he will be only the second president to have been elected to non-consecutive terms. But, he will be the President of the United States.
Try as they might they can't take that away.

[Commenter_XY]

He needs to survive and take the oath, first. Given the problems with USSS and the outright antipathy of the FBI, it is not a given.

[not guilty]

I wonder how many of Donald Trump's critics would prefer James David Vance (f/k/a James Donald Bowman and James David Hamel) as president. His views seem pretty malleable, and that is no good thing.

This world would be an objectively better place if Donald Trump were not in it, but that end does not justify the foul means of assassination.

[David Nieporent]

Careful! Even though you explicitly said that assassination wasn't justified, Rivabot is going to spend the next year or two claiming that you said it was.

To answer your first question: while JDV is contemptible in many ways, he is infinitely preferable to Trump.

[Riva]

A couple of monumental sociopathic shit heads who fantasize that the death of someone they oppose politically would benefit the country. Can you two fucking shitheads sink any lower? Yeah, I bet you can. Go for rock bottom clowns.

[not guilty]

Trump's promise to release the remaining files on the assassination of President Kennedy may come back to bite him. https://apnews.com/article/jfk-assassination-documents-release-trump-50ea62770b13f0ffc11ca18dde03500d The CIA likely still does not want to see that happen.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It is generally a good idea not to take Trump at face value, but since he is going to be in office in a few days and the whole thing is about an unconditional discharge, there is no real reason for him (at least publicly) to make a big deal about it. Plus, even the denial had caveats suggesting that if you do anything with any bite against Trump, five or more justices will be concerned.

[RedheadedPharoh]

"given Trump’s frequent attacks on judges who rule against him."

Who rule unfairly against him. As this case demonstrates, he doesn't attack judges who rule fairly according to the law.

[Roger S]

Nearly of the news stories are unable to say what the crime was. The public has the impression that it was a made-up crime, and the prosecution was purely political. Nobody here can even say what the crime was.

[Brett Bellmore]

That last is not quite true, but what the crime was, was pretty stupid, and based on legal theories that don't particularly demand any respect, and which the Supreme court might ultimately decide are out of bounds.

[Martinned2]

Out of bounds how? The Supreme Court of the United States doesn't get to overturn convictions because it thinks a state law is stupid.

[Roger S]

Trump was essentially being prosecuted for making an incomplete entry in his diary, and running for President. Scotus could say that he has constitutional rights to do those things.

[David Nieporent]

Business records are not a "diary."

[Roger S]

Speak for yourself. I keep my business records in my diary.

[DixieTune]

If the law is unconstitutionally vague, such that a person wouldn't reasonably know what conduct violates the law, it sure does!

[not guilty]

Did Team Trump move in the trial court to dismiss the indictment on the basis that New York Penal Law § 175.10 is void for vagueness? If so, do you have a link to such motion?

[DixieTune]

I don't know or care, but I've never bought the philosophical argument that you waive anything by not raising it.

[David Nieporent]

It is a legal rule, not a philosophical argument.

(Also, there's nothing even a little bit vague about the NY statute. "Falsifying business records" is very concrete, as is "intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." You might argue that it's broad, but even if that's true, broad and vague are different concepts.)

[Roger S]

The law is vague because it does not require specificity on the other crime. The other crime can be to promote an election by unlawful means, which is vague because it does not require specificity of the unlawful means. It is so vague that the articles in the mainstream press are not able to explain it correctly.

[David Nieporent]

The law is vague because it does not require specificity on the other crime.

Again, that makes it broad, not vague.

Do you also think a burglary statute is "vague" since it criminalizes unauthorized entry with the intent to commit "a crime"?

[Roger S]

I have heard of people being charged with burglary, just because they were in a suspicious location at a suspicious time, and have suspicious tools like screwdrivers in their pockets, with no good explanation. Yes, I would say that the law is vague in that case, although maybe not unconstitutionally vague.

[not guilty]

Unless you are an appellate judge, DixieTune, it doesn't matter what you do or don't buy into. Appellate courts are quick to find that an issue that has not been raised in the court below has been waived.

I don't know about New York rules in particular, but prosecution under an unconstitutional statute is a defect in institution of the prosecution, which many states require to be raised by motion to dismiss prior to trial.

United State Supreme Court Rule 14(1)(g)(i) requires that a petition for certiorari must contain, If review of a state-court judgment is sought, specification of the stage in the proceedings, both in the court of first instance and in the appellate courts, when the federal questions sought to be reviewed were raised; the method or manner of raising them and the way in which they were passed on by those courts; and pertinent quotations of specific portions of the record or summary thereof, with specific reference to the places in the record where the matter appears (e.g., court opinion, ruling on exception, portion of court's charge and exception thereto, assignment of error), so as to show that the federal question was timely and properly raised and that this Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment on a writ of certiorari. [Emphasis added.]

If Team Trump failed to do that, they may find that s.o.l. does not stand only for statute of limitations.

[DixieTune]

If the appellate judges are appointed by Democrats, they're not legitimate judges, but instead are sick vermin, and I care about their opinions as much as I care about Paris Hilton's.

[tylertusta]

I was very disappointed when SCOTUS declined to issue a stay. They didn't do it because they felt they couldn't do it (as some here have emphatically said), but instead they said they declined merely because they just didn't want to.

It's obvious what transpired: Roberts wimped out. Again. Except this time he undermined his own opinion barely six months after issuing it!

Bravo, Chief Justice. Bravo.

Every other Justice essentially stood by their position in Trump, even Justice Barrett. Given her concurrence in Trump, I'm not surprised that she isn't willing to have the Court step in to prevent something she was OK with in the decision.

At this point I'm not sure if Roberts goes along with reversal on immunity grounds or any grounds at all.

[Roger S]

The case needs to be reversed on the merits, not merely stayed.

[not guilty]

Team Trump is now free to seek reversal on the merits, which was not the case until this morning.

I hope Trump's new lawyers get a hefty fee, paid up front and nonrefundable.

[tylertusta]

They probably will. But he will need a new set of lawyers since some will take up jobs with the DOJ.

[not guilty]

"I was very disappointed when SCOTUS declined to issue a stay. They didn't do it because they felt they couldn't do it (as some here have emphatically said), but instead they said they declined merely because they just didn't want to."

The question is now moot, but as I wrote on another thread today, conspicuously absent from the SCOTUS order was any discussion of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction or lack thereof to entertain the application in the first place.

[tylertusta]

Indeed. However, I feel like if a majority of the court felt like it was for jurisdictional reasons they would have said so. It's a more convenient dodge.

[DixieTune]

Roberts is the biggest pussy the world has ever seen.

[Riva]

Given the dumpster fire that the Big Guy is leaving the country and the world, why are you revealing in this disgraceful weaponization of the law that is now interfering with the transition of President-elect Trump? Democrats really don’t care about the country, they think this is somehow a political win.

Truly repulsive. And stupid. The public has already rejected your lawfare abuses. And there will be accountability and justice, that won’t, in case your little lawfare brain can’t grasp this, distract from the implementation of the Trump agenda.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"What we need is the right kind of lawfare..."

[John F. Carr]

The felony case looks weak to me. My gut says overturned. I have not waded through all the briefing and jury instructions because it's not that important to me whether Wikipedia editors get to write "convicted felon" on Trump's page. We all know what he did and who he did.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Watch for him to go after some Dem for the same thing. Or maybe some creative interpretation of the precedent, e.g. going after Farcebook and claiming they give illegal in-kind donations to Dems.

While I don't think that is particularly good for the country, I won't cry any tears over it...

[Martinned2]

You mean the same Facebook that just decided to get rid of all of their misinformation controls, that Facebook? Why would you interpret that as favouring the Democrats?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Your honor, I stopped making illegal in-kind campaign contributions after Trump won, so all the ones I made before that don't count.

[Martinned2]

You realise that that entire argument is contingent on Trumpists disproportionately spreading misinformation, right?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Since when would facts actually matter, even if they were true.

[Martinned2]

You are beyond helping.

[Roger S]

Weak? Trump paid a lawyer, and described it accurately as a legal expense. The statute of limitations had expired. No one was misled, and there was no consequential crime. No one has ever been charged with anything similar. I hope this case gets explained to everyone, so they understand lawfare better.

[David Nieporent]

Trump reimbursed a lawyer for payments to a porn star, and did not in fact describe it as a legal expense, but as a monthly retainer for legal services — and neither "legal expense" nor "retainer" would have been an accurate description.

If a client hires me to negotiate a lease for him on a property, and I do so, and then pay the advance rent and security deposit out of my own pocket in order to save time, and then my client reimburses me, his payment to me is a reimbursement for rent, not for "legal expenses."

[Roger S]

The payment was not just a reimbursement. It included fees to Cohen.

Even if the description was incomplete, you still have not defined a crime, because Trump normally has the right to describe the payment any way he wants to.

[Voize of Reazon]

Try that in reverse in your next income tax filing.
Call some income reimbursement, and claim that you normally have the right to call it whatever you want.

[Roger S]

If I lie to cheat someone out of money, or to reduce taxes, then that is fraud and punishable. A lie under oath could be perjury. But otherwise, it is usually legal to lie.

[Voize of Reazon]

And in New York bookkeeping lies to conceal crimes are fraud and punishable.

[Roger S]

Yes, but no such crime was ever proved.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Trump normally has the right to describe the payment any way he wants to.

This seems like a fairly remarkable claim. Can you elaborate on why you think it’s the case?

[Roger S]

It was not under oath. It did not affect anyone. This was more like a diary entry.

The prosecutor did argue that Trump lied for the purpose of committing another crime, but never told us what that other crime was. If Trump lied, the most likely explanation was to avoid spreading nasty rumors. He is allowed to lie for that purpose.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That would seem to be an incorrect statement of New York law: falsifying business for a non-criminal purpose would constitute the misdemeanor-level offense.

[David Nieporent]

but never told us what that other crime was.

Repeating this lie won't make it any less of a lie. Repeating it after you have been repeatedly told it is a lie makes you more of a jackass, though.

(Anticipating: no, I will not dignify the, "Oh yeah? What other crime was it?" with a response. You know damn well, and if you don't you can read any of the hundreds of threads where it was discussed, or you could just google.)

[Roger S]

The indictment listed 3 or 4 possible crimes, but the prosecutor did not identify one or make any serious attempt to prove any of them.

[Commenter_XY]

That is the part that goes to the Ct of Appeals, and SCOTUS.

[not guilty]

"The indictment listed 3 or 4 possible crimes, but the prosecutor did not identify one or make any serious attempt to prove any of them."

Roger, that is a flat out lie. The indictment listed 34 counts of one crime, to-wit: Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.

[Roger S]

Those 34 counts are all the same, and would be misdemeanors, but for allegations that they were committed in order to commit another crime. I am referring to that supposed other crime, which was never proved. The prosecution suggested that it could be a campaign finance violation, but Trump was not allowed to present evidence that he was innocent of any such violation.

[not guilty]

XY, how is the manner in which the State of New York defines the essential elements of the charged offense a federal issue reviewable by SCOTUS?

Whether the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient that any rational trier of fact could have found every element to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt is a federal Due Process issue, Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), but how New York defines what the elements of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree are is not.

[not guilty]

"Those 34 counts are all the same, and would be misdemeanors, but for allegations that they were committed in order to commit another crime. I am referring to that supposed other crime, which was never proved. The prosecution suggested that it could be a campaign finance violation, but Trump was not allowed to present evidence that he was innocent of any such violation."

I see that you still have not read and understood the jury instructions. Justice Merchan instructed the jury at page 30:

The People allege that the other crime the defendant intended to commit, aid, or conceal is a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152.

Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election.

Under our law, a person is guilty of such a conspiracy when, with intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct.

Knowledge of a conspiracy does not by itself make the defendant a coconspirator. The defendant must intend that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means. Intent means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with the intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means when his or her conscious objective or purpose is that such conduct be performed.

Evidence that defendant was present when others agreed to engage in the performance of a crime does not by itself show that he personally agreed to engage in the conspiracy.

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf

And just how was Trump "was not allowed to present evidence that he was innocent of any such violation"?

Is it hard to type comments with pants on fire, Roger?

[Roger S]

Keep reading those instructions, and find that the jury was given 3 possibilities for the "unlawful means". None of them was proved, and the jury did not have to agree on any of them. Trump was not even allowed to present evidence on them.

> Although you must conclude unanimously that the
defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any
person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be
unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.
In determining whether the defendant conspired to
promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office
by unlawful means, you may consider the following: (1) violations
of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA;
(2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of
tax laws.

[David Nieporent]

The indictment listed 3 or 4 possible crimes, but the prosecutor did not identify one or make any serious attempt to prove any of them.

Repeating this lie won't make it any less of a lie. Repeating it after you have been repeatedly told it is a lie makes you more of a jackass, though.

[Roger S]

The jury instructions were posted above. Read them yourself. If one of those 3 possibilities was proved, which one was it?

[David Nieporent]

And just how was Trump "was not allowed to present evidence that he was innocent of any such violation"?

To the extent this isn't just another gish gallop talking point, what this may refer to is that Trump wanted to put a former FEC commissioner on to explain his personal views about what the FEC means. But of course no judge lets witnesses testify as to what the law is; that invades the province of the judge.

[Roger S]

Are you arguing that the prosecution proved a campaign finance violation? No, the judge did not want to even admit that a federal issue was involved.

[David Nieporent]

The jury instructions were posted above. Read them yourself. If one of those 3 possibilities was proved, which one was it?

Sigh. He wasn't charged with doing those things. Those are simply manners in which 17-152 might be violated. It was proved that Trump intended to either violate 17-152 or aid or conceal a violation of 17-152.

[Roger S]

You bring up another vagueness. Apparently the prosecution did not have to say whether Trump intended a violation, or aided a violation, or concealed a violation. The jury did not have to agree. The violation was not proved. One possibility is that Trump intended to violate campaign finance laws. But no one can explain how anything he did would violate campaign finance laws. And yet somehow the mindreaders in the NY prosecutors' office were able to detect that Trump intended something illegal, without even Trump himself knowing what was illegal about it.

[not guilty]

Roger, you seem to conflate essential elements of an offense with means of commission of an offense. As I wrote on Monday's open thread, that there may be different means of commission of a single offense does not transmute one offense into multiple offenses. Justice Souter wrote for a four justice plurality in Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 631-632 (1991):

We have never suggested that, in returning general verdicts in such cases, the jurors should be required to agree upon a single means of commission, any more than the indictments were required to specify one alone. In these cases, as in litigation generally, different jurors may be persuaded by different pieces of evidence, even when they agree upon the bottom line. Plainly there is no general requirement that the jury reach agreement on the preliminary factual issues which underlie the verdict." McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433, 449 (1990) (BLACKMUN, J., concurring) (footnotes omitted).

. . . We see no reason . . . why the rule that the jury need not agree as to mere means of satisfying the actus reus element of an offense should not apply equally to alternative means of satisfying the element of mens rea.

Justice Scalia, concurring in part and concurring in judgment, there wrote:

As the plurality observes, it has long been the general rule that, when a single crime can be committed in various ways, jurors need not agree upon the mode of commission. [Citations omitted.] That rule is not only constitutional, it is probably indispensable in a system that requires a unanimous jury verdict to convict. When a woman's charred body has been found in a burned house, and there is ample evidence that the defendant set out to kill her, it would be absurd to set him free because six jurors believe he strangled her to death (and caused the fire accidentally in his hasty escape), while six others believe he left her unconscious and set the fire to kill her. While that seems perfectly obvious, it is also true, as the plurality points out, see ante, at 633, that one can conceive of novel "umbrella" crimes (a felony consisting of either robbery or failure to file a tax return) where permitting a 6-6 verdict would seem contrary to due process.

Id., at 649-650.

New York law agrees with Schad. In People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383 (N.Y. 2004), the trial court instructed the jury:

"Your verdict, as I have mentioned before on each of these charges, has to be unanimous. That means all twelve have to agree upon a verdict. All twelve of you deliberating on a case do not have to agree that the Defendant was the shooter nor do all twelve deliberating on the case have to find that the Defendant was the commander. It is sufficient that all twelve find the Defendant was either the shooter or the commander under Murder in the First Degree."

Id., at 406. The Court of Appeals approved the instruction and affirmed the conviction and death sentence, opining:

As we sift carefully through the evidence, it becomes apparent that defendant makes much of what is essentially a preliminary fact. "Plainly there is no general requirement that the jury reach agreement on the preliminary factual issues which underlie the verdict" (Schad, 501 US at 632, quoting McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 US 433, 449 [Blackmun, J., concurring]).

Id., at 408. Indeed, the Court further noted:

Schad itself cited People v. Sullivan (173 NY 122 [1903]) as the leading case for the proposition that the jury need not necessarily concur in a single view of the transaction, in order to reach a verdict (501 US at 641). There, a single crime was charged in the indictment, first degree murder, under then-existing Penal Code § 183. As the Court explained, "[i]f the conclusion may be justified upon either of two interpretations of the evidence, the verdict cannot be impeached by showing that a part of the jury proceeded upon one interpretation and part upon the other" (173 NY at 127, quoting Murray v. New York Life Ins. Co., 96 NY 614, 622 [1884]).

2 N.Y.3d at 408, n.13.

In order to convict, a state court jury must find unanimously that the prosecution has proved every essential element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. As to the means of commission of the offense, the jurors need not unanimously agree.

Here the jury by its verdict unanimously found that Donald Trump falsified business records with intent to defraud that included an intent to aid or conceal the commission of conspiracy to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means. As the trial court's instructions indicated, jurors were not required to be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were -- the specific "unlawful means" was a preliminary factual issue for purposes of Schad and Mateo, not an essential element of the charged offense.

[Roger S]

Yes, I accept that a jury can return a murder verdict, even if there is disagreement about details in the cause of death. But the jury has to all agree on guilt of murder. The prosecution would have to present evidence for each of the possible causes of death.

As Scalia said above, you cannot just create umbrella crimes that combine dissimilar crimes.

Here, Trump is accused of (intent/aid/conceal) for (campaign finance/faking records/tax evasion). This seems to be 3x3=9 possibilities, of completely different crimes. The crimes would not even be in the same year. The campaign was 2016, the records 2017, and taxes probably after that. None of this was delineated. Were they federal or state taxes? What year? What was the campaign contribution? No one can explain.

[David Nieporent]

Apparently the prosecution did not have to say whether Trump intended a violation, or aided a violation, or concealed a violation.

No, you've distributed your verbs/nouns incorrectly. All the prosecution has to do is show intent to (commit/aid/conceal). That's it. Just a mental state. Doesn't have to show there was another crime at all, let alone that Trump was involved. As long as he had the requisite mental state, it suffices.

[not guilty]

"Apparently the prosecution did not have to say whether Trump intended a violation, or aided a violation, or concealed a violation. The jury did not have to agree."

Wrong. Charging in the conjunctive is permissible and quite common.

"[W]hen a jury returns a guilty verdict on an indictment charging several acts in the conjunctive . . . , the verdict stands if the evidence is sufficient with respect to any one of the acts charged." Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46, 56-57 (1991) (upholding a general guilty verdict on a multiple-object conspiracy where the evidence is adequate to support conviction as to one of the objects); Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398 (1970) (upholding general verdict under a one-count indictment charging the defendant with knowingly purchasing, possessing, dispensing, and distributing heroin there was sufficient evidence of distribution alone).

[Commenter_XY]

NG, Schad was a plurality, not majority. Not precedential.

[David Nieporent]

NG, Schad was a plurality, not majority. Not precedential.

That's not how it works.

[Mr. Bumble]

Did you bill it separately?

[Roger S]

Yes, a property lease would be billed separately, and would not be confidential either.

Normally, anyway. I heard of a top NYC law firm that sends all its bills for "services rendered", with no itemization or count of hours. If that were illegal, the firm would be prosecuted. But only Trump gets prosecuted.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If they included the purchase of property in the "services rendered" line, they would be, because those are not services.

[Roger S]

How about (legally) paying off a blackmailer? Would that be a service rendered?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Same same. The act of paying off the blackmailer is the lawyer doing a service for the client; the cash in the briefcase is not.

[Roger S]

Suppose I hire Wachtel Lipton to pay off a blackmailer, and just bill me for services rendered. Are you saying that is illegal in NY? Has anyone been prosecuted, besides Trump?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If you keep asking the same question, I will keep giving you the same answer.

At this rate, you will never understand that there's a difference between a charge for a service and the cost of the supplies necessary to perform that service. Enjoy your life.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Officially being a felon by a court of law matters in our system of government. We have a whole criminal justice system as a means to determine certain facts. It is more than what "Wikipedia" says.

[John F. Carr]

A felony conviction serves two purposes. It has legal consequences and it informs the world that this person has been adjudicated to have done something illegal. The legal consequences are minor thanks to presidential supremacy and we already know what he did. The jury's finding as to Trump's mental state is based on information that is now well known. If the jury had seen a lot of complicated evidence about his ties to a pizza shop when children were held as sex slaves the verdict would have more persuasive effect.

[Josh R]

Upheld through the NY court system. Either upheld or reversed at SCOTUS 5-4 because some of the evidence presented may be held to be inadmissible under Trump v. United States. Roberts will determine the outcome.

[not guilty]

"Does Pres Trump get the conviction reversed, in the end (yes, No)?
Why or why not?"

No. Donald Trump has no viable issues which are likely to result in reversal. Indeed, as I wrote on another thread today, I don't see what Trump will gain by appealing the jury verdict and Justice Merchan's sentencing order to the appellate courts of New York. The conduct alleged in the indictment is not official acts to which immunity even arguably attaches. If Trump's complaint is jury instructions or the admission of evidence relating to immune conduct, the remedy would be an appellate court ordering a new trial, which could take place only after Trump leaves office as president.

Such a retrial could result in a sentence of confinement, provided that the records for the harsher sentence affirmatively appear on the record and are based upon objective information concerning identifiable conduct on the part of the defendant occurring after the time of the original sentencing proceeding. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 726 (1969). Why should Trump want to risk that?

Team Trump conceded in the trial court that the conduct alleged in the indictment relates only to unofficial acts, to which no immunity attaches. To the extent that Trump kvetches about admission of evidence related to official acts, as Justice Merchan's December 16 order recites at page 18, "It is ... logical and reasonable to conclude that if the act of falsifying records to cover up the payments so that the public would not be made aware is decidedly an unofficial act, so too should the communications to further that same cover-up be unofficial." https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFs/press/PDFs/CPL330.30Dec.pdf Justice Merchan there analyzed in detail (pp. 18-35) the testimony that the defense complained of, concluding that there was no error and alternatively finding (pp. 35-38) that even if the disputed evidence was admitted in error, such error was
harmless in light of the entire record of trial proceedings. This analysis is unassailable.

Trump's complaint that the jurors may have been non-unanimous is unavailing, for the reasons that have been fully ventilated in these comment threads. The jurors were properly instructed that they must agree unanimously as to every essential element of the charged offense in order to convict, separately as to each count of the indictment. https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf

[Kazinski]

Blackman has a post up where he argues that the conviction isn't final, and thus ripe for appeal, until Trump exhausts his appeals in the 2nd Circuit, and higher of Judge Hellerstein's denial of his motion of leave to file a motion for removal.

So I guess he won't be a felon when he takes office, not that it matters.

[David Nieporent]

Blackman's post was — consistently for Blackman — hackishly wrong.

[tylertusta]

Why should Trump want to risk that?

You ask this because you aren't thinking like someone at the tail end of his life and for whom any delay is going to be a victory.

Trump will be no less than 82 years old by the time a new trial is conducted, and that assumes a new trial will happen immediately upon the end of his term. It's more likely that a new trial would start in the fall of 2029 at the earliest. It's quite possible that Trump dies of old age before he could be go to trial again, assuming he's healthy enough to stand trial at all if he's still alive.

That also assumes that Bragg's successor will bother to retry such a stupid case.

[Roger S]

Analysis unassailable? I see evidence that Trump tried to conceal allegations and payments. That is all subject to immunity issues, but let's suppose that holds up. I do not see any evidence that Trump intended to do anything illegal. None. Everything indicates that he believed the payments to be entirely legal.

Trump might have to appeal all the way to Scotus, but he would probably win 9-0 there.

[Josh R]

Why would SCOTUS second guess the jury (they saw the evidence), 9-0 no less.

[Roger S]

Four of them already voted to stay the sentencing. There was no evidence of anything criminal. The case was wholly political.

Why would Scotus step in? Because they do not think the President should be hassled by petty and vindictive claims like this.

[santamonica811]

It's always amusing to hear an obvious non-lawyer opine so confidently about legal issues that he has no understanding of. Kind of like being lectured by an adorable speaking chipmunk about how *clearly* the Earth is flat.

[not guilty]

As Mark Twain (may have) said, "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

[Josh R]

Even those four would not be brazen enough to flout the law and second guess the jury. They will find another reason to vacate the verdict (without prejudice).

[not guilty]

Whether the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient that any rational trier of fact could have found every element to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt is a federal Due Process issue, Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), but that analysis is extremely deferential to the verdict of the jury.

When considering sufficiency, the appellate court does not reweigh the evidence. Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982). It is the responsibility of the jury—not the court—to decide what conclusions should be drawn from evidence admitted at trial. A reviewing court may set aside the jury's verdict on the ground of insufficient evidence only if no rational trier of fact could have agreed with the jury. Cavazos v. Smith, 565 U.S. 1, 4 (2011) (per curiam). A reviewing court "faced with a record of historical facts that supports conflicting inferences must presume—even if it does not affirmatively appear in the record—that the trier of fact resolved any such conflicts in favor of the prosecution, and must defer to that resolution." Jackson, at 326.

A verdict is legally sufficient if there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences that could lead a rational person to conclude that every element of the charged crime has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The proof must be viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution and the People are entitled to all reasonable evidentiary inferences. The reviewing court is required to marshal competent facts and determine whether, as a matter of law, a jury could logically conclude that the People sustained their burden of proof. Under this standard, a court could theoretically uphold a conviction that was premised on inherently contradictory testimony by a single witness because the jury could have accepted the testimony that supported the People and rejected that which did not. People v. Delamota, 18 N.Y.3d 107, 113 (2011).

Like it or not, Michael Cohen's accomplice testimony, if it was corroborated by other evidence tending to connect Trump with the commission of the crime, would establish a prima facie case of Donald Trump's guilt. That corroborative evidence need not, by itself, prove that a crime was committed or that the defendant is guilty. What the law requires is that there be evidence that tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime charged in such a way as may reasonably satisfy you that the accomplice is telling the truth about the defendant’s participation in that crime.

The invoices, checks, check stubs, ledger entries, bank records and wire transfers provide ample corroboration of Cohen's testimony.

[David Nieporent]

I do not see any evidence that Trump intended to do anything illegal. None. Everything indicates that he believed the payments to be entirely legal.

Since you weren't on the jury and didn't watch the trial, your "I do not see any evidence" is not really a compelling argument. What matters is what evidence the jurors saw, not what you (claim to) see or not see.

And people go to jail all the time for doing things that they later claim, "Oh, I thought it was legal." (You might want to ask yourself why he forged the business records if he thought it was legal, though.)

[Roger S]

Trump did not forge business records. He incompletely described a legal expense. He concealed paying off a blackmailer because he did not want the accusations to be public, not because he thought that anything was illegal.

[Mr. Bumble]

He signed checks presented to him as payment of legal expenses.

[David Nieporent]

The problem is that you people are liars or — and — don't know what the fuck you're talking about. It's true that if all we knew were that Trump signed some checks, it's possible he could explain that as "I just signed what was handed to me; I didn't know they were false." It's not consistent with what we know about his approach to spending money, but it might be reasonable doubt. But that's not all we knoew. There was direct testimony that he knew what the payments were for and expressly directed a coverup. The jury heard that testimony and believed it. (And yes, some of it was from Michael Cohen — but the jury is still entitled to believe him if they want — but there was other testimony as well, such as from AMI.)

[Mr. Bumble]

"You people"? Liars?
Is my statement a lie?
I would think that as a practitioner you would be upset and offended
by what went on in Merchan's courtroom.

[David Nieporent]

"He had a reason to lie" is not actually a defense against an accusation of lying.

[Kazinski]

Alice Weidel, the far right German lesbian with the Sri Lankan Partner had a conversation posted on X.

Here is just the clip where he talks about having to print out a 25000 page permit, and get each page hand stamped to be able to build a Tesla factory near Berlin.
https://x.com/ElonClipsX/status/1877570493550837808?t=eYvFd5xhNQNB33XAEkkQtA&s=19

Here is the full conversation which I haven't yet listened to, but will.

But anyone is welcome to give me a spoiler and tell me the most racist part.

https://x.com/Alice_Weidel/status/1877462752526053592?t=7v8tJMbKUt-rjUCvqB-n6A&s=19

[Martinned2]

The most racist part was probably the part where Elon Musk and Alice Weidel agreed that Adolf Hitler was really a communist who was misunderstood.

https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-far-right-german-leader-weidel-hitler-communist/

But other racism is on offer, if you're into that sort of thing.

https://www.politico.eu/article/elon-musk-german-far-right-politics-alice-weidel-afd-olaf-scholz-donald-trump/

[Brett Bellmore]

"The most racist part was probably the part where Elon Musk and Alice Weidel agreed that Adolf Hitler was really a communist who was misunderstood."

Um, I suppose you could argue that was wrong, though there's some truth to it. You might want to, if you think calling Hitler a communist is some sort of complement. (It's not.)

But what's "racist" about it?

I read the whole 2nd link, and didn't see anything even vaguely racist. The 1st was paywalled, but I didn't see anything racist before the paywall came up.

I think you're going to have to actually explain what was "racist".

[Michael P]

I did not see a paywall, but the only part I saw that touched on anything Martinned would likely call racist was this:

Weidel also compared the Nazi Party’s views to those of modern-day left-wing political groups who support Palestine in the face of what a UN commission has called crimes against humanity conducted by Israel. While her AfD colleagues were last month seen attending a secretive meeting organized by former members of a militant neo-Nazi group known for burning the Israeli flag, she said, “The AfD is the ​​only protector of the Jewish people here in Germany.”

I don't know how any reasonable person sees racism in that, but...

[Brett Bellmore]

It's one of those paywalls that only kicks in after the site has determined you've exceeded your quota of free visits.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hitler WAS at least a socialist -- that's what Nazi stood for --- National Socialism. During WWII, we called them the "National Socialists" -- see the text of West VA v Barnette.

[Martinned2]

Yes, you definitely want to take the side of the German Neo-Nazi and the South African white supremacist in this debate.

You realise that the AfD is so far to the right that even the other European far right parties, like Le Pen in France and Orban in Hungary, won't touch them with a barge pole right?

[Martinned2]

The AfD's main campaing poster is literally two blonde people bringing the Nazi salute: https://x.com/sjbeardsley/status/1818448967895572732

[VinniUSMC]

Nazi Martin can't help but project. Did seeing that poster give you an erection?

[Michael P]

They want to be the 54th State. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute

[VinniUSMC]

the German Neo-Nazi and the South African white supremacist

Says Nazi piece of shit Martin.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Are you a lawyer?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I neither know nor care who these people are.
Hitler WAS a socialist, that is a fact.

[David Nieporent]

Hitler WAS at least a socialist -- that's what Nazi stood for --- National Socialism.

Good point. And the DPRK (North Korea) is a democracy because that's what DPRK stands for! Democratic People's Republic of Korea!

[Dr. Ed 2]

People's Republic is the key term.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, it isn't either of those things, either, thus making your argument even dumber.

[Mr. Bumble]

So only the name should be dispositive and not the actions?

[David Nieporent]

That's literally the exact opposite of my argument. "Dr." Ed argued that because the word "socialist" was in the name of the Nazi party, that proved Hitler was a socialist. I'm contradicting that, saying that the name doesn't determine it, the actions do.

[hobie]

I didn't know it was fashionable to add qualifiers when speaking about important people. Here, let me try:

President Biden, a white heterosexual male, and his wife, a white Rhode Islander

Trump, a white heterosexual predator, and his wife, a Slovenian escort

Say, that's pretty neat. I like it. Very germane in discussions

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

Wrong on 3/4 !!! How do you do it.
You assume he is heterosexual (which at any rate doesn't rule out bi or other sexual depravities) and his wife is a NJ person.

Trump is not a predator , you must be thinking of Clinton -- whoops, you love Clinton, sorry.
The wife is not and never was an escort. This claim is unfounded. The Daily Mail in 2016 published allegations that former first lady Melania Trump was an escort and then retracted the claims, apologized to her, and settled a defamation lawsuit with her over its article.

We know you are ugly from your mouth, but it's your lying that concerns most of us

[SRG2]

The "grab them by the pussy" comment was sufficient to establish that Trump is a self-described predator.

[Frank Drackman]

It's a variation of a phrase that Men with Testicles used to use about how you pick women up the same way you do a 6-pack of Beer (do people still drink Beer from cans? why?) doesn't mean it's actually done. Admittedly harsher than "can't live with em, can't bury them in the basement" but a turn of phrase rather than describing an actual act.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Frank, you are the MD --

Presume a weight of 120-130 lbs and presume perfect balance, i.e. that she wouldn't tip and fall loose. If you were to lift her that way, with all 120-130 lbs being lifted by her perineum, wouldn't you rip something loose inside her?

Forget being more than slightly uncomfortable, I can't see the perineum being structurally sound enough to support the weight. QED no one actually does this, it is a mere figure of speech.

And Trump is 6' 03" so he couldn't do this while standing upright, his arm isn't long enough...

[Michael P]

To "pick women up" has a figurative meaning in addition to the literal one. Plus Drackman did say "doesn't mean it's actually done", which applies equally well to either meaning.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The "they let you" part meant that this was consensual.

[David Nieporent]

No; time's arrow only flies in one direction.

[Michael P]

In addition to "only a clear, fully specified and prior 'yes' means 'yes'", DMN probably also believes "... until she regrets her decision".

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

But Clinton with the intern was "legally' consensual.
Nobody buys what you are saying, and parents with teenage girls rather despise what you are saying.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Slovenian escort"

Classy as always.

[SRG2]

I'm surprised you haven't got RSI from all that pearl-clutching.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, I understand that Trump is still subject to Merchan's gag order, which prohibits him from publicly discussing some aspects of the case. In ten days he will once again be President.

What would the legal implications be if, at that point, he violates the gag order?

[Commenter_XY]

Immediate detention and summary execution, (just kidding)

Pragmatically, nothing. Is NY sending cops to arrest the POTUS for violating a moot gag order?

[apedad]

I was actually thinking Merchan would drop the gag order after he sentences Trump since the proceedings - in his court - would be completed.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Merchan does whatever he wants.

[Frank Drackman]

I don't like fucking Colombians!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Could Trump have INS revoke Merchan's citizenship?

[Frank Drackman]

Like with Elon, I don't think Merchan's Immigration paperwork would hold up under questioning.

[David Nieporent]

No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

[tylertusta]

You can only remove a naturalized person's citizenship under very specific circumstances, and being an awful judge isn't one of them.

[Bob from Ohio]

Was the paperwork 100% accurate?

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

It is a matter of pre-eminence of duties. If his job requires what is technically a violation, he is okay.

[Brett Bellmore]

I kind of figured that, but I don't see how that's likely to happen. I meant, if he just totally blows it off.

[David Nieporent]

Jail him for contempt. Obviously, if he's in jail then he can't perform the duties of president, so the 25th amendment gets invoked and JD Vance becomes acting president.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Jail Merchan for conspiring to interfere with USSS protection (or whatever the actual Federal offense(s) is/are called).

A sitting President can not be arrested -- that came up when the Bush Twins got caught underaged drinking and 43 gave permission for them to be arrested.

[Martinned2]

Sounds like a great system. It's working out great in South Korea too at the moment.

[David Nieporent]

conspiring to interfere with USSS protection (or whatever the actual Federal offense(s) is/are called

They're called "things in Dr. Ed's expansive but ultimately useless imagination."

A sitting President can not be arrested -- that came up when the Bush Twins got caught underaged drinking and 43 gave permission for them to be arrested.

I was not aware that the Bush Twins were ever the sitting president, and also they were not arrested, but cited, and Bush had the power neither to give nor decline permission for that.

[santamonica811]

...but other than those points; Ed was spot-on accurate, as usual. 🙂

[Mr. Bumble]

In 2014 Californians passed Prop 1 (67% to 33%) also known as Prop 1 and Water Bond, was a California ballot proposition intended to provide $7.12 billion in bonds for infrastructure projects relating to water supply and would allocate bond revenue. It was on the ballot as a bond issue. The proposition included some specific projects to be completed if passed, including allocating $810 million for regional water management plans and $395 million for statewide flood control related projects.
To date there has been no new water storage added.
Like

[hobie]

Listening to some hydrologist yesterday. He said that all of Southern California's reservoirs are full. But because the demand was so great and acute that the local piping infrastructure - no different than that of any other place in America - was unable to keep up

[Mr. Bumble]

That may be true but you are not accounting for the fact that fighting the equivalent of a forest fire in an urban environment is not what a fire hydrant was designed for.

[hobie]

That was also mentioned. Standard fire hydrants were inadequate for such a giant urban fire. I don't know if retrofitting America with colossal fire hydrants is really feasible though

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe Malibu should have had fire boats. After all they are on the ocean.
However, I was thinking more in terms of surface water sources that could be accessed by helicopters or other aircraft (of course assumes they have those available).

[hobie]

Also, also mentioned was the 100mph winds preventing aircraft use. Talk about a helpless situation

[Dr. Ed 2]

Surface water sources can be accessed by fire trucks -- if the firefighters know how to draft and my guess is that they don't.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's not the hydrants as much as the water mains to supply them, which have to be a lot bigger than people realize.

For example, the MWRA which supplies the water to Metro Boston, has 105 miles of active tunnels and aqueducts (mostly 10 to 14 feet in diameter) and 39 miles of standby aqueducts to bring the water 85 miles to Boston, and it's all gravity-fed because it's coming down from what technically is part of the Appalachians.

Here is a map: https://www.mwra.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/2023-11/2014watermap.png?itok=KpnpY0_E

These are all concrete-lined tunnels because you really can't have pipes that big in the street, not with all the other stuff you have in the street. Most water mains are 5", there are 18" and 36" ones but they aren't common.

Both Boston and NYC are building new tunnels for redundancy, in places NYC''s new tunnel is 24 *feet* in diameter.

How many new main supply tunnels has California built in the past 50 years? And how many standpipes have they built?

[Brett Bellmore]

"He said that all of Southern California's reservoirs are full."

I think Mr. Bumble's point was that they were supposed to build MORE reservoirs, and didn't?

But, reasonable point concerning the capacity to actually use that water. As I said yesterday, the real key here is actually keeping the fuel supply down.

[DeAnnP]

I have also seen that in houses that caught on fire where they used plastic pipes (PVC/Pex I would assume), the pipes melted triggering water leaks, also lending to reduced pressure.

[ThePublius]

"He said that all of Southern California's reservoirs are full."

That's a lie. The 117 million gallon Santa Ynez reservoir in the heart of Pacific Palisades has been empty for maintenance - since 2009! The only other available water was a few one million gallon reservoirs.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That may be the EPA's doing: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/2007_05_18_disinfection_tcr_whitepaper_tcr_storage.pdf

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Fuck you, Publius.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-01-10/as-flames-raged-in-palisades-a-key-reservoir-nearby-was-offline

"Officials said that the Santa Ynez Reservoir had been closed since about February for repairs to its cover, leaving a 117-million-gallon water storage complex empty in the heart of the Palisades for nearly a year. "

[ThePublius]

To my decidedly uncivil co-conspirator, Jason:

"For those wondering how long the Santa Ynez Reservoir has been empty the answer is June 2009. Go to Google Earth and locate Santa Ynez. There's a slider top left allowing you to scroll through historic satellite imagery which I marked with a yellow rectangle."

https://x.com/JacobAShell/status/1877961913038152058

(Surely, your apparent need to be vulgar and hateful are symptoms of mental illness. I recommend you seek professional help. Meanwhile, I will flag any such post you make.)

[David Nieporent]

What is it with you people who will believe anything other than an actual news source? Did you bother to scroll down in that Twitter thread?

I was probably incorrect to say Santa Ynez, was empty since 2009, having initially been misled by the reservoir cover. But you can see the outline of the underlying water sometimes.

https://x.com/wretchardthecat/status/1877953702545277423

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Flag away.

You'll note that there are plenty of commenters towards whom my invective is not directed, because they are not the lying, partisan idiot that you are.

Perhaps someday you might understand that your disregard for the truth has consequences in how others treat you.

[Frank Drackman]

I don't smoke it anymore, (well once in a while, (for my Glaucoma) and like with Barry O, my sobriety's "A work in Progress") but think of all of that High-Grade Marriage-a-Juan-a going up in smoke, no wonder Gavin New-Scum looks stoned. Rams will probably play better in Glendale.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Tucker Carlson in Australia -- worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dka2i27sxgs

[Frank Drackman]

Does the Hamster in his head run the opposite direction?

[Martinned2]

I assume he went there because during US winter he needs to go somewhere on the southern hemisphere to adequately sun his taint? If so, I think I'll pass on clicking on the link.

[hobie]

is it just me, or does Tucker Carlson look almost identical to Peter Falk from Columbo?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's just you.

[hobie]

You know confused scowl Tucker employs? Take that and side-by-side it with some of Falk's stock photos

[Frank Drackman]

I hate to say this, but you're right Hobie-stank, they both sort of squint like they're looking for Indians (as a young lad, I'd try and Salute the gate guards when we drove on Base (dating myself I know, 1: back when the Military actually used their own people to guard their Bases instead of obese Mall Cops and 2: When the Air Farce still rendered Salutes) and if I didn't have my hand at the correct 45 degree angle my Dad would say
"What are you doing, looking for Indians?"

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Honestly, I watch Tucker so rarely, I'd forgotten that he'd aged. I guess the resemblance might be growing as that happens.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, as long as we're playing this game I see Arte Johnson from "Laugh In" when I see Mike Johnson.

[apedad]

YES!

Especially when he wears the Nazi uniform.

[Frank Drackman]

Velly Intel-esting, but I see Lewis from "Revenge of the Nerds"

[bernard11]

I don't care where that pompous, pretentious, asshole is. He's a liar and I don't care to watch him.

[Commenter_XY]

Bring them home, POTUS Biden.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/biden-real-progress-being-made-in-hostage-talks-but-hamas-in-the-way-of-a-deal/

Or else.
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/402102
Minister Katz to IDF: Plan the total destruction of Hamas if hostages are not freed

It isn't just The Donald stating there will be all hell to pay.

Hopefully the bodies of our people (living, dead) will be repatriated w/in 10 days. The alternative does not bear contemplation (metaphorically).

[Martinned2]

What, exactly, do you propose the US can do that the Israelis couldn't?

[Brett Bellmore]

Stop urging the Israelis to exercise restraint?

[Martinned2]

If that's what the US has been doing, there's no evidence that Israel has paid the slightest attention to it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Say that after we stop...

[Frank Drackman]

the same restraint we exercised with the Japs and Germans? let me know when they drop 2 Nuke-uluh (HT Jimmuh Cartuh) Bombs on Gaza.

[Don Nico]

But Hamas has and has backed away from making an agreement each time. (see the Blinken NYT interview)

[Michael P]

Loads of banking sanctions, as one easy example. Last I checked, the shekel isn't the standard for international trade or reserves.

[Martinned2]

What would the remaining Hamas leaders do if they couldn't have bank accounts???

[Dr. Ed 2]

Does the IDF have B-52s?

[Voize of Reazon]

They probably drink all kinds of cocktails.

[Mr. Bumble]

I thought they quit playing.

[Bob from Ohio]

"US can do that the Israelis couldn't?"

Tell Qatar, the Hamas patron, the facts of life.

[SimonP]

"Hell to pay," "stop exercising restraint," etc.

Considering that few would characterize Israel's strategy in Gaza as focused on anything other than destroying Hamas, I wonder what these people are euphemistically referring to as the relevant delta between what Israel is doing and what it could be doing. I also wonder why it is they feel the need to be equivocal about it.

Let's be patent, shall we? The plan is, once the US no longer cares about the civilian death toll in Gaza, (i) a total cessation of relief aid to Palestinians still in Gaza, (ii) bombing campaigns using the full arsenal available to Israel, without warnings or "evacuation" zones, (iii) even less detailed review of proposed strikes for civilian casualty risk and increasing the number of acceptable civilian deaths per targeted militant, and (iv) devolving decision-making to lower-level commanders so that they can act more quickly, with greater discretion, and with less involvement by the ultimate chain of command.

I think the only constraint we can expect Netanyahu to voluntarily accept is the risk that their campaign kills Israeli hostages. So the question is whether he thinks he's politically vulnerable if his commanders kill too many hostages. Certainly, here in the US, we're not so invested that we'll urge caution not to kill them; as far as we are concerned, we're content to see the Palestinians blown to bits, regardless of how many Israelis are killed. The domestic political situation may be different.

[Martinned2]

we're content to see the Palestinians blown to bits, regardless of how many Israelis are killed

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Good news Martinned2: Trump intends to turn the former into the latter.

[Commenter_XY]

This war will end, SimonP. One way or the other.

I am perfectly fine hunting down and killing every hamas member we can lay our hands upon, wherever they are in the world.

Gazans support hamas. Else, why would they tolerate (and even encourage) hamas setting up shop in schools, hospitals, mosques? The best decision a gazan can make is to a) stay far away from any hamas member, and b) obey the directives of the IDF. It could be the difference between life and death.

[SimonP]

Yes, I understand that you and your ilk are in favor of ethnic cleansing. That was my point.

You keep playing this game where you embrace equivocal rhetoric and make arguments that justify a military strategy exactly like I've proposed, but you're always too shy to come out and say what you actually are calling for.

There's no need to be shy about it any more. We're diving into a fascistic nightmare of your own conjuration. Embrace the evil you've been hiding, because it's no stain any more.

[Commenter_XY]

Me and my ilk are interested in winning a war against Judeocidal terrorists. hamas can end the war today: lay down your weapons and surrender.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Er, wasn't "total destruction" of Hamas already the goal? Now it's just an option?

[hobie]

Like the fires in California, hurricane Ian wrecked Florida. Then hurricane Helene wrecked both Florida and North Carolina. Both times, all the main stream media, liberal blogs and commentators, and even president Biden himself blamed the governors and legislatures for the tragedy. They also said that because all the people affected were conservatives and are constantly voting conservative that they brought the disasters on themselves. I think Biden and all the liberals who engaged in this schadenfreude should be ashamed

[Commenter_XY]

I feel badly for the people in those fire zones and hope the fires are contained asap. The stories of all the destroyed homes with so many memories bound within them is heartbreaking. I tried to imagine what it would be like to lose everything in 30 minutes, and escape with only your life; terrifying and incredibly devastating feelings. Many of you have family in CA. There are people from CA who post here. I hope things work out for them. The bottom line is they are Americans that need help, and they need it now.

Where is FEMA?
Where is the national guard?

All of this is separate from the completely legitimate discussion of wildfire and water mismanagement and funding choices by CA.

[hobie]

Isn't FEMA on y'all's chopping block?

[Martinned2]

Not when Trump is running it. But I would expect that FEMA support might turn out to be conditional on some well-placed donations to the Trump inauguration fund.

[hobie]

Trump cannot be bought

[Martinned2]

Obviously not. But how about this guy? Is he going to keep a bunch of Californian liberals and immigrants safe?

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/10/trump-fema-kevin-guthrie-florida-00197463

[Frank Drackman]

I'd use a Chainsaw

[RedheadedPharoh]

FEMA decided today is the day to evict homeless North Carolinians from their hotels.

In the middle of a snow storm.

[Kazinski]

FEMA are not first responders, they are bureaucrats, they should stay out of the way until the danger is over.

The National Guard should definitely be deployed.

[David Nieporent]

FEMA are not first responders

A lot of people, willfully or ignorantly, misunderstand this. (Hollywood portrayals probably don't help.) FEMA does intergovernmental coordination. It provides funding. It does not go out and rescue people.

[Martinned2]

Don't even get me started about Interpol...

[Frank Drackman]

Who are you and what have you done with Hobie-Stank?

[gVOR08]

Cites? Outside your imagination.

[Martinned2]

Moving this question from one of this morning's Josh threads, so that someone might actually see it:

What constraints are there on Congress's ability to make uniform laws that exempt certain places?

Only one clause of article I(8) expressly requires uniformity:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States

Does that mean that there are few if any constraints otherwise? Could Congress, say, write criminal statutes that set twice as high a punishment for fraud if it's committed in Kentucky, simply because Mitch McConnell had a bad day?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think that would run afoul of the EPC.

[Martinned2]

By what reasoning? The EPC isn't some blanket requirement to treat everyone the same. There's a whole spiel about suspect classifications and increased standards of review. And if you play that out I don't see how you end up anywhere other than normal rational basis review, which you'd get to under substantive due process as well.

[Brett Bellmore]

" There's a whole spiel about suspect classifications and increased standards of review. "

" There's a whole spiel about suspect classifications and increased standards of review."

None of which is actually in the clause, you might notice.

"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I think that does preclude the federal government from setting different penalties for the same crime depending on which state somebody is in.

[Martinned2]

Ah, you were talking about what you think the Constitution means, rather than what the Supreme Court thinks it means.

For context, Josh was talking about exempting Greenland or Alberta from certain environmental legislation. (Presumably because some of the most beautiful places in North America are least in need of having their natural environment protected.) The example of a criminal statute was mine.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I think" = "what I personally think"

"I think the Court would rule" = "what I'd anticipate it to rule".

But, that said, I do think the Court would not tolerate that hypothetical law, and that they'd probably cite the EPC in striking it down.

[Martinned2]

I agree. But I was wondering whether this issue had ever come up before.

It's a strange thing. In most countries I know this never comes up. National laws apply nationally. But in the UK most laws only apply to England and Wales, or to Great Britain, and then Scotland either gets covered by a separate law (which may or may not be made by the Scottish Parliament), and Northern Ireland separately gets a very similar law which is imposed as an order in Council under section 1(3) of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972, or by the Northern Irish parliament if it is capable of acting.

The result is that the UK government legislation database needs to have a lot of extra functionality to show you whether the bit of legislation you're looking at applies to England, England and Wales, Great Britain, or the UK, and to help you search for legislation that actually applies in the bit of the UK you're interested in.

They did this even before devolution really kicked off under New Labour. Like the law I used to help enforce, the Water Industry Act 1991, made under Thatcher, only applies to England and Wales.

[apedad]

This brings up the fun question of which is the "country?"

The United Kingdom or England (or Great Britian)?

[Martinned2]

Under the Acts of Union (both of them, 1707 and 1800), there are three distinct judiciaries in the UK: England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. And they each have their own case law. And a case that goes to the Supreme Court theoretically (!) results in a judgment that is only part of the law of the nation where it came from.

So the most important of all House of Lords judgments, Donoghue v. Stevenson (1922), is formally only binding law in Scotland. Everywhere else it was pursuasive only until the courts adopted their own precedents incorporating it into their own law.

Because the UK doesn't have a written constitution, or at least not a single document that contains all of the constitution, this leads to the fascinating (theoretical) fact that it has three constitutions: An Englsh/Welsh one, a Scottish one, and a Northern Irish one. And sometimes that matters, like when the question arises whether Parliament is as sovereign in Scotland as it is in England, or when someone wants to challenge an exercise of the prerogative power.

My personal favourite is when the Scottish government closed all the churches during Covid. That was challenged (obviously), and one of the arguments was that under (pre-Union) Scots law the Scottish Parliament had no power over the Church. So, it was argued, neither did the current UK parliament, who could therefore also not delegate any such power to the current Scottish Parliament and Government via the Scotland Act 1998. Unfortunately the court wimped out and only analysed the case under the free exercise provision of the Human Rights Act.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021csoh032.pdf

There is also an older case about whether Elizabeth II was allowed to be called Elizabeth II in Scotland, given that they'd never had an Elizabeth I, where the Lord President of the Court of Session wrote obiter that unlimited parliamentary sovereignty was an English rule, not a Scottish one.

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

[apedad]

More (confusing?) facts!

United Nations (and embassies): United Kingdon
Olympics: Great Britian
FIFA: England, Scotland, Wales, etc.

Can the head of state of the United Kingdom be a non-British monarch?

[Martinned2]

Oh, you had to go there.

For a while, the UK monarch wasn't a UK citizen, arguably.

Under the British Nationality Act 1948, which is frankly a mess because they were trying to sort out what UK citizenship might look like in a post-colonial world, "a person who was a British subject immediately before the date of the commencement of this Act (...) on that date [became] a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies", subject to certain conditions.

But obviously the King was not a British subject, and so technically George VI was not a UK citizen. His daughter Elizabeth obviously was, so from 1953 onwards it was all fine, but George VI is an enduring mystery.

(Just like it is an enduring mystery whether George VI was the head of state of Ireland between 1936 and 1949 or not.)

[apedad]

I once had the opportunity to point out to a British counterpart (on a British base in Germany), that their Union Jack was flying upside down.

[Voize of Reazon]

Great Britain is the name of an island.
You may be thinking of the Kingdom of Great Britain, the now-defunct predecessor to the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).

[Martinned2]

Some laws apply to England, Wales, and Scotland, more commonly (and conveniently) known together as Great Britain. For example, the Utilities Act 2000 applies to the UK except Northern Ireland, as s. 110(5) puts it: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/27/section/110

(If you like you can have some conversations about places like the Isles of Scilly , which are not covered by the Water Industry Act 1991 but might be if the government so wishes. I'm not sure if there's an objectively correct legal answer to whether the Isles of Scilly belong to England or not.)

[Voize of Reazon]

Yes, it's not unusual to use a geographical region as shorthand for the countries comprising it. In that use Great Britain has the advantage of relatively well defined edges, compared to (say) the Middle East.
It's also true that some UK laws exclude Northern Ireland, though I notice your example didn't use "Great Britain" to describe its scope.
As for your other point, it is too Scilly to respond to.

[ducksalad]

You left out the first few words on the equal protection clause that specify it only applies to states (as written).

The SC came up with the idea of reverse incorporation by routing it through the due process clause, which (as written) only applied to the feds but not the states. Their ostensible argument was that equal protection (written in the 1860s) was an implied part of due process (written in the 1790s). I think we all know the real motivation was that they had say whatever was needed to prevent DC from running segregated schools while they were simultaneously requiring states to do integration - the inconsistency would've undermined the whole project of racial equality and given political leverage to segregationists.

But back to your original point - reverse incorporation, like forward incorporation is a pick and choose thing, use it only if and when the court wants to. They waited a century or so on the 2nd Amendment in the forward direction and until well after WWII to ban federal racial discrimination.

The SC could rule that different criminal penalties clearly violate due process, but different environmental laws are OK. They'd say some things about differing geographical conditions, different purposes of annexation, etc.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 1 says "all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Art. 1, sec. 9, cl. 6 says "No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another."

The Full Faith and Credit Clause says "Congress may by general laws" regulate in a certain way. "General laws" sounds like a sort of rule of uniformity. There is also a duty of the United States (including Congress) to guarantee to "every state" a republican form of government. You cannot selectively do so.

[Martinned2]

Ah, thanks, you're right. There are a few more clauses that require uniformity that I'd overlooked.

[Commenter_XY]

A few weeks back, I asked a hypothetical question about personally sanctioning members of the ICC in response to their arrest warrant issued for PM Netanyahu and MK Gallant.

Someone was listening. 😉

https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-house-votes-to-sanction-icc-over-israel-arrest-warrants/

Here is the legal question. The sanctions include a prohibition on property transactions w/in the US (and a probability of prohibiting commercial transactions as well). Suppose the ICC has an American employee.

Can those American employees be prohibited from property and/or commercial transactions under any law that might be passed by Congress sanctioning the ICC (and individuals employed there)?

[Martinned2]

This is why we need to do a deal with the Chinese to set up an alternative to Swift and other payments infrasctructure. It would be madness to put so much control over sanctions in the hands of whatever lunatic the Americans elect president this time.

[Mr. Bumble]

Fix your own crumbling house.

[Martinned2]

I'm trying to.

[Commenter_XY]

1) You're wasting your time, and 2) it is beyond fixing.

[Brett Bellmore]

You'd rather have them in the hands of an unelected totalitarian dictator for life? Sounds like cutting off your head to spite your nose.

[Martinned2]

I'd rather have two options than one.

[ducksalad]

If the goal is to have backup banking services in case of sanctions, China is the ideal choice.

Because when the US sanctions someone, the Chinese see it as an opportunity to sell their somewhat inferior services and products at a substantial markup, with thwarting US policy as delicious gravy on top.

In contrast, Europeans are likely to cooperate with the US in blocking your accounts.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

The most foolish President in history already put us on that road.
"US will use frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine defense"
so what stupid country will put all their eggs in US dollars !!!

[Brett Bellmore]

(Raises hand.) "Um, countries that don't intend to behave like Russia?"

[Jmaie]

It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal...attributed to Henry Kissinger...

[ducksalad]

It would be interesting to see some stats on whether Danes are pulling their money out of US-based accounts and investments.

"We're going to fund the Greenland takeover with seized Danish assets" is exactly the kind of thing Trump likes to say. Probably wouldn't/couldn't do it, but you would not be the least bit surprised if he said it.

[bernard11]

A country that wants to conduct international trade is my guess.

Not to mention countries that, remarkable as it may seem to you, think the dollar is a safer asset than the yuan.

I gather Mr. Kreeft stuck to logic, or should have, anyway.

[John F. Carr]

The bill is here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/23/text

The targets are any person who

(A) has directly engaged in or otherwise aided any effort by the International Criminal Court to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a protected person;
(B) has materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of any effort by the International Criminal Court to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a protected person; or
(C) is owned or controlled by, or is currently acting or purports to have acted, directly or indirectly, for or on behalf of any person that directly engages in any effort by the International Criminal Court to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a protected person

A protected person is a citizen, resident, or current or former employee of the government of the United States, a NATO member, or a major non-NATO ally. Countries that are party to the Rome Statute are excluded.

The sanctions are asset blocking – U.S. banks can't do business with them – and a ban on travel to the United States. The bill does not say how this interacts with diplomatic immunity.

The President is authorized to suspend the law, like the President was authorized to suspend part of the Helms-Burton Act.

[Commenter_XY]

What if the target is an American citizen who works for ICC? Is that even legal to use against an American citizen = The sanctions are asset blocking – U.S. banks can't do business with them – and a ban on travel to the United States. The bill does not say how this interacts with diplomatic immunity.

[John F. Carr]

The bill calls for sanctions under 50 USC 1702, which only allows foreigners to be targeted.

[ducksalad]

Which means the ICC could evade the sanctions by hiring all-American legal staff for the particular case this bill is targeting.

But I guess it would still discourage police in any country not already sanctioned from carrying out an arrest warrant.

[apedad]

On Monday, Mr. Bumble and I were discussing Ashli Babbit's family's civil law suit (which a federal judge announced must go to trial before the end of this year), which means Trump's solicitor general will have to defend the US.

So how does that work?

Can Trump just say, we (the US) give up?

[Mr. Bumble]

Given the number of times government at all levels does so (settlements, consent decrees) I don't see why not.

[Frank Drackman]

Like Spike Lee (didn't) maybe he'll just "Do the Right Thing" If her name was Floyd George her murderer would be in Federal Prison right now

[hobie]

The policeman won't need the government's help because he is employing the Rittenhouse Doctrine: walk around armed; be subjectively frightened; fire. Simples. No more tiny, microscopic, helpless, Saint Ashtray Babbitt. If the policeman can venue-shop himself into Texas, the governor will issue him a pardon for murdering a protester

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think the cop should have much trouble, really, considering that she was ignoring his order to stop, while advancing towards him while engaged in criminal behavior. Maybe he didn't HAVE to shoot her, but I'd certainly expect to be shot if I did something that dumb.

Maybe pay more attention to the deals revealed in the trial: Rittenhouse had objective reason to believe he was under a mortal threat.

[wreckinball]

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

Read it. He didn't follow it. I mean FFS if Chauvin is in jail for use of an approved non-lethal (normally if you're not overdosing) restraint Byrd's actions were way over the top. There is no statute of limitation on murder.

I think he could be in quite a bit of trouble.

[apedad]

I know this is sarc but the lawsuit is against the US, not the cop.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68857062/1/estate-of-ashli-babbitt-v-united-states/

[SimonP]

Yes. There's a lot of ongoing litigation where the likely Trump move will be to just "give up," allowing various district and appellate court rulings to serve as precedent.

Happened during his first term. Obama-era regulation was challenged and tossed by a court in the Fifth Circuit. Appealed, and the Fifth Circuit upheld the ruling using some really atrocious circular reasoning. Trump came into office and decided not to apply for a writ. Groups tried to intervene, but the Fifth Circuit denied their motion. Though the Fifth Circuit "split" from other circuits reviewing the regulation, in its holding, the remedy was a vacatur of the regulation, having nationwide effect. Its opinion, for all intents and purposes, the law of the land.

Expect that on a whole host of regulations, soon.

[Kazinski]

That's how sue and settle works.

But given that a federal court in this instance thinks her family has enough of a case to go to trial, settling is probably justified.

I don't think there is much doubt that Babbit's fourth amendment rights were violated:
"The Fourth Amendment permits police to use deadly force when there is an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death to themselves or others."

She was unarmed, so its hard to argue she posed a threat of serious bodily harm to Byrd or his fellow officers.

[Mr. Bumble]

You'll trigger Estrogen who insists she was armed with a three inch blade folding pocket knife, found after she was dead.

[Estragon]

“Unarmed”

Well— no. You could, however, say “apparently unarmed” in this context accurately.

I think we can all agree this poor deluded woman was killed as much by Trump’s lies as any police officer.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like Notimportant, speaking for everyone. No, we can't all agree.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Arguably, anyone who, during a massive riot threatening the physical safety of members of Congress, and is masked up and blacked up while charging through a window at policemen pointing guns, is reasonably presumably wielding deadly force, such as a bomb vest.

Charging at people pointing guns at you is (and was) suicidal.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and yet only one "police officer" discharged his weapon that day.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"I don't think there is much doubt that Babbit's fourth amendment rights were violated:
"The Fourth Amendment permits police to use deadly force when there is an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death to themselves or others."

She was unarmed, so its hard to argue she posed a threat of serious bodily harm to Byrd or his fellow officers."

Let's just start with the obligatory: You're an idiot.

She was climbing through a broken window of a barricaded door being used as the last line of defense to prevent injury or death to the Congress members Trumptards decided they didn't like anymore.

She was, in fact, armed, and behind her was a few hundred other criminals.

She broke the law. She ignored commands to stop. She was a traitor to the country and the rule of law.

She deserved to die.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Deserved to die" is a bit too emotional for me. Her illegal action triggered a predictable--and legal--response.

However, in normal MAGA terms, she got what she deserved.

[Bwaaah]

From Jason "Your-Kitchen-Drawer-Is-A-Weapons-Cache" Cavanaugh.

You couldn't recognize an idiot even if it was you. Oh, wait...that's the hard-to-spot kind.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

According to the law, she was armed.

Cry more, dumbass.

[Bwaaah]

You'd even tell yourself a laugh is a "cry."

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It would seem that you need to attend some kind of school to acquire some kind of education beyond the drooling stupidity you currently have to offer.

I suggest that you start somewhere you might excel in, such as kindergarten. Many decades from now we can have this discussion again when I explain to you what the law is and is not.

[hobie]

RIP anti-homosexual Anita Bryant. Forever immortalized by Airplane!. "I haven't felt this ill since that Anita Bryant concert"

[Frank Drackman]

There's the Hobie-Stank we all love to hate on!, So now you're making the Old Fuck references, who was Anita Bryant?? and (We Auburn fans try not to use that "B" word) and I did see "Airplane!" in the Movie Theater, 1980 (in Forest Park Atlanta, 95% Afro-Amurican Audience, their comments were funnier than any of the dialog, except maybe for Barbara Billngsley/June Cleaver's
"I speak Jive")

(Can I be) Frank
Frank

[hobie]

Frankly, you can't be serious.

[Frank Drackman]

Have you ever seen a grown man naked in a Turkish Prison? Would you like to?

[Commenter_XY]

She died 12/16/24, and today is 1/10/25. Delayed grief, hobie? I know that happens on rare occasions. 🙂

[Frank Drackman]

Hobie-Stank's still bummed Jimmuh didn't rise on the 3rd day (JFK was buried 72 hrs after he died, I think Jimmuh's Pastor took that long giving the Eulogy)

Frank

[hobie]

All the MSM papers are first reporting it today. Perhaps her heirs were waiting for her soul's descent before announcing

[Frank Drackman]

You're leaving out the part about her and Ronald Reagan inventing the AIDS Virus

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Judging from Wikipedia, she sounds really paranoid:

"What these people really want, hidden behind obscure legal phrases, is the legal right to propose to our children that theirs is an acceptable alternate way of life."

[Brett Bellmore]

That was sarcasm, right?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

duh

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

She had courage, a virtue you've only read about.
And she didn't HATE gays as you imply On October 14, 1977, during a televised appearance in Des Moines, Iowa, she repeatedly said she "loves homosexuals, but hates their sin."

[Mr. Bumble]

Was that when the angry homo(sexual) hit her in the face with a pie?

[hobie]

Remember when some angry heterosexual hit Trump in the face with a bullet-shaped pie launched from a semiautomatic pie thrower, and then Trump mouthed 'Fight! Fight! Fight!'. Thems were the good old days. Heterosexuality seems to play a factor in almost 99% of all crime. Think about it...

[Noscitur a sociis]

Can’t believe anyone didn’t find this completely satisfactory!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2025/01/anita-bryant

[apedad]

Ninth Circuit upholds ban on secretly recording conversations in Oregon

A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled Tuesday morning that an Oregon privacy law which requires the consent of all parties to record conversations is constitutional, finding that a federal court properly dismissed a conservative media outlet's claims the law tramples on the First Amendment rights of journalists and ordinary citizens.

Project Veritas, a conservative media organization known for its undercover work, filed its complaint in 2020. It claimed that the law, one of the strictest privacy laws in the nation, stopped its reporters from being able to secretly record conversations and expose public corruption and other wrongdoing.

https://www.courthousenews.com/ninth-circuit-upholds-ban-on-secretly-recording-conversations-in-oregon/

I'll have to disagree with this decision mainly because of modern technology.

You can video/photograph anyone in public (with the caveat that there's not a reasonable expectation of privacy like a public toilet), without their consent so why not audio recording?

[Brett Bellmore]

I've always been confused at the idea that you're not allowed to record what you're allowed to observe, remember, and talk about. Like, the only thing you're not allowed is to have proof you're not lying?

What happens when brain prothesis improves, and somebody with an artificially augmented/restored memory is in Oregon? Are they legally obligated to turn it off and suffer from an extended bout of amnesia?

[Dan Schiavetta]

United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (decided January 10, 2006): protections of Americans with Disabilities Act extend to those in state prison (prisoner could not get proper medical care or proper mobility because of lack of ramps, space to move his wheelchair, or accessible toilets)

United States v. Philbrick, 120 U.S. 52 (decided January 10, 1887): Navy carpenter entitled to discretionary living allowances; 1835 statute prohibiting such allowances (and setting a fixed schedule) had been repealed in 1866 without any replacement language, so prior practice was permitted

Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (decided January 10, 1989): §1983 claim (beaten by police) subject to state’s residual 3-year statute of limitations as opposed to state’s 1-year statute for intentional torts such as assault

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (decided January 10, 2012): appeal of conviction under Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 did not require certificate as to which Constitutional violations are alleged; one-year habeas statute of limitations began to run when deadline for seeking cert. in highest state court expired (contention on habeas was that 10-year delay between indictment and trial violated Sixth Amendment speedy trial requirement; Court holds that habeas is time-barred, which is ironic)

Goldberg v. Sweet, 488 U.S. 252 (decided January 10, 1989): Illinois tax on calls only from or to in-state addresses did not violate Dormant Commerce Clause (in effect overruled by Comptroller of Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne, 2015, and by the march of technology)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

JB is so concerned about his musings that his daily history posts are lagging. Sad.

[Dan Schiavetta]

A day without Josh is like a day without [fill in the blank].

[David Nieporent]

…scrofula.

[apedad]

Tough news Dr Ed 2; looks like one of your buddies has been neutralized.

Wisconsin Man Sentenced to 2 Years for Possessing Destructive Devices

Timothy M. O’Shea, United States Attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin, announced that James Morgan, 31, Jefferson, Wisconsin, was sentenced today by Chief U.S. District Judge James D. Peterson to 2 years in federal prison for possessing destructive devices. He pled guilty to the charge on April 16, 2024.

The FBI received information indicating that Morgan made and possessed destructive devices. Acting on that information, on December 21, 2023, local and federal law enforcement agents executed a federal search warrant at Morgan’s travel trailer in Janesville, Wisconsin. Morgan was living in the trailer at the time. Inside a locked safe in the trailer, agents found six improvised explosive devices. The devices were homemade and had several nails glued to the outside. The devices were rendered safe and sent to the FBI lab for formal testing. Experts from the FBI lab determined that the devices contained explosive powder and were in fact “destructive devices” under federal law.

During an interview with agents, Morgan admitted he made the devices with his father and referred to them as “grenades.” He said he knew they were illegal.

At sentencing, Judge Peterson expressed concern over Morgan’s decision to make and possess destructive devices, especially considering Morgan’s history of posting racist and anti-government sentiments on social media.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwi/pr/wisconsin-man-sentenced-2-years-possessing-destructive-devices

[apedad]

Oooops, actually two have been neutralized (one permanently).

‘Pizzagate’ gunman shot, killed by NC police

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5078123-pizzagate-gunman-shot-killed-by-nc-police/

[hobie]

Ah yes, old Pizzagate Guy. A new martyr. I say we make him our next tiny, microscopic, helpless Saint Ashtray Babbitt

[Frank Drackman]

Hobie-stank particularly Stanky today, what would Saint (you know it's just a matter of time) Jimmer say? Let's make a deal (HT B Barker) you forget about Pizzagate Guy (did he actually hurt anyone?) and I'll try and get Floyd George's (who did actually hurt people) name right

Frank

[hobie]

Frankie 'Wounded Warrior' Drackman, America's neediest veteran, was Floyd getting in some last crimes while being squished?

[ThePublius]

Yes, in fact he was; what led to the incident was Floyd using a counterfeit twenty dollar bill to purchase cigarettes and a clerk then calling 911. Autopsy results showed Floyd was high on fentanyl and meth.

Between 1997 and 2005, he was convicted of eight crimes. He served four years in prison after accepting a plea bargain for a 2007 aggravated robbery in a home invasion.

Eight convictions. And a home invasion!

But he was a good boy, a very good boy.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Thats blasphemy.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Was it ever established that he had indeed attempted to pass a counterfeit bill? This story from 2021 is inconclusive:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/19/us/george-floyd-bill-counterfeit.html

[Absaroka]

That article seems to establish that he did pass a fake bill, but perhaps not knowingly.

I've never had a bill come up as fake when they run the pen over it or whatever. My assumption is that if I hand over a bill that proves to be fake, I don't just get to walk away - like Lucy, I'll get to do some 'splainin to the police. What is the usual protocol if someone passes a bad bill and walks off?

(as a complete aside, I always thought the story from a few years ago was profoundly silly, where some poor soul tried to pay for their groceries at Walmart with one of the joke 1 million dollar bills, and got prosecuted. On the shopper's side of thing, did you bring a wheelbarrow for the change? On the police/store side of things ... I'd be laughing too hard to press charges. It's not like the guy is going to be passing $1M bills all over town)

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I've also never (knowingly) passed a counterfeit bill, but I've read enough accounts of people claiming to have received the counterfeit bills directly from a bank to say that arresting people simply for passing fake money is probably not warranted. There are billions of counterfeit US dollars in circulation. It is probably safe to say that most people doing the circulation have no criminal intent.

[David Nieporent]

Indeed, if it were immediately obvious that a bill were counterfeit, there wouldn't be any purpose in trying to pass it. The George-Floyd-wasn't-murdered-and-he-deserved-what-he-got crowd want to insinuate that Floyd was knowingly using a counterfeit bill, but there's nothing remotely to suggest that, and no real reason to think he would have been; his previous crimes had not exactly been sophisticated criminal conspiracies.

[Absaroka]

Sure, I agree. But if you do end up, alas, passing that counterfeit bill the cash machine just gave you, is it reasonable for you to explain that to the police? The story here is that the store asked Floyd to explain the circumstances that led him to be passing a fake bill. I'm not sure that's unreasonable.

I'm Chad Counterfeiter passing a fake. The clerk says 'sorry, this is a bogus bill, we're calling the cops'. Is it too much to ask that I wait a few minutes to tell the cops 'I got it from the ATM' or 'I got it from this guy in a craigslist sale, here's his email'? I mean, we want to catch counterfeiters, right?

If the police are in the habit of arresting folks who got a fake bill from their bank, I'll go picket police headquarters. OTOH, I don't think it's wrong for the police to investigate counterfeiting cases.

[Frank Drackman]

In Boy Scouts we had our own way of putting out fires without using any water.

[Brett Bellmore]

Much to Somin's disgust, the Laken Riley act is going to be hitting Trump's desk as soon as he takes office. But there are more disappointments for Somin in the pipeline behind it.

The "Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility Act", mandating proof of citizenship to vote.

The "Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act", mandating deportation of illegal aliens convicted of sex crimes.

HR 32, no cutey name yet, to cut off sactuary jurisdictions from federal funds that would be used to benefit illegal aliens.

A couple of measures to fund and mandate a border wall.

Some of these might be rolled into a renewed "Secure the Border Act"; Something that died in the Senate in '23.

Should we be putting Somin on a suicide watch?

[hobie]

As it currently stands, any illegal convicted of any federal crime is automatically deported after completing his sentence, so I don't see how these new laws change anything. Unless your're suggesting these federal laws force the hand of state police agencies. As we've seen over the past decades whether its abortion, drugs or immigrants, states choose to enforce federal laws only when they feel like it

[RedheadedPharoh]

And when they come back into the country, they do not get deported again until they commit another felony and serve their time.

[Brett Bellmore]

The purpose is actually to prohibit exercises of executive discretion, which might override that "automatic" consequence.

[Martinned2]

So giving the president lots of discretionary powers is bad now? Did you miss the part where Trump is going to be president for the next four years? Ed has already been foaming at the mouth at the prospect of cutting off federal money for this or that recipient because they did something to displease Trump, like enforce a criminal statute.

[Brett Bellmore]

It was always a bad idea, but it took a President systematically abusing it before they cared.

No, I didn't miss that Trump is going to be President shortly. I also didn't miss that executive discretion is frequently exercised further down the chain of command.

[Frank Drackman]

Hobie-Stank, maybe you should keep up with the news instead of jerking off to old Anita Bryant LP's, the law requires authorities to keep Ill-legals CHARGED (I know I'm shouting, blow me) with even misdemeanor theft to remain locked up, that way they'll be more likely to rape and murder other Ill-legals than innocent nursing students. I know it's total MAGA, those Hillbillies John Fetterman, Henry Cuellar (I guess that's what getting car jacked by 3 Ill-legals will do), and Janelle Bynum (She's Black! She's from Oregon! She owns a McDondalds!) even voted for it

[John F. Carr]

I doubt the sanctuary city funding rule will get past the Senate. The deportation bill might because it doesn't really matter. Illegal aliens can already be deported (subject to prosecutorial discretion).

[Commenter_XY]

No, Prof Somin should not be put on suicide watch.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Carole Wilbourn, Who Put Cats on the Couch, Dies at 84
When cats bite or scratch, they’re trying to tell you something.

Ms. Wilbourn, a cat therapist, was a pioneer in the art of listening to them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/08/style/carole-wilbourn-dead.html

[RedheadedPharoh]

https://x.com/hubermanlab/status/1877236580676493784

Californians are starting fires in LA.

Racist Rumors are it's some gangs of illegals, which do not existing according to Democrat officials and their bootlickers, setting up to loot.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

What are you trying to prove with this?

(Probably not what you are actually proving...)

[RedheadedPharoh]

I'm not trying to prove anything other than Democrats create hellholes where shit like this happens.

What do you think I'm actually proving? AGW is real? Because that's what a whole bunch of other retards are claiming these things are proving.

[ThePublius]

"The Biden Administration has now promised to cover 100% of recovery costs for Los Angeles for six months.

But they gave 3500 homeless Appalachian families another 24 hours before they kick them out into a winter storm so it’s fine."

https://x.com/emzanotti/status/1877557421658320927?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1877557421658320927%7Ctwgr%5E6e0e59999000ace03f4698b258c03b55d8abc30f%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F695151%2F

As a Massachusetts resident I have mixed feelings about this. Rich people who live in multi-million dollar mansions in dangerous places, like on a crumbling coastline, a flooding beach, or an overgrown suburb get no sympathy from me. If insurance companies won't cover them, why should I, or my federal government? Second, why the very poor response and support for victims of the storms in FL and NC, and the over the top outpouring of aid for the rich Californians? Finally, how is it that Biden gets to play Santa Claus? Where is this money coming from?

[RedheadedPharoh]

Hey these are Democrat elites we are talking about. We don't have time for politics or laws.

They must be made whole.

[Longtobefree]

It's not just skin color; the red/blue distinction is VERY important.

[Longtobefree]

Biden can barely promise 6 days, let alone 6 months - - - - - - -

[Frank Drackman]

From the Bullions and Bullions (HT C. Sagan) of $$ he tried to give away in "forgiven" Student Loans to Mullions and Mullions of Sociology majors, but got Bee-otch Slapped by the Surpremes.

[Commenter_XY]

It is (D)ifferent, ThePublius. Clearly.

[bernard11]

Well, according to Emily Zanotti, anyway.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Anna Bower live-skeeted the Trump sentencing.

Trump gave a statement complaining about the injustice of the prosecution/conviction. Complained it was a witch hunt. Whined about Michael Cohen. Railed against how NY was embarrassing. Talked about all the votes he received.

Then the judge spoke ...

Merchan: Here, the extraordinary legal protections offered to the office of the president are the overriding factor.

To be clear, it does not mitigate the facts of the case or the jury's verdict. But it is a legal mandate that this court must follow.

Through that lens, this court must determine a lawful sentence. After careful analysis, the court determines that the only lawful sentence that permits sentence without encroaching on the legal protections of the presidency is an unconditional discharge. Therefore, I impose that sentence.

Sir, I wish you godspeed as you assume your second term in office.

As a convicted felon. So it goes.

[RedheadedPharoh]

I can't wait for his sentencing.

[David Nieporent]

After careful analysis, the court determines that the only lawful sentence that permits sentence without encroaching on the legal protections of the presidency is an unconditional discharge. Therefore, I impose that sentence.

I still don't understand why a fine would encroach on said (alleged) legal protections.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

We are also left to wonder what Roberts and Barrett think.

[Martinned2]

Or any other sentence that isn't carried out until after Trump's term in office.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You want to give him even more incentive to overstay his term?

[Brett Bellmore]

It wouldn't have. Unconditional discharge was just the sentence least likely to get overturned on appeal.

[Roger S]

Why is there anything to appeal? The judge has declared that there be no punishment. Discharge and dismiss are synonyms.

[Noscitur a sociis]

They are, in fact, not synonymous.

[Roger S]

So what is the difference? Why should my tax money support judges spending time on a moot issue?

You might say that Trump has a right to appeal, in order to restore his gun rights. But if he has really been unconditionally discharged, then he is not being punished at all, and has not lost his gun rights.

[ducksalad]

Loss of gun rights (or jury qualification, or voting rights) is not necessarily considered punishment.

If a law says something like:

"The following may not serve on a jury: children, felons, non-citizens, those declared legally incompetent, and relatives of the defendant" no reasonable person thinks the intent is to punish children or relatives. Similarly with restrictions on driver's licenses, voting, and who can possess a firearm - they can just be judgments about risk and competence.

Having said that, I can't see how a few perhaps-intentionally- uninformative entries in a business ledger has any bearing on firearm safety. But that has more to do with overly restrictive federal and state gun laws than the particular sentence Trump received.

[Commenter_XY]

Felons lose many rights. Pres Trump feels he was besmirched.

Pres Trump gets the opportunity to appeal.

[ducksalad]

A layman could easily be confused by the terminology. It would clearer to the public to announce it differently: "Guilty, sentence is $0 fine, 0 days imprisonment, 0 days probation."

As a non-lawyer, I'd like to know if "unconditional discharge" in NY terminology means he has to comply with NY and federal laws with respect to convicted felons? Or are those "conditions" cancelled by the word "unconditional"?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I don't know how NY law means it, but "unconditional discharge" could simply mean he is discharged from the jurisdiction of the justice system without any conditions, e.g., probation: He's a free man.

It doesn't mean he is not a "convicted felon" for all other purposes.

[Roger S]

Not being allowed to vote, own a gun, or sit on jury, seems like a condition to me. He is not truly a free man if he cannot do those things.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You’re conflating two different concepts.

This judgment does not impose any penalty, punishment, or sanction on Trump beyond its factual declaration that he is guilty.

Other laws impose collateral consequences for being found guilty of a felony. But that’s not part of a sentence imposed here.

[Roger S]

So why didn't the judge say: "I sentence you to being a convicted felon, with all the collateral consequences of that, and no additional penalties or punishments."?

No, he said unconditionally discharged. It is very odd to say, if his "sentence" does impose various collateral consequences.

[David Nieporent]

So why didn't the judge say: "I sentence you to being a convicted felon, with all the collateral consequences of that, and no additional penalties or punishments."?

Because none of those things are part of the sentence or in the judge's control.

Perhaps you're confused because it sort of involves the same jurisdiction, so maybe this example will make it clearer: the UK bans some felons from getting entry visas. Would it make any sense for Merchan to say, "Well, I'm not going to fine or incarcerate you, but I sentence you to being ineligible to visit the UK"? Of course not; that's not his court-imposed sentence; that's just something the UK does.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Based on my previous interaction with him, he's confused because he wants to be confused.

It's just another example of that "belief-over-reality" thing MAGAns love so much.

[John F. Carr]

In Florida felons get voting rights back after serving their sentences and paying their fines and fees.

The ban on gun possession is not a condition of release and is not ordered or enforced by the sentencing judge. As relevant to Trump it is not even a New York law. Federal gun law says all felons are created equal no matter where they were convicted.

[Roger S]

Not ordered by the judge? You are playing word games here, as it is a consequence of the judge imposing a felony sentence.

[David Nieporent]

Not being allowed to vote, own a gun, or sit on jury, seems like a condition to me.

It's good that you recognize your inadequacies. Those are consequences, not conditions imposed by the court. If Melania says, "I'm filing for divorce; I don't want to be married to a felon," that would also be a consequence but not a condition.

[Roger S]

If you are right, the judge could have made that clear with an extra sentence. As it is, you are saying that whether Trump can visit England hinges on the subtle distinction between the words discharge and dismiss. These words might mean something different over there.

[Roger S]

By "extra sequence", I mean an extra string of words.

[ducksalad]

the judge could have made that clear with an extra sentence As it is, you are saying that whether Trump can visit England hinges on the subtle distinction between the words discharge and dismiss.

You do realize that England isn't bound by anything a US judge says, except when they choose to be bound. They could decide the difference between dismiss and discharge is important or not important, in total defiance of anything in NY law. For that matter England could, if they wanted to, deny Trump entry merely for being *accused in the liberal media* of having committed a crime. And BTW US embassies deny visas on weaker grounds every single day.

Likewise with federal gun laws: the *feds*, not the NY judge, decided to pass a law that targets people convicted of a felony by any state. Keep in mind they even ban people merely for having temporary domestic violence order with no arrest at all, much less a sentence. Trump can go argue the details, or better yet argue the federal law violates the 2nd Amendment.

None of this is on the NY judge.

[David Nieporent]

As it is, you are saying that whether Trump can visit England hinges on the subtle distinction between the words discharge and dismiss.

Whether Trump can visit the UK hinges on what the government of the UK wants to do. However, to the extent they want to apply the exclusion to him, whether he can visit the UK hinges on the massive difference between "guilty" and "not guilty."

[Roger S]

If the UK takes a hard look at this, they will be left wondering why we say that our legal system is derived from theirs. They believe in informing the defendants of the elements of the accused crime.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

In other words, you know about as much about the UK's legal system as you do the US' legal system...

[John F. Carr]

The validity of the guity verdict is not supposed to depend on the sentence imposed. Correcting unfair sentences is generally not the job of appellate courts. They see a lot of unfairness. If the sentence is illegal, say jail when only a fine is authorized, they can affirm the conviction and remand for imposition of a legal sentence.

In Massachusetts we have two situations where an appeals court is allowed to consider whether a sentence is too harsh. A felon can ask for resentencing before a panel of three Superior Court judges, at the risk of having the sentence increased. A defendant convicted of first degree murder can ask the Supreme Judicial Court to reduce the conviction to a lesser included offense if life without parole is unfair under the circumstances.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Unless he paid it off immediately (which seems unlikely for any fine significant enough to be meaningful), the court would still need to be involved in monitoring his payment and, potentially, imposing sanctions for noncompliance. It’s less problematic than sending him to jail or putting him on probation, obviously, but I can see why a judge would decide it’s better to not even go there.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I suppose this is true but not sure what a "meaningful" fine is.

I would think Trump would be able to pay a fine that the average person would find meaningful. Would $5000, for instance, be enough? He can probably pay that within ten days.

Make it less, if you care to do so. I think even a small fine is somewhat "meaningful" as an actual concrete punishment.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don’t really see much difference between fining Trump $5000 and fining him $0 in terms of furthering the conventional objectives of a criminal sentencing.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I think "much difference" has wiggle room.

If a person breaking the law leads to a fine, the fine advances the ends of criminal sentencing in certain respects even if the person is rich & the fine doesn't mean much to them personally.

I think some people would think even a $5000 fine would have been some sort of real punishment over an unconditional release. The fine need not be something he was unable easily to pay immediately to be meaningful.

OTOH, people have refused to pay fines they were able to pay for various reasons. A person on the "principle of thing" might not want to pay a $1. So, that is another thing to take into consideration with someone like Trump, I guess.

[Roger S]

Unconditional discharge? Isn't that functionally the same as dismissing the jury verdict? And an admission that the whole case had no legal merit, except as a partisan attempt to disrupt Trump's campaign for office?

[David Nieporent]

No. This has been a second episode today of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions, and a rare one with a different cast that doesn't feature Dr. Ed.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Now that's actually funny. You should do comedy more often.

The near constant bootlicking, elite worshipping, and goyim gaslighting is so undignified.

[not guilty]

"Unconditional discharge? Isn't that functionally the same as dismissing the jury verdict? And an admission that the whole case had no legal merit, except as a partisan attempt to disrupt Trump's campaign for office?"

Uh, no. Justice Merchan has otherwise approved the jury verdict by declining to dismiss the indictment posttrial. https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFs/press/PDFs/CPL330.30Dec.pdf

[Roger S]

Right, Merchan refused to dismiss the case last month, and today he unconditionally discharged it.

[David Nieporent]

Unconditional discharge is a sentence, not a case.

[Longtobefree]

Yep, a convicted felon until the appeals are finished.

[Bob from Ohio]

No not guilty today. Did he climax during the hearing and sleeping it off? Or day drinking because of the wrist slapping?

[not guilty]

Thank you for your interest, Bob. I elected to sleep late this morning. I also chose to comment on another VC thread before this one.

[Joe_dallas]

Mann Vs Steyn / National Review / Comp enterprise/ simberg

Post jury verdict, approx 15-20 motions were filed (Feb & March 2024).

Three orders to those motions were issued on 1.6.25 & 1.7.25
Two orders awarding National Review approx $580k in fees to be paid by Mann.
Second order denying Mann's motion for fees to be paid by Styen.

No orders have been issued on any other motions as of 1/9/2025, including the various motions filed by Steyn.

Interesting question - Will the parties funding Mann's litigation bail Mann out?

[Roger S]

So who won? The whole case was foolish.

[Joe_dallas]

Current status
Mann won $1m jury verdict against Styen
Mann won $1,000 jury verdict agains Simberg
NR & Comp enterprise won the dismissal under Slapp
NR won $580k legal fee reimbursement
Mann lost legal fees from Styen.

Steyn's motions to get jury verdict dismissed/overturned/award reduced all still pending. Worth noting that the jury instructions on the Harde Hanks standard were very poorly laid out. Likely the judge made motions the restricted Styen and simberg's presention of that legal standard, though Styen would hav Fu'd that anyway. Both sets of defense attorney did poor job of articulating that standard during trial and closing arguments (again Steyn would have FU'd on that issue even had he known about it, though he did use attorneys to make the post verdict motions).

No info at this time on how the judge is likely to rule on Steyn's motions nor is there much of any hints as to how the judge would be leaning on Styens motions.

Vague hints in the three orders that the judge will not be receptive to mann's other motions.

[Mr. Bumble]

You forgot to mention that this has been going on for THIRTEEN YEARS and is still not resolved!

[Joe_dallas]

Filed 10/2012 so only 12 years 3 months - but who is counting.

And yes Both Simberg and Styen correctly stated that mann tortured the data and that correct statement was written with malice.

[Roger S]

This is really a failure of the courts. We all knew the facts and law when the case was filed. It should have possible to get a ruling in one day.

[Joe_dallas]

maybe a few months -
Problem was the first 2 or 3 judges assigned were very imcompetent and heavily biased. Its one of the reason DC was chosen as the venue along with knowing the jury pool would be heavily biased.

[Mr. Bumble]

Meanwhile the defendants suffer from the delay and crushing legal bills while the court and judges go on their merry way.

[Joe_dallas]

concur
on a case that Mann that had no merit.

[Davy C]

At one point the DC Circuit took a full two years to decide, after all briefing was completed, whether an interlocutory appeal was permissible. After saying they would decide on an expedited basis.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

TikTok oral arguments going on.

We should have video of arguments.

I appreciate the audio. I first heard excerpts of audio, then Oyez.com provided a full set of audio, and finally, SCOTUS decided to provide audio (first on Fridays, then live) on its website.

But, video, like many other courts have, is best.

The ease of obtaining court materials is appreciated. In the 1990s, for instance, just getting a SCOTUS opinion involved a trip to the library. Lower court opinions were in bound copies downtown.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I was familiar with Jeffrey Fisher as a criminal defense lawyer in front of SCOTUS. He did do other cases like Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc.. So, I guess he is not too surprising for the TikTok case.

https://www.oyez.org/advocates/jeffrey_l_fisher

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Alito talking about "Joe" now. I feel targeted.

[Mr. Bumble]

Just shy of 300 comments as I write this. The other three posts in the top four, dealing with legal matters,
one comment.
You "practitioners" who complain about the content and tenor of these open thread comments are full of shit.

[Noscitur a sociis]

How that New Year’s resolution looking?

[Frank Drackman]

to Jerk off every day? pretty good, how about you?

[Estragon]

I’m struggling to make sense of this criticism. What about the lack of comments on other posts would lead one to believe that complaints about “content and tenor” are disingenuous?

Who are the practitioners making these complaints about the open threads specifically, anyway?

I am of course aware of complaints about moderation and editorial decisions, and share in them to a large degree. But again- I don’t see what the lack of comments on, for example, an excerpt of a ruling on vicarious liability has to do with any of that. If anything I would take it as being in support of the hypothesis that this star-crossed project has increasingly prioritized “lathering the rubes” to drive engagement (as of this writing you have posted 15 comments on this particular open thread) as compared to days gone by and older iterations. Bumping up the number of food-fight open threads would also seem to support that supposition.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm being entirely metaphorical here, but isn't it time for Gavin New-Scum's Cabinet to leave him alone in a room with a loaded revolver?? (California PC 32310 Compliant of course) or since it's Multi-Cultural California, a Sword to commit Seppuku? (love some Seppuku and Sake)

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

God is trying to do it. CA hit by earthquake.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Scott Alexander has a typically insightful post that may be of some interest to people here, about how the DOGE mantra to simply fire as many federal employees as possible is not likely to lead to a reduction in bureaucracy, and is fact likely to produce the opposite effect.

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/bureaucracy-isnt-measured-in-bureaucrats

[Absaroka]

Yikes! The Ramaswamy tweet quoted as the lede - to just randomly fire half the workers - is shockingly braindead.

I once worked for a public sector place that had a bunch of sudden layoffs. The sudden was because the bean counters had been warning the upper management that the payroll was exceeding the budget, and upper management's response was 'we're big picture people, don't bother us with details'. That worked until partway thru the year when the checks were going to start bouncing next week. So ... upper management quickly axed a pretty random slice of the worker bees to avoid checks bouncing. Upper management mostly deemed itself too essential to fire, of course. A few of the laid off people were deadwood, but for a lot of them the worker bees were looking at each other asking 'Why did Alice get laid off ... she's the only one who knows bupkis about $EssentialSystem??' (another thing management wasn't good at was ensuring cross coverage for essential systems). When we asked upper management about Alice, they ... hadn't realized what she did. As far as we could tell, they might as well have picked names out of a hat.

Getting back to Ramaswamy, that will cut your payroll and productivity by half. If you want to get more efficient, you need to ax the right people - the deadwood, and even better, the few people who actively clog up the works.

[RedheadedPharoh]

How stupid of an organization to let one person, and only one person, be in the critical path for some essential system.

Oh you said it was public sector...

[Commenter_XY]

We'll see, Nas. I foresee mass headcount reduction in DC. We haven't had a good bureaucratic bloodletting since 1946, nearly 80 years ago. I don't see the dire outcome.

Remember: No one is indispensable. Not even the POTUS.

[Noscitur a sociis]

With respect, this is not a very substantive response.

No one is claiming that anyone is indispensable. The question is whether dispensing of anyone (much less everyone) would be a good idea. If you have something to share on that point, I’d be interested to hear it.

[Commenter_XY]

Well, at 12:01pm on 1/20/25, Nas, I hear there will be some vacancies in the national security team. A clean sweep. A good start.

Most will be replaced. Some will not.

[bernard11]

Of course it isn't.

This is a typical idiotic management move, seen in corporate as well as government situations.

"Let's just fire 10% of the workers. It doesn't matter what they do, or how important it is,or how good they are at it. It will cut short-term costs, and impress our bosses with how dedicated we are to cost-cutting."

This is moronic policy, of course, but it appeals to simple-minded fools who can't be troubled to figure out the value of workers, and determine who the deadheads really are. Saves work, I suppose, but anyone who suggests this needs to be at the top of the list for layoffs.

[Reallynotbob]

A federal judge enjoined enforcement of a Title IX rule on respecting gender identities in schools because, among other things, it “'offends the First Amendment' by potentially requiring educators to use names and pronouns associated with a student’s chosen gender identity."
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/09/us/politics/biden-title-ix-ruling.html

Got it. It's about teachers' freedoms, duh.

So we're good with a math teacher arbitrarily calling Jimmy the Macho Quarterback "she" and "her" in class every day, right? I would have thought THAT would constitute "bullying," but I'm not a federal judge.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The "unconditional discharge" leaves open certain limits for Trump.

For instance:

Trump isn’t allowed to legally own a gun now that he's a convicted felon, and he'll have to provide a DNA sample for New York's crime database per state law.

I suppose the former would make for a good 2A lawsuit if he wanted to have a gun to go hunting with his sons.

There are also limits by some foreign countries to entry by felons:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2025/01/10/can-trump-travel-as-president-heres-where-his-convicted-felon-status-could-be-a-problem/

As noted, Bush43 received a waiver for an old conviction. So, the likely result is just a bit more paperwork.

Another news article suggested possible problems getting a license to sell liquor or run a casino though he might do so in some cases via a corporation:

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/president-elect-donald-trump-is-a-convicted-felon-here-are-the-rights-he-is-set-to-lose/6102256/

[Roger S]

If the discharge is really unconditional, then there would be no such limits. The so-called sentence is confusing.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Terms have specific meanings in everyday life and the law.

2. Sentence. When the court imposes a sentence of unconditional discharge, the defendant shall be released with respect to the conviction for which the sentence is imposed without imprisonment, fine or probation supervision. A sentence of unconditional discharge is for all purposes a final judgment of conviction.

https://casetext.com/statute/consolidated-laws-of-new-york/chapter-penal/part-2-sentences/title-e-sentences/article-65-sentences-of-probation-conditional-discharge-and-unconditional-discharge/section-6520-sentence-of-unconditional-discharge

That would leave open other limitations, especially if they arose outside of New York's jurisdiction.

[ThePublius]

Interesting topic. Since the charge was totally manufactured, and not even the judge can explain exactly what law was broken; and rendering someone a federally prohibited person requires conviction that could result in a sentence of one year or more; Trump is probably not legally now a federally prohibited person.

"Who is considered a prohibited person?
- People convicted of a crime that carries a prison sentence of more than one year
- People who are fugitives from justice
- People who are addicted to or unlawfully use controlled substances
- People who have been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution
- Illegal aliens
- People who have been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
- People who have renounced their United States citizenship
- People who are subject to a domestic violence restraining order
- People who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence"

[Reallynotbob]

Sigh. This is not how it works.

You can rail about the charge, but it's actually a crime to do what the jury found he did. The facts of the crime are available publicly, whether you like the result or not. The judge quite assuredly can, and did, explain what law was broken and instructed the jury exactly what facts would support a guilty verdict if they found such facts to be true.

The requirement that the offense could result in a sentence of a year or more is a bright line rule the federal system uses to distinguish felonies from misdemeanors for federal purposes. For example, in NY, misdemeanors cannot expose one to a year in prison as a matter of law. However, a sentence of less than a year in prison is available for a convicted felon, in which case he/she is still a prohibited person.

Trump quite certainly is a prohibited person as a felon exposed to >1 year prison.

[Absaroka]

Just to muddy the waters, you gotta watch those lawyer types :-). Because while you might think 'punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year' is self explanatory, that phrase is defined as:

"(20)The term “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” does not include—
(A)any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or..."

Does what Trump did qualify as 'relating to the regulation of business practices'? I haven't a clue! Perhaps there is case law?But 'punishable by > 1 year' doesn't mean what the plain English says (there is also an exception for "any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less").

[Reallynotbob]

I don't believe that exception would save Trump. The NY convictions are for falsifying business records. The 5th Circuit (not over NY but instructive anyway this specific question is infrequently litigated) says the exception only reaches offenses that have an effect on competition. That's in line with the other elements of the list in s. 921: "antitrust," "unfair trade practices," "restraint of trade," or "similar".... Sure, one can say all activity eventually affects competition, but the usual understanding is much more narrow and, in Trump's case, affect on competition is not an element of the charge as it would be for the enumerated types of offense.
See United States v. Coleman, 609 F.3d 699 (5th Cir. 2010) (discussing other cases).

[Absaroka]

New York isn't in the 3d Circuit, but does the logic of Range apply?

(true confession: the 922 'CEO exception' has always bothered me. I'm all in favor of making violent criminals prohibited persons, but letting white collar crooks keep their bespoke English shotguns while Joe Check Bouncer can't keep his deer rifle has always rubbed me wrong.)

[not guilty]

I believe that Range has been vacated and remanded to the Third Circuit.

[not guilty]

I haven't researched it, but I doubt that the offense that Donald Trump is convicted of is "similar to" offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices or restraints of trade.

As the Sesame Street jingle goes, one of these things is not like the others.

[Roger S]

No, it is not clear Trump is a felon exposed to a 1+ year prison sentence. The judge today said that he determined that the only lawful sentence against Trump was unconditional discharge. So apparently Trump was not exposed to any time in prison.

[Reallynotbob]

Judge Merchan said unconditional discharge was the only lawful sentence to protect the office of the President. (side note... *office* of the president... ahem).

The office of the President will not be carrying firearms. Donald Trump the individual will. And that guy was absolutely "exposed" to a sentence of imprisonment >1 year. Again, one evaluates the nature of the crime, not the resulting sentence.

[Roger S]

You are reciting the reason for Trump not being exposed.

In a few days, Trump will acquire the nuclear football where he can push a button and launch a nuclear ICBM. But you can he cannot have an ordinary pistol.

[not guilty]

"The judge today said that he determined that the only lawful sentence against Trump was unconditional discharge. So apparently Trump was not exposed to any time in prison."

No, the judge did not say that unconditional discharge is the only lawful sentence. The court could have imposed a sentence of confinement and stayed the execution thereof until Trump leaves office as president. Justice Merchan has previously opined that "in balancing the aforementioned considerations in conjunction with the underlying concerns of the Presidential immunity doctrine, a sentence of an unconditional discharge appears to be the most viable solution to ensure finality and allow Defendant to pursue his appellate options." https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFs/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Clayton%20Decision.pdf

There is no substitute for original source materials.

[Roger S]

You quote what Merchan said last week. Today he said:
"this court has determined that the only lawful sentence that permits entry of a judgment of conviction without encroaching upon the highest office in the land is an unconditional discharge"
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-sentencing-transcript-listen-trumps-213318787.html

So yes, the judge certainly did say that unconditional discharge is the only lawful sentence.

[not guilty]

That qualified pronouncement is a far cry from saying "that the only lawful sentence against Trump was unconditional discharge." (Emphasis added.) It must be read in context of the trial court's earlier determination.

There is quite a difference in being the most viable solution among different options and being "the only lawful sentence."

[Roger S]

Yes, there is a difference. Merchan said that unconditional discharge is the only lawful sentence, and not that it is the most viable option. I am just giving you what he said, not my opinion.

[not guilty]

No, Justice Merchan did not say "that unconditional discharge is the only lawful sentence"; he qualified his language to indicate that it is the only sentence that would accomplish what he wanted under the circumstances, which as he has said previously, is "to ensure finality and allow Defendant to pursue his appellate options."

[David Nieporent]

"Exposed" means "convicted of a crime that carries the possibility of a 1-year+ sentence," not "given 1-year+ sentence."

[Roger S]

Yes, but apparently there was no possibility of prison, as Merchan said that the only lawful sentence was unconditional discharge.

[SRG2]

As far as visiting foreign countries, according to the BBC, as president he has a diplomatic passport so it won't matter.

[David Nieporent]

As far as visiting foreign countries, no foreign country is going to bar the President of the United States, so this entire discussion is academic. But a "diplomatic passport" is not some sort of free pass to enter a country if the country doesn't want you.

[MoreCurious]

Would Professor Volokh care to tell us how he feels about vulgar, hateful, homophobic bigots like Redheaded Pharoh, Frank Drackman, Dr. Ed 2, and so many others (sorry for not mentioning all of you) have hijacked Volokh Conspiracy?

[RedheadedPharoh]

You might find a safe space over on Reddit or on bluesky.

[Frank Drackman]

"More" Curious?, yeah right, I leave more creativity on the toilet paper with a single wipe of my Ass than you've produced in your entire existence on this Moral Coral, the Phone Call's coming from Inside the House! the Barbarian's aren't just at the Gates, they're inside taking a Shee-ot! Dr. Ed is usually on the right track, just veers off at the end, like the Wright Brothers continuing with Wing Warping, or Edison murdering Elephants to push his DC power.

Frank

[MoreCurious]

Creativity? Is that what you call the illiterate, inarticulate, vulgar, sexist, racist, garbage that spills out of your mouth like vomit? That's about what we'd expect from a middle-schooler.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Have you met Mr. Bumble?

[MoreCurious]

Compared to Drackman, Bumble is a genius.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hahahaha. Says the troll who seldom comments on subject matter but shows up to refer to people he criticizes as "effeminate" (are you a homophope or a closet self loathing homo(sexual).
Got a bitch? Flag the comment or better yet contact EV. He does read emails and comments. That's probably why The Rev. Kirland and Queenie no longer populate the comments.
Otherwise; Fuck you very much and have a nice day!

[MoreCurious]

You're implying that Kirkland and Queenie have been banished. Isn't it possible they just got weary of dealing with the childish, mean-spirited comments that have infected this blog.

[David Nieporent]

Your hypothesis is obviously not true in the case of Kirkland, since he was the source of many of the childish, mean-spirited comments that have infected this blog.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and with Queenie, since if I remember correctly EV even commented in the threads about the "your momma" comments "she" was directing at Drackman.

[ThePublius]

Funny how you don't include Sarcastr0, hobie, Jason Cavanaugh, et.al., in that list.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

If you don't like the consequences of being a liar, then I suggest you stop crying and stop lying.

[BrotherMovesOn]

I think you're kind of missing the point here.
For example, you would probably not label Sarcastr0 an illiterate poster, or vulgar, or sexist.
You just vehemently disagree with his policy positions. Well and good.
I think MoreCurious' lament was why do his subjects's posts have to be illiterate, inarticulate, vulgar, sexist [and] racist. I don't find you resort to any of these things and you do fine.
I almost never find myself in agreement with Brett Bellmore but I've never read a post of his that checks any of those boxes. And he does fine also.

[Mr. Bumble]

Noticeably SarcastrO has been MIA this week and the number of comments has been considerably shorter.

[MoreCurious]

The VC began as a place for people in the legal profession to discuss and debate legal issues. I still enjoy it when that happens, even if I disagree with the opinions expressed. Drackman and many of the others have never made one thoughtful, intelligent contribution to any ongoing conversation. I really do believe Drackman is a teenager with access to Google, Wikipedia, and other research tools which allows him once in a while to throw in a couple of facts that make him sound educated. But his grammar, his spelling, his vocabulary, and his adolescent sense of humor gives him away every time.

[Brett Bellmore]

He's just doing a stupid shtick Rush Limbaugh was famous for. Anyone who'd listened to Rush on the radio would recognize it in an instant.

[Joe_dallas]

MoreCurious 19 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Would Professor Volokh care to tell us how he feels about vulgar, hateful, homophobic bigots"

Mirror Mirror on the wall -

[Estragon]

“how he feels”

I think Eugene— given truth serum— would say that things around here are working out exactly as intended.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Why is Biden covering 100% of the costs of the LA fire, but not the North Carolina recovery? Why is the press ignoring FEMA ending housing assistance for people in North Carolina even though these people have no where to go?

[ThePublius]

1. Rich Californians contribute mostly to the Democratic party and progressive causes;
2. People in NC are mostly conservative Republican supporters.

[Reallynotbob]

How long would you like the NC housing assistance to last?

[ThePublius]

How about until those people are settled somewhere else, with infrastructure to support their existence? Jeez!

I have an idea, how about as long as we will support illegal immigrants in hotels in Massachusetts? I think it's two years, but I'm not sure.

[Reallynotbob]

"...until those people are settled...with infrastructure..."

You're swimming in socialist currents, comrade!

I thought the idea was to withdraw the safety net as quickly as practical lest dependence on the welfare state set in.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why somewhere else?

[RedheadedPharoh]

https://x.com/nicksortor/status/1877775593036779945

LAPD says they have NO PROBABLE CAUSE to charge the man who was caught trying to start fires using a blow torch with arson

lol you get what you deserve Liberals.

[Reallynotbob]

Yeahhh, the LAPD is soft on alleged criminals, that's the ticket. /s

[RedheadedPharoh]

There's a literally a video with the DEI police chief saying exactly what I claimed.

What's wrong with you people?

[Reallynotbob]

You missed the point of my comment. I saw that video. But the chief (why do you assume DEI, except that he's brown-skinned?) did not explain WHY there wasn't probable cause in it. You are assuming it's because of some liberal bias. I'm saying the LAPD is not known for turning a blind eye to arson... so the odds are that there's something to the story that we the public don't know about yet.

Perhaps your instinct will prove to be correct. But I don't believe it's the likeliest explanation.

[Kazinski]

For those blaming the LA fires on climate change there is zero trend up or down in rainfall in the Downtown LA rain gage 1877-2024, and you can see from the graph that the last two years have been above average but still perfectly normal.

Perversely more rain actually increases fire danger except when it's actually falling, because it increases the amount of fuel in the hills and canyons of Southern California.

Average rainfall is only about 14 inches, so its going to be dry most of the time, and a lot of the vegetation is grass, which dries out in just a few hours of elevated temps and sunshine.

That's what also doomed Lahaina, dry grass and brush and high winds.

[Reallynotbob]

No wildfires in the Sahara! You got us there.

[Kazinski]

Nope, I sure don't have you there, wildfires in the Saharan desert are a real thing, just like the Mohave or Sonoran deserts have wildfires.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-58269789

[Absaroka]

There was a similar event (record easterly winds driving major fires) in the Cascades in 2020. Here is a discussion by an atmospheric science prof:

"If one is interested in climate change, one MUST look at trends over time. Below is a plot of the top 10 cases of easterly wind at the grid point noted above--there is no evidence of an upward trend over time. So with increasing temperatures as the planet has warmed, there is no apparent increase of easterly wind occurrence over the region. This is a serious strike against the global warming/wildfire contention.
(chart)
But let's not stop there. My group, in concert with Professor Eric Salathe of UW Bothell, are running a high-resolution climate model forced by increasing greenhouse gases--probably the most sophisticated local climate modeling in the country. And we are doing this with an ensemble of many ultra-high resolution climate runs. And we drove our regional climate model with global models forced with a very aggressive (and undoubtedly larger than expected) increase in CO2 (RCP 8.5).

In these model how did the easterly flow near the crest of the Cascades change over time (we picked a point near Washington's Stampede Pass, but that is close enough)?

The answer is found below. The figure shows the number of days per year during July through September that the winds exceed a certain speed (6.6 knots) from the east. The simulations extend from 1970 through 2100 and the black line provides the mean of all the simulations.

Wow. The number of strong easterly events....the kind that start fires...DECLINES under global warming. Let me say that again, it declines."

Lest anyone dismiss him as a denier, my wife the science teacher first heard of global warming from him at a symposium, long before it was a household word. He was one of the early people predicting it.

The caveat is: you can't just reflexively blame every bad thing on global warming.

[Joe_dallas]

Absaroka 45 minutes ago
"The caveat is: you can't just reflexively blame every bad thing on global warming."

Why not - It saves a lot of time - Thats what the boyz at the science based website at Skeptical Science do!

[Brett Bellmore]

"Wow. The number of strong easterly events....the kind that start fires...DECLINES under global warming. Let me say that again, it declines.""

I keep pointing this out: The weather is a heat engine, and no heat engine anywhere became more powerful as a result of wrapping its radiator in insulation.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — With a comparably inapt metaphor you could posit a cook pot as a heat engine. With its lid on, a cook pot boils sooner, more energetically, and with less energy input. At least that's what happens on my induction stove top. Maybe yours works differently.

But go ahead with your experiment. Wrap half the radiators on your heat engines in insulation, and leave the others without. See which heat engines break down first.

More generally, what is the upside in climate denial? Why do you keep at it?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka — Was that really just a 1-location survey? If so, why not infer instead that the plateau in central Washington drains its westward airflow down the Columbia River Gorge—as it famously does at, for instance, Hood River. And if that gigantic low-elevation outlet increases its flow, it stalls lesser, higher, outlets, such as the one at Stampede Pass, and maybe even reverses them?

That is just one of who knows how many plausible hypotheses that I would suppose a climatologist ought to consider. I wonder what would motivate a dispassionate climate scholar even to attempt conclusions based on single-location-data so critically dependent on topographic variables?

As another for instance, do you have any notion what relative, seasonal, contrasts and elevation gradients characterize the apparently different climate regimes in central Washington and Southern California? I am familiar with both regions, but confess the only general conclusion which comes to my mind is they look starkly different—in both senses of the word, "stark."

[Absaroka]

But by all means, write you model, test it against historical data, and see what your predictions are!

More work than just imagining the results you like, but perhaps more accurate.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka — Where in what I said did you think you saw me advocate for a climate model? I generally oppose any but the most time-limited and geographically-limited climate models, prepared for purposes no more grandiose than to facilitate local engineering designs. My comment was made only with an eye to critique a particularly vulnerable-looking climate model you mentioned.

Other, more-ambitious climate models I judge to be little more than prodigious sources of red herrings in climate debates, and thus better left unattempted. I began that stance—and wrote about it—in the 1970s. I have yet to see any reason to change that view. I think the task to calculate future climate results is too fraught with chaos to expect reliable predictions.

By contrast, empirical evidence of climate change already happening remains overwhelming. However uninformative about future specifics, that evidence I judge more than sufficient to justify policy actions now. The evidence supports a policy conclusion to rush to completion whatever renewable energy projects appear as leading prospects, based on engineering efficiency. As efficiency prospects improve, so should the projects.

I also oppose use of nuclear energy development in that mix. But that is a different debate, with my take on it in reaction to a demonstrable record of widespread and deliberate deception by nuclear power advocates. My challenge to them will continue to be, "If you want to be taken seriously now, demonstrate credibility by mobilizing resources and political clout sufficient to clean up messes already made. With that accomplished, it would seem less foolish to listen to you."

[Absaroka]

Models certainly have their limitations, but you just imagining how warming will affect future winds ... has it's limitations as well, to put it mildly.

You routinely confound 'Lathrop imagines X' with 'there is strong evidence for X' if not 'X is a certainty'. And that's just fine inside your head - you do you - but there isn't any particular reason for anyone else to believe it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka — Once again, where in anything I wrote do you see a claim for strong evidence about future winds? I wrote this:

I think the task to calculate future climate results is too fraught with chaos to expect reliable predictions.

You seem to ignore almost everything I write, in favor of making up vaguely parallel interpretations so weak they are easy to dispute. What you think that accomplishes remains mysterious to me.

[Absaroka]

"why not infer instead that the plateau in central Washington drains its westward airflow down the Columbia River Gorge"

So on the one hand I have a professor of atmospheric science who has spent a career working with the climate in the Pacific Northwest, who was one of the earlier researchers predicting global warming, who is working with the actual airflow data, and on the other hand I have you deciding the air flows differently *than the actual recorded observations*. You live in a private reality.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka — Everyone can see what we write. You write:

and on the other hand I have you deciding the air flows differently *than the actual recorded observations*

I asserted no such thing. I have no reason to suppose the recorded observations at that one location were not accurate. Nor do I have any reason to suppose data from that one location could provide basis for a useful model of wind patterns across the West Coast of the United States. Do you?

Also, nothing you mentioned about your exampled authority evinces anything so general as implied by, "the actual recorded observations," except with regard to one location, plus a model for the same single location.

You provided zero explanation why that one location ought to be attributed any special explanatory power, or even anything to show its choice was not arbitrary. I presume the source you rely on would do better. Why not look into it? We might both learn something.

[Absaroka]

You might want to read the link. The recorded observations aren't for one point. Etc, etc.

[ThePublius]

Morgan Freeman is retarded.

"Morgan J. Freeman
@mjfree
Heart breaks for this Palisades neighborhood.
Fuck Trump."

Fuck Trump?

Current President: Joe Biden (D)
Current Vice President: Kamala Harris (D)
Current Governor of CA: Gavin Newsom (D)
Current Mayor of Los Angeles: Karen Bass (D)

https://x.com/bonchieredstate/status/1877775626221855130

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Yes, fuck Trump.

Fuck him and his idiot sycophants for immediately trying to make the ongoing, uncontained catastrophe a political issue.

That you had no idea what Mr. Freeman meant just adds to the pile of evidence that you're the retard.

[ThePublius]

No, Jason, you are absolutely wrong on this. You are saying that Trump commenting on the abject incompetence of Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass politicizing this catastrophe, which is just wrong. Can everyone commenting on this be accused of politicizing it? No!

Trump has nothing to do, is not at all responsible for the situation in California. Anyone blaming him, or saying "fuck Trump" is retarded.

[Commenter_XY]

It is (D)ifferent, The Publius.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

No, I'm not.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-newsom-wildfire-los-angeles-california-hydrants-water-3d20474ceb25f163adff4456a54efbf2

On Thursday, Trump said on social media that Newsom should “open up the water main” — an overly simplistic solution to a complex problem. “NO MORE EXCUSES FROM THIS INCOMPETENT GOVERNOR,” Trump said, adding, “IT’S ALREADY FAR TOO LATE!”

Fuck him, and fuck you for defending his ignorance and lies. It is no surprise to anyone which set of names show up here defending him at every turn. You all share his mental deficiencies and utter disregard for the truth.

[DixieTune]

Newsom lost all credibility when he illegally gave marriage licenses to unnatural couples when he was mayor of San Francisco.

[Joe_dallas]

Lets blame trump for the decades of the Democrat incompetence that has dominated California government.

here is an example of the DEI idiocy through out CA goverance.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14272399/LA-water-chief-Janisse-Quinones-fire-hydrants-reservoir-failures-Palisades.html

[Joe_dallas]

Example of the DEI incompetence

LA Fire chief doesnt know how water gets to fire hydrants

https://x.com/brad_altman/status/1877839662535811264

Head of LA water department gets salary of $750k

Democrat incompetence - the infection runs deep

[Absaroka]

To paraphrase her response when asked about the empty reservoir, she says 'firefighters expect water to come out of the hydrants .... we don't care what the water department does to make that happen'. That seems reasonable to me.

I mean, I heard the words ('I don't know how the water gets to the hydrant') but I don't think she means she doesn't understand there are pipes under the ground. I think a more charitable take would be she isn't in the business of sizing or running the system of mains, pumps, reservoirs, aqueducts, towers and what have you that fills those pipes. That seems like the bailiwick of the water department.

[Joe_dallas]

The Chief of the Fire Department should be sure all the equipment for fighting fires is working properly.

Ignoring a one of the most significant components of the entire fire fighting system is an obvious sign of incompetence. It highlights incompetence

[David Nieporent]

Joe_dallas has found yet another field he's an expert in!

[Joe_dallas]

DN -
Are you stating as a "non Expert" that the fire chief is not responsible to ensure all major components of the fire fighting system work?

Or are saying that a layman should have knowledge of how things work or should in the real work.

Or are saying the laymen should be ignorant in a manner similar to most leftist democrats.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"The Chief of the Fire Department should be sure all the equipment for fighting fires is working properly.

Ignoring a one of the most significant components of the entire fire fighting system is an obvious sign of incompetence. It highlights incompetence"

How about you prove your claim for once, instead of pounding the table with your worthless assurances like you always do? You are a know-nothing piece of shit and a liar.

Fire Chiefs do not run the water utilities, much as their name might suggest to a dumb fuckstick such as yourself. They actually work for the Fire Department, and their business is to be an expert in fires and ensure all the firefighters underneath them are properly trained and manage the business side of the department.

Someday you'll choke on your own bullshit and the world will improve.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Who knew that our resident high-school expert would be wrong again?

https://apnews.com/article/los-angeles-fire-chief-crowley-bass-9076f31e7929b559e3afede572e119a4

There’s no evidence that Crowley’s efforts to diversify the department have hampered the fight. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is in charge of providing water for the hydrants, and its leaders have said they were overwhelmed by the intense demand on a municipal system not designed to fight wildfires, particularly as firefighting aircraft was grounded. Gov. Gavin Newsom has ordered an investigation into what happened, and Crowley herself added to the criticism.

[David Nieporent]

I am saying that you are ignorant. Not that you "should" be. The only "should" I would say is that you "should" have the intellectual humility to stop pretending that a high school diploma makes you an expert in anything.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You do realize that that isn’t Morgan Freeman’s twitter acocunt, right?

[ThePublius]

Elon Musk is a U.S. citizen, since 2002. He in his capacity as an individual expresses his view regarding German politics. German establishment screams "election interference!" Discuss.

[Commenter_XY]

In Europe, EU leaders have a severe case of the vapors, and are clutching their pearls hard enough to leave marks upon their dainty hands. One laughs at the incongruity.

[Kazinski]

Germans certainly express views about American politics.

Plus Musk is a major investor in both Germany and the UK.

[SRG2]

Funny post on FB: "Trump wanted to rename the Gulf of Mexico after his family but 'Bay of Pigs' was already taken".

[ThePublius]

I get where you're going with this, but honestly, it's not really funny.

[Michael P]

He thinks we must show absolute respect for the gun-losing, stripper-impregnating, crackhead bagman spawn of the Big Guy, it's heee-larious to call a college student "pig".

[SRG2]

One's as-applied sense of humour is often enough conditioned on whose ox is being gored.

[Mr. Bumble]

It's funny but could be more aptly applied to the extended Biden family. But then that would gore your ox.

[SRG2]

Doubtful - but as Biden hadn't suggested renaming the Gulf of Mexico, there would be no foundation for the joke, and you really need that. If you'd had Biden wondering " has Hunter spent a lot of time in England recently? Because every time I see him, Hunter keeps saying "pardon?" - now you have a basis 🙂

[Mr. Bumble]

Touche. But I would have equated "pardon" with France.
Have a good weekend.

[ThePublius]

LA Times: Pacific Palisades reservoir was offline and empty when firestorm exploded

Nice. Well, doesn't matter now, there's nothing left that doesn't burn in Pacific Palisades.

[Kazinski]

Unfortunate, but there is nothing to see here, its typical for covered urban reservoirs to be taken out of service for cleaning, maintenance and upgrades on a cycle with the other reservoirs in the system every 5 to 10 years.

Especially covered reservoirs for staging drinking water which this one appears to be.

I used to work for a major water utility, and it was typical for at least one of our urban or regional reservoirs to be out of commission for maintenance.

The large primary reservoirs in the watershed, are a different story.

[ThePublius]

Timing is everything. This was a bad time to perform maintenance.

[Kazinski]

Unfortunate, but there is nothing to see here, its typical for covered urban reservoirs to be taken out of service for cleaning, maintenance and upgrades on a cycle with the other reservoirs in the system every 5 to 10 years.

Especially covered reservoirs for staging drinking water which this one appears to be.

Considering that the reservoir can be down depending on what is being done and what upgrades need to be done it can be down anywhere from several months to several years, its hard to schedule a good time.

This one had a rip in its cover, so it looks like it was unscheduled, so it would have to be drained, cleaned, the cover repaired or replaced and refilled.

Thats at least a few months work, even if they have already done the planning and preparation for the work, which could be months in of itself.

[ThePublius]

Yea, well I guess that's a good trade off against the damage that could (DID) occur. /s

Doesn't anyone evaluate the cost benefit of these things? Jeez! Are you trying to argue this was a good, fortuitous decision? I, personally, prefer a reservoir needing maintenance full of water in a conflagration to an empty one on a maintenance schedule.

How stupid can you be?

[Absaroka]

"Doesn't anyone evaluate the cost benefit of these things?"

For a lot of emergency stuff, the sad answer is that the people evaluating the cost/benefit is 'the voters collectively' and the answer on how much to spend is 'not much'.

[Life of Brian]

Unfortunately there's rarely enough political will to spend the time or money it would take to properly address something like this before it's catastrophic, and never enough political will to avoid spending far more time and money once the catastrophe inevitably happens.

It's further complicated in state-level situations like this where proactive spending usually involves money that actually has to exist, but reactive spending usually comes at least in part from the feds' magic money tree.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Yeah, they knew a huge fire would start outside of the normal fire season and deliberately decided to schedule maintenance and close the reservoir before the fire began so only the extra-special kids such as yourself would see the conspiracy.

More evidence for the case, Publius.

[ThePublius]

Yea, it would be cool if we had the capability to predict the seasons and the weather.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You are illiterate.

[ThePublius]

The reservoir has been empty for maintenace since 2009. Justify that.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I addressed your latest lie already, dipshit:

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/01/10/thursday-open-thread-225/?comments=true#comment-10865375

Here's the highlight: You're a fucking liar who deserves the treatment you get.

"Officials said that the Santa Ynez Reservoir had been closed since about February for repairs to its cover, leaving a 117-million-gallon water storage complex empty in the heart of the Palisades for nearly a year. "

They sure as shit don't mean February of 2009.

[Absaroka]

"I used to work for a major water utility,"

Yay, an SME! Correct me if I'm wrong ... generally domestic water is pressurized by gravity, frequently with water towers.

Now for the $10 question: what's the sizing for the towers - how many days (hours??) of usage? How fast can the pumps usually fill it? As in, you size it so the pump can fill it in 12 hours (overnight) and if has 24 hours of worst annual day usage? Or what?

The pumps are electric? At least around here I see fairly small pumphouses next to the towers, and no backup generators.

We have off grid neighbors who put in a poly tanks with a large (20k gallons??) amount of water, and gas powered fire pumps. It saved their place when a fire came through. For those folks, the tanks might have cost as much as their cabin, but if I had a $zillion house in LA I might think about that.

[Life of Brian]

This is a bit outside your question, but I ran across a really interesting/informative (at least to me -- I didn't know much about the subject) thread this morning about fireboats and how they can be used to help keep pressure up in fire mains in situations like this. No idea what the total hydrant draw would be during this sort of a catastrophe, but an extra 50k GPM/boat of replenishment can't be nothing.

[Michael P]

Assuming this is correct (it provides directions on how to reproduce), 15 years seems like an unconscionably long time to be empty: https://x.com/wretchardthecat/status/1877844625349542046

[Life of Brian]

I followed the directions and see unmistakable signs of water in the April 2022 shot (here). So apparently it was emptied sometime between then and July 2023 -- a blink of an eye in bureaucrat time!

Richard acknowledged in a later comment that he jumped the gun and didn't understand the 2009-2011 change was the first view of the floating cover (the same cover that apparently took it down for repairs recently).

[dwb68]

Polymarket at 71% chance tiktok ban and 28% chance SC issues a temporary extension/stay of the law.

After listening to the arguments, I think the tiktok law will be upheld. Tiktok will have to sell or be toast.

Not sure about the stay. Seems like more of the justices wanted to allow tiktok more time to sell.

[DixieTune]

So let me get this straight. Kagan argues that a foreign corporation has no 1st Amendment rights, but these same Democrats think every illegal who crosses into the U.S. has the full suite of constitutional rights, including the right to due process, access to our courts, access to a lawyer, and so on.

Full of shit, all of these people.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

You should probably study up on where the constitution uses the word "citizen" and where the constitution uses the word "person."

[Zarniwoop]

Meanwhile, Giuliani gets bench slapped [again] in a contempt hearing.

A federal judge on Friday held Rudy Giuliani in civil contempt for skirting an agreement not to make new false claims about two Georgia election workers he was ordered to pay $146 million for defaming.
It was the second time in less than a week a judge found Giuliani in contempt in matters involving the case.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5080025-giuliani-contempt-georgia-election-workers/

[Commenter_XY]

Rudy is going to The Big House if he isn't careful.

[DixieTune]

Hopefully Trump sends Liman, Bragg, Merchan, Engoron, Howell and all of the others to the Big House.

[Kazinski]

Zuckerberg has announced an immediate end to all DEI programs at Facebook:

Two bullet points from the memo, link below to the entire memo:

"We previously ended representation goals for women and ethnic minorities. Having goals can create the impression that decisions are being made based on race or gender. While this has never been our practice, we want to eliminate any impression of it."

"We will no longer have a team focused on DEI. Maxine Williams is taking on a new role at Meta, focused on accessibility and engagement."

https://www.axios.com/2025/01/10/meta-dei-memo-employees-programs

There is a new DOJ coming, and illegal practices that might have been tolerated or encouraged in the past might become very expensive.

[DixieTune]

She's pretty hot. I'd bang her.

https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/v2/C5603AQHlPtbH_8fVlw/profile-displayphoto-shrink_800_800/profile-displayphoto-shrink_800_800/0/1654578555807?e=1741824000&v=beta&t=cI88c0Bx9O6hsrlUODmvOD7D58FAR-E0Ib5f11ocDk0

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Here at Volokh we get insights we couldn't get at those *non* legal blogs.

[Brett Bellmore]

They'd better be careful. Taking someone from a DEI office and putting them in another position could just result in the new position being covertly turned into a DEI office...

[Brett Bellmore]

As a demonstration of that principle:

Two weeks ago, the State Department's "Global Engagement Center" supposedly was shut down, due to Congress deliberately denying it any funding

So, what happened? The employees were moved to a different area, and the new office has just released its mission statement, to continue doing exactly what the old office had been defunded for doing.

When you've got a group of people in your organization dedicated to doing something, that you decide you don't want done, just moving them won't always stop them. Zuck is going to find he has to actually fire her to stop the DEI nonsense, if he really wants it stopped.

Well, at least the bunch at the State department self-identified themselves as in need of firing.

[Kazinski]

Very likely, but not necessarily.

If Zuckerberg (which spellchecker changes to 'sucked very', which seems like an editorial correction, not spelling), is just changing her title with a wink and a nod,

But if he's giving her new responsibilities and a new portfolio, and goals she's going to have to stretch to reach, then maybe not.

It also might be mediated by self interest too, is she more oriented to her career and wants to expand her horizons (not that DEI can't be its own power base)? Or is she a DEI true believer and isn't capable of changing her focus? She has got to be able to see that DEI is not the growth industry it was a few years ago.

[Brett Bellmore]

" Or is she a DEI true believer and isn't capable of changing her focus?"

That would be my concern, yes. Though I'd have said "willing"; It's my impression that for many in DEI, it's a moral crusade, not a job.

[bernard11]

So Giuliani was held in contempt, again.

How long does this go on? Is there some reason the court can't just take possession of his assets, instead of just scheduling more hearings?

What would happen if I were in Giuliani's situation?

[Mr. Bumble]

You wouldn't be subject to a $147 million judgement for defaming two poll workers.

[CTaylor9]

Anyone else, if found liable at all, would have been ordered to buy those fat niggers a value meal at KFC. That's about all they deserved.

[not guilty]

Let's now see how many of Clarence Toady's bootlickers call CTaylor9 a racist. I won't hold my breath.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'll call CTaylor9 a racist, then mute him, which will limit my ability to respond to him in future.

Which raises the question why I don't mute *you* as well. If I were to apply progressive standards of evidence, I'd consider you a double-dipped, dyed in the wool racist who singles out the black judge for venomous insults when there are plenty of white, right-wing judges to excite your ire.

Fortunately, not being a progressive, I don't have to call everyone a racist, so I'll simply say I don't know why your anger is much greater against Justice Thomas than against his white colleagues.

And what good is your anger now, when getting him off the bench would simply lead to the appointment of another right-wing judge?

[not guilty]

In fact, I don't want to see Clarence Thomas leave the Supreme Court while Donald Trump is President, despite his being an cynical opportunist, a toady and a grifter.

Justice Thomas is sui generis as an object of contempt and well deserved derision. I was born in 1955 in the South, so I am likely one of the few commenters here who can remember "Whites Only" signs in retail establishments. The struggle for racial equality is the most salient legal and political issue of my lifetime, and as I have said elsewhere on this thread, Clarence Thomas is a quisling in that struggle. From law school to the highest court in the land, he is the most prominent beneficiary of affirmative action in American history, but he regards that as a really crappy idea for anyone whose first name is not Clarence or whose last name is not Thomas.

Thomas first won the approval of right wing Republicans in 1980 by trashing his sister, who was once a welfare recipient. https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-complained-about-sister-waiting-for-welfare-check-2023-5 I first formed a negative impression of the man when I learned of this lack of familial loyalty.

Thomas took the bench on the D.C. Court of Appeals in 1990, despite a glaring lack of legal credentials -- he had worked for a while as an assistant attorney general in Missouri and held a couple of sinecures in the Reagan administration. Despite this meager résumé, President George H. W. Bush nominated him the next year to succeed the retiring Thurgood Marshall -- the field general of the civil rights movement and a jurist whose briefcase Thomas has never been fit to carry. Bush's fatuous pronouncement that then-Judge Thomas was the "best qualified at this time" for nomination to SCOTUS is the most egregious lie told by any President of my lifetime -- moreso than "I'm not a crook," "We did not trade arms for hostages," and "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinski."

During his Senate confirmation hearings, Judge Thomas played the role of an ignorant buffoon, right up until it appeared that his nomination was in peril. He then furiously played the race card -- remember "This is a high tech lynching for uppity blacks"? If in the next life Clarence Thomas encounters Emmitt Till, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, I hope they beat the stuffing out of him every day and twice on Sunday for trivializing the horror of lynching.

If the Senate had rejected his SCOTUS nomination, Clarence Thomas would have remained a life tenured member of the United States Court of Appeals, just as Robert Bork and Clement Haynesworth did. Nice work if you can get it!

Justice Thomas's work on the high court has been despicable. He joined Chief Justice Roberts's execrable opinion gutting the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013) -- this century's Korematsu. He dissented in Fisher v. University of Texas, 579 U.S. 365 (2016), and Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). (I surmise that his thinking in these cases was "I got mine; the rest of my kind can go to hell.") Concurring separately in United States v. Vaello Madero, 596 U.S. ___, 142 S. Ct. 1539, 1544-1547 (2022), Thomas even questioned whether the Fifth Amendment due process guaranty includes an equal protection component, suggesting that Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954), which outlawed segregated public schools in the District of Columbia, had been wrongly reasoned. I wonder what Mr. Thomas would think if the Chief Justice ordered installation of "White" and "Colored" drinking fountains in the Supreme Court building!

Justice Thomas has been an implacable foe of personal liberties guaranteed by substantive due process. Concurring in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), he called for Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), to be reconsidered. I surmise that another notable substantive due process case, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), hit too close to home.

Clarence Thomas and what he stands for are thoroughly disgusting.

[Michael P]

Max Planck is often paraphrased as saying ""Science progresses one funeral at a time". Apparently the same is true of social justice, given how many people have a mentality stuck a decade after WWII rather than observing the number of opportunities and advantages that are now explicitly withheld from those who are straight, white and/or male.

[Commenter_XY]

You sound very angry, NG. Justice Thomas is not a young man. He has, perhaps, another decade on the bench.

[not guilty]

I hope that Clarence Thomas dies or retires from SCOTUS on January 21, 2089.

[David Nieporent]

Did you mean to say 2029?

[not guilty]

XY, to put it in terms that you may appreciate, George H. W. Bush naming Clarence Thomas to succeed Thurgood Marshall was just as inappropriate as it would have been for FDR to have nominated the notorious anti-semite Joseph Kennedy, Sr. to succeed Louis Brandeis.

[SimonP]

The only salve I have to Ho's obsequious burnishing of his credentials for an appointment to the high court is the expectation that he is most likely to take the seat of either Alito or Thomas - so not a net loss for Americans.

But I must temper that expectation with the fact that neither Alito nor Thomas is likely to resign willingly. Thomas, because he has grown attached to the "benefits" of being a sitting Supreme Court justice (watch his "friends" disappear if he resigns!), and Alito, because he will never find a better way to express his smirking contempt for Americans than tearing apart our society from his perch. He will be smiling to himself on his deathbed, anticipating his heavenly reward for penning Dobbs, but that is not the last feather in his cap he wants. It is unfortunate that he will never be able to perceive what actually awaits him after the end of his long, miserable existence.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"(I surmise that his thinking in these cases was "I got mine; the rest of my kind can go to hell.")"

Where is Sarcastro to criticize you for mind-reading?

With his interpretation of equal protection to mean no racial discrimination, there is no basis to question his support of the result in Loving v. Virginia, unless (let me try and read *your* mind) you want to bring up the fact that he violated a taboo by marrying a white woman.

It is quite a stretch of due process to include an "equal protection component" in it, it's one of those legal stories we tell ourselves because we like the result. What a wicked man Justice Thomas must be to say that the emperor has no clothes!

You get to the meat of the matter by mentioning Dobbs. If he supported "substantive due process," *especially* abortion, everything would be forgiven and he would be hailed as a distinguished statesman of the bench.

"In fact, I don't want to see Clarence Thomas leave the Supreme Court while Donald Trump is President, despite his being an cynical opportunist, a toady and a grifter."

And why is this? Why don't you want a more pure (more white?) conservative in place of Justice Thomas, free from all the wickedness to impute to Thomas? Could it be that you want to leverage the accusations against him in preparation for replacing him with an abortion supporter?

[not guilty]

Not just a white woman, but a white bagwoman. She was a lobbyist for hire, likely doing business with folks who had business before SCOTUS. He criminally listed his wife's income on his financial disclosure forms as "none", when in fact it was in six figures annually.

Failing to prosecute Clarence Thomas for serial violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 may have been the biggest mistake of the Obama administration.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Yet you want to see this criminal (protected by the right-wing Obama administration) stay on the Supreme Court while Trump is President?

If you believe he is so dreadfully wicked, wouldn't you want him out of his seat as soon as possible?

[Mr. Bumble]

Time for an intervention for ng.
He's going further and further out there.
He'll never last for the next four years.

[not guilty]

"If you believe he is so dreadfully wicked, wouldn't you want him out of his seat as soon as possible?"

Duh. Because Donald Trump would nominate someone comparably dreadful, who would likely serve for decades.

[Mr. Bumble]

Then shut the F*ck up!

[Brett Bellmore]

"Duh. Because Donald Trump would nominate someone comparably dreadful, who would likely serve for decades."

So, what you actually mean by "terrible" isn't the supposed ethical lapses you're making a big deal of, but instead that his jurisprudence isn't left-wing.

Well, most of them don't have left wing jurisprudence, so why the big obsession with Thomas?

I guess because in addition for daring to not be a left-winger, he's a black who dares to not be a left winger, and the left think they own blacks, that they're not entitled to not be left-wing.

[Commenter_XY]

Yo really? It ain't 1965 anymore.

[David Nieporent]

You wouldn't be subject to a $147 million judgement for defaming two poll workers.

That's true; no decent person would be.

[Michael P]

Wrong, as usual. This is just another case of Trumplaw, where rules and standard practices are distorted to punish Donald Trump and those in his circle, or to protect his adversaries.

Before Hunter Biden, when was the last time anyone got a pardon for all federal crimes they may have committed over more than a decade? https://www.justsecurity.org/73900/are-blanket-pardons-constitutional-a-reply-to-bowman/ makes a strong argument that such pardons are not valid.

[David Nieporent]

Before Hunter Biden, when was the last time anyone got a pardon for all federal crimes they may have committed over more than a decade?

While I am not a historian, the only example I am aware of a blanket pardon is Ford's pardon of Nixon, which didn't reach back a full decade. (Though that's sort of superfluous, since the SOL for any plausible charge is likely to be 5 years; I don't think anyone thinks Hunter Biden was likely to be charged with any capital offenses.)

I have no idea what your question has to do with the discussion, however, which was Rudy Giuliani's perfidy.

[Mr. Bumble]

Nice re-framing, you cunninglinquist, but whether Rudy is a decent person or not should have no bearing on the amount of this judgement and the judge who allowed it.

[Michael P]

It's a tacit admission that he cares about punishing people rather than offenses in Three Felonies A Day, Ham Sandwich Nation.

[David Nieporent]

Whether Rudy is a decent person has a direct bearing on the amount of this judgment; the judgment is the result of his actions, which no decent person would've undertaken.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like Seinfled, Bragg's "hush money" case was a case about nothing with a cast of losers playing their parts well.

[DixieTune]

After Zuckerberg admitted that Biden pressured him to violate the civil rights of Americans, when will Biden, Harris, Garbageland and every other of his administration be indicted for violation 18 USC 242?

[David Nieporent]

Nobody has the civil right to post on Facebook. Well, except Zuckerberg, I suppose.

[DixieTune]

You're either stupid or a liar.

[ducksalad]

Suppose we agree (and we probably do) that Facebook could ban anyone they actually wanted to, assuming that's in their terms of service, and even if it wasn't in their terms of service, it's a matter of failure to deliver promised services or worst case fraud. It's not a First Amendment issue.

But suppose a SWAT team shows up and orders them to ban certain accounts or face arrest. Maybe you would argue the only rights that have been violated are Zuckerberg's, and if he's too intimidated to object or doesn't care then government should win.

But as I see it's also a case of the government trying to suppress the speech of the account holders. It's an unconstitutional end purpose, and routing it through some third party doesn't make it legitimate. There needs to be standing for someone to object if Zuck is too intimidated to do it himself.

Which gets to my preferred solution to respect both Zuck's and the account holders' 1st Amendment rights: ban government officials from (a) initiating requests to ban anyone, or (b) responding to corporate requests for suggestions on who to ban.

[David Nieporent]

But suppose a SWAT team shows up and orders them to ban certain accounts or face arrest. Maybe you would argue the only rights that have been violated are Zuckerberg's, and if he's too intimidated to object or doesn't care then government should win.

No, in that case I would argue that both Zuckerberg's rights and the posters' rights were violated. But that hypo is far removed from what actually happened. There were no SWAT teams, no orders, and no threats of arrest.

[Mr. Bumble]

"There were no SWAT teams, no orders, and no threats of arrest."
No, those were saved for Donald Trump and anyone connected to him.
If they can do it to him they can do it to you.

[Michael P]

The old argument was that Meta's censorship avoided being state action because the government only did what any citizen could do, rather than applying pressure unique to government.

https://nypost.com/2025/01/10/business/biden-officials-screamed-at-meta-execs-to-take-down-vaccine-posts-mark-zuckerberg/

I didn't realize that Meta executives would continue to engage with regular people who screamed and cursed at them.

[David Nieporent]

Setting aside the fact that Zuckerberg does not appear to have been involved in the reported conversation, did you read this part of your link?

“Basically it just got to this point [where we told them], ‘No, we’re not going to take down this thing that was true,’” Zuckerberg said.

In other words, Facebook — just like Twitter did in other lawsuits — admitted that all the government did was attempt to persuade, not to force, and the company was free to say no.

[Michael P]

If you think a company can only be a state actor when the CEO is personally part of an exchange, you are either stupid or a liar.

Alternatively so if you think screaming and swearing is a standard part of government behavior towards private-sector companies.

[David Nieporent]

If you think I said either of those things, then you are illiterate.

[Michael P]

You implied them rather than writing either explicitly. Otherwise you would not specifically "[set] aside the fact that Zuckerberg does not appear to have been involved in the reported conversation" or rewrite what Zuckerberg said as "attempt to persuade, not to force".

In contrast to your implication, in the annual ethics training where I work, screaming is grouped with threat of violence (separately from other categories of unethical behavior) as unacceptable because it comes across as "force".

[David Nieporent]

Screaming isn't force; if your ethics trainers are claiming it is, you might want to find better ethics trainers. (Of course, if a superior screams at a subordinate, that may come across as "force," but that's because of the superior-subordinate relationship, not because of the screaming.) That doesn't make screaming professional, but it's not force.

(As for my first point, it was that Zuckerberg appears to be relaying secondhand information about something he wasn't personally involved with, which means who knows how accurate his characterization is?)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Not good enough, Nieporent. If you thwart them with that argument, internet utopians will just fall back to claim they enjoy a right of action against platforms, and government must enforce it.

[David Nieporent]

Don't try to enlist me on your side with your bizarre "Internet utopians" silliness.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, wouldn't think of enlisting you. Already count you as an ideological leader among the utopians.

[Paul Elliott]

I have never had a legal problem. What would be a good source of legal insurance, including criminal? thank You

[Michael P]

As usual, Arnold Kling is well worth reading, in this case on having and encouraging (or discouraging) children: https://open.substack.com/pub/arnoldkling/p/fertility-links-814

[Stephen Lathrop]

How long will it take before we start to hear uplifting-but-insane vows to build back Pacific Palisades better than ever?

Extreme fire hazard, coastal erosion, landslide exposure, flood exposure, and sky-high earthquake risk seem like a combination daunting enough that the present wipe-out ought to be taken as encouragement to look elsewhere.

From the point of view of the rest of the nation, do not overlook the fiscal hazard of disaster relief, endlessly repeated. Finally, for those more-wisely situated, don't overlook your risk via the re-insurance industry to damaging losses in places you never would have chosen to buy into on your own.

[Jmaie]

160 years ago the central valley of California flooded to the point where it turned into a gigantic lake. With global warming a thing I'm told that increasing severe weather events are inevitable. We should get those folks moving out ASAP!

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
The alternative is increasing the density in central LA which still has the threat of a major (>7.0) earthquake, extreme real estate costs and insufficient traffic arteries. Or all Los Angelinos can move to the Mojave desert and threaten the fragile desert ecology.
There is no simplistic solution. Palisades is a very old flat area with many decades old trees and many large mature ornamental shrubs that were the fuel for the fire in this area. Have a look at a map and areal photos before posting such nonsense.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, I lived for a time at a place in the Northern Rockies which featured new residential zoning at the base of mountain slopes. Then someone turned up photos from an earlier era, when all that land remained undeveloped. Those showed the newly residential locations buried 30-feet deep in avalanche debris.

Avalanches had descended the multi-thousand foot slopes above with energy and volume. The debris fields crossed the flat valley floor, and ascended a considerable distance up an opposing mountain slope, mowing down mature forests while ascending.

Shown those photos, the planning and zoning authorities said, "Oh." A debate ensued. Presence of mature trees among the debris was taken as a positive—it showed a long interval had passed between avalanches.

Repealing lucrative zoning turned out to be unthinkable, even for areas where nothing had yet been built. So a double compromise with nature—wild nature vs human nature—won out.

You could keep living and building under that Sword of Damocles, but if you did, your building had to feature a permanently-affixed plaque. The requirement was to better inform purchasers, residents, and tenants, lest they die in ignorance.

Naturally, those plaques proved reassuring. Most folks—especially tourists and new residents—concluded the plaques spoke for hyper-caution. After all, if there were any real real danger, why would authorities have let folks build in those areas in the first place?

Better-grounded area residents, familiar with commonplace repeating avalanche paths throughout back country forests, went un-tempted by the new neighborhoods. So far, decades of experience, plus the evidence of trees grown to maturity before being mowed down, have proved out. Nobody has yet died. Development has been extensive.

When the inevitable happens, literally hundreds will be needlessly at risk.

[Absaroka]

You don't want people exposed to "Extreme fire hazard, coastal erosion, landslide exposure, flood exposure, and sky-high earthquake risk", which seems like a fine thing. Should we move the residents of LA, San Fran, Portland, and Seattle to somewhere you consider safe? Presumably you consider Massachusetts fit for habitation, so perhaps they can be resettled there?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Fine with me. I also commend large areas of upstate New York, central Pennsylvania, and rust belt areas across the upper midwest.

One note of caution about coastal MA, however. Some of the more attractive areas in terms of recreational amenities also feature increasingly dangerous climate risks, plus lesser known seismic risks which are probably not negligible. Also sharks. Great white sharks.

[Absaroka]

Great! That will about triple the population of MA+NY. You might need some infrastructure. Enjoy your new neighbors!

Dunno about the midwest - New Madrid earthquakes, blizzards, Great Chicago Fire, Peshtigo fire, etc. Sounds pretty risky.

[Frank Drackman]

Thats the great thing about the Midwest, you can have a house in Oklahoma one day, and in Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, and Arkansas the next

[Don Nico]

That is all fine Stephen. But the public officials were derelict in their duty to residents.
Maybe every house gets a plaque, "Live in a Democrat 1-party state at your peril."
Makes as much sense as your proposal

[Stephen Lathrop]

It was a Republican 1-party state.

[Don Nico]

Not for decades

[Absaroka]

At a guess, he's talking about Idaho, somewhere around Stanley. I've surely seen 18 inch DBH trees piled up like head high pick up sticks after avalanches.

I don't think it's a Repub/Dem thing. People have different time horizons. For one typical example, do you use a credit card to charge an optional purchase today, and pay it off over time, or do you save until you can pay cash? We are very much in camp #2, but there are lots of people in camp #1.

Washington state has landslides, tsunamis, earthquakes, fires, avalanches, and lahar flows to consider. When those (in my time, landslides and fires) happen, is it rational to rebuild in the affected zone? You can argue either side. On the one hand, after the landslide/fire, that particular place is less likely to be affected in human lifetime scales than other unaffected places, so maybe rebuilding makes sense. I don't think avalanches get the same benefit, though - a once in a century avalanche today doesn't lessen the chance of another one next winter.

Fundamentally, I don't know how to think about risks with periods approaching or exceeding human lifetimes. Should people in Iowa worry about Yellowstone? What if you are in the 1000 year flood or tsunami zone?

We got flooded once while living on a ridge top. We won't consider living anywhere remotely exposed to flooding - even though we were flooded even though living in a place that was a 1 in 1000 or 10000 year place. People aren't wholly rational about this - and I'm not even sure what the rational risk assessment is for rare risks.

[ThePublius]

Newsom on Sunday:
"The reservoirs are completely full, the state reservoirs here in Southern California."

Yet, the 117 million gallon Santa Ynez reservoir is empty.

Why don't the media call him out on this lie?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I presume he means the ones which are functional, but let's assume for the sake of a fun question that he does not:

Do you think he'll run away like a coward after doubling-down like you do with yours?

[ThePublius]

BIDEN: current U.S. President (DEM).
NEWSOM: Governor of CALIF (DEM).
Majority of State Senate (over 2/3 DEM).
Majority of State House (over 2/3 DEM).
BASS: Mayor of LA (DEM).
City Council of LA (14 of 15 DEM).

Wildfires in California - damn Trump!

OBVIOUSLY, EVERYTHING THAT HAS HAPPENED IN LOS ANGELES IS THE FAULT OF REPUBLICANS

(credit: Seth Barrett Tillman via Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit)

[Don Nico]

That seems to be what Lathrop thinks

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You posted this kind of idiot garbage already and got smacked around for it.

You are incapable of learning.

[ThePublius]

What part about it is not true?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You think I'm going to re-hash the discussion of why you're an inbred moron?

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/01/10/thursday-open-thread-225/?comments=true#comment-10864552

You are incapable of telling the truth, as evidenced multiple times on this very page, and you have no ability whatsoever to critically think. Remarkably, you maintain that deficiency even after having it pointed out to you and coached on how not to be such a retard.