Friday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Washington Governor Bob Ferguson has signed into law a bill which requires members of the clergy to report child abuse or neglect to authorities, even if that knowledge arises during the sacrament of confession. https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5375.pdf

The New York Times reports that the Department of Justice has announced it was opening a civil rights investigation into the law, which it called “anti-Catholic.” The investigation will focus on the law’s “apparent conflict” with religious freedom under the First Amendment. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/08/us/church-confession-law-child-abuse.html

That is balderdash. The Act defines "member of the clergy" as "any regularly licensed, accredited, or ordained minister, priest, rabbi, imam, elder, or similarly situated religious or spiritual leader of any church, religious denomination, religious body, spiritual community, or sect, or person performing official duties that are recognized as the duties of a member of the clergy under the discipline, tenets, doctrine, or custom of the person's church, religious denomination, religious body, spiritual community, or sect, whether acting in an individual capacity or as an employee, agent, or official of any public or private organization or institution." No provision of the Act singles out any religion or religious organization.

The legislative sponsor of the bill, State Senator Noel Frame, (who is herself a survivor of childhood sexual abuse,) said she was initially inspired by investigative reporting into Jehovah’s Witness churches in the state, which found that allegations of child abuse were kept hidden in part because of the church’s beliefs. https://www.investigatewest.org/investigatewest-reports/jehovahs-witnesses-covered-up-child-sexual-abuse-in-washington-state-for-decades-lawsuit-alleges-17692697

[AmosArch]

That is balderdash. The Act defines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You know things can be targeted at something without mentioning the target. Are the Dems of the opinion that conservatives are not racist because its been awhile since they wrote a bill explicitly mentioning they were going to go after black people specifically? If so then maybe you have a point.

[not guilty]

AA, I quoted the definition for your convenience. Please identify what word or group of words therein singles out Catholics or the Catholic Church.

This is a law of general applicability. According to the October 2, 2022 InvestigateWest article that I liked upthread:

Washington lawmakers removed clergy members from its mandatory reporter list in 1975. It’s one of seven states where clergy are not mandatory reporters of child abuse, and of those seven states, it’s one of only two — Alaska being the other — that also specify that communications between church members and clergy are protected from disclosure to authorities, according to a federal agency that tracks state laws.

Mandatory reporting of child abuse or neglect for clergy is neither novel nor exclusive.

[Speaking for normal people]

Guilty of being stupid

"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion." —John Adams, in a letter to Benjamin Rush. 1812

"[T]hat the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty." —Thomas Jefferson, 1779.

"The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man: and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate." —James Madison, 1785.

"Driven from every other corner of the earth, freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum." —Samuel Adams, Speech on August 1, 1776.

"While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious not to violate the conscience of others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men, and to Him only in this case are they answerable." —George Washington, in a letter to Benedict Arnold.

"Conscience is the most sacred of all property." —James Madison, 1792.

Just my vote, but you might be the laziest poster on here

[not guilty]

I like a good non sequitur as well as the next fellow, but what do you surmise that your quoting platitudes has to do with the topic here, Speaking for normal people?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"This is a law of general applicability."

How is it a law of general applicability if it places a burden on clergy that it doesn't place on the general public?

[not guilty]

Have you read the bill that I linked to, TwelveInchPianist? It applies to every "member of the clergy, practitioner, county coroner or medical examiner, law enforcement officer, professional school personnel, registered or licensed nurse, social service counselor, psychologist, pharmacist, employee of the department of children, youth, and families, licensed or certified child care providers or their employees, employee of the department of social and health services, juvenile probation officer, diversion unit staff, placement and liaison specialist, responsible living skills program staff, HOPE center staff, state family and children's ombuds or any volunteer in the ombuds' office, or host home program [who] has reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect[.]"

Each is a mandatory reporter of child abuse or neglect.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, TIP. Have you read the bill or not?

[tylertusta]

Such a stupid response. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, Mr. Guilty.

[TwelveInchPianist]

OK, So how is it a law of general applicability if it places a burden on clergy that it doesn't place on the general public?

Especially given SCOTUS' MFN approach?

[Armchair]

This was talked about on Wednesday. In a thread you responded to. They key text is this.

"Except for members of the clergy, no one shall be
required to report under this section when he or she obtains
information solely as a result of a privileged communication as
provided in RCW 5.60.060"

https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5375.PL.pdf?q=20250507033216

That's the real kicker that makes it discriminatory and a first amendment violation.

So, since you know this...and since you responded to the thread on Wednesday...why are you making this argument now? Are you deliberately ignoring what you readily know?

[Life of Brian]

So, since you know this...and since you responded to the thread on Wednesday...why are you making this argument now? Are you deliberately ignoring what you readily know?

As someone around here recently put it: "when one who is honestly mistaken is corrected, he either ceases to be mistaken, or ceases to be honest."

[Bwaaah]

That's the key point, about the law, and about the streak of bad faith that runs through NG's well-informed positions. The law protects privileged communications for EVERYBODY EXCEPT CLERGY.

It's no wonder NG uses pejorative nicknames when referring to relevant parties toward which he feels animus. He can't suppress the angry ill-spirited person inside that colors his arguments.

"All these so-called 'religious practitioners' should be called out for what they really are, in life and in law."

[tylertusta]

It's like he's never even heard of Blaine Amendments!

[Michael P]

That article seems unreliable. My home state has an exemption similar to what Washington had before this law. From https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title63.2/chapter15/section63.2-1509/ :

19. Any minister, priest, rabbi, imam, or duly accredited practitioner of any religious organization or denomination usually referred to as a church, unless the information supporting the suspicion of child abuse or neglect (i) is required by the doctrine of the religious organization or denomination to be kept in a confidential manner or (ii) would be subject to § 8.01-400 or 19.2-271.3 if offered as evidence in court;

Compare to https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=5.60.060:

(3) A member of the clergy, a Christian Science practitioner listed in the Christian Science Journal, or a priest shall not, without the consent of a person making the confession or sacred confidence, be examined as to any confession or sacred confidence made to him or her in his or her professional character, in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which he or she belongs.

I haven't checked other states' laws, but my sense is that exemptions like these are the norm.

[Riva]

Please identify the other prominent faiths, any faiths really, that recognizes the sanctity of the confessional? Seems like the law targets Catholicism.

[A Woman of No Importance]

All of them, except they have a different name for it. They call it the clergy/penitent privilege. Same thing under a different name.

[Riva]

Patently false. All have exceptions, some very broad, for disclosures to civil authorities. Confession is not inviolable for other faiths.

[A Woman of No Importance]

OK, so you know as much about comparative religion as you seem to about any other topic.

[Riva]

Cite any authority that contradicts what I wrote and I'll reconsider my position. When might I expect an apology when you find nothing to support your view?

[A Woman of No Importance]

Riva, I happen to know that you're wrong because I grew up in a Protestant church that practiced inviolable confession. But even if you were right, your position is an irrelevant distraction.

Suppose I decide to start a church that brings back human sacrifice, and promptly get charged with murder. My defense is that since my church is the only church that practices human sacrifice, we're being singled out and the prosecution is anti-religious bigotry. Would you find that argument persuasive? Of course you wouldn't. You would know full well that the purpose of the law is to suppress murder, and the fact that my church practices murder does not turn it into religious persecution.

That's the analysis here too. The Catholic church had to make a choice between protecting children versus protecting abusers, and it chose, and still chooses, to protect abusers. And if you want to call me a bigot for pointing that out, knock yourself out.

[Riva]

And I happen to know that you're wrong. And the funny thing is, you know you're wrong, but apparently lack the intellectual integrity to admit you're wrong. By asking for a source to support your assertion, I didn't mean you citing to yourself and simply repeating the more disinformation. Not actual all that believable when you don't even identify the faith. In fact, downright simple, good old fashioned not true at all. And your continued childish disparaging of the Catholic faith does not improve your credibility.

Cite some authority of your protestant faith's "inviolable confession," or the absolute, no exception secrecy observed by any other faith. Or just have the frigging integrity to admit you're wrong. (yeah I know, I don't really expect this but there's a first time for everything)

[A Woman of No Importance]

OK, so you have no response to my substantive point. Noted. I'll respond to yours when you respond to mine.

[Drewski]

Episcopalians, Anglicans, and Eastern Orthodox, off the top of my head.

[Riva]

Nope. None of those examples maintain the absolute inviolability of secrecy for confessions. Anglicans in fact have duty to disclose certain matters to civil authorities.

[John F. Carr]

After the local sex abuse scandal Massachusetts amended state law to permit but not require disclosure of information about sex abuse learned during confession.

[Bwaaah]

In my limited view of the matter, that sounds like a genuine attempt to be helpful in law with respect to child abuse. Washington's law looks like little more than a punitive smack at the "clergy" that gives everybody else a pass on reporting child abuse.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Look at it from the disparate impact lens.

Except in this case, we know it was intentional.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Question: Does it place an equal burden on defense counsel?

If you are defending a perp who confesses to you, are you required to tell the govt your client is guilty.

[David Nieporent]

This is a law of general applicability.

This was discussed the other day; it isn't. Making clergy mandatory reporters isn't the issue; it's carving them out of the law's exception in Section 2(1)(b) that's the issue. The existing statute says "No one shall be required to report under this section when he or she obtains the information solely as a result of a privileged communication as provided in RCW 5.60.060."

But this bill amends it to say, "Except for members of the clergy, no one shall be required to report under this section when he or she obtains the information solely as a result of a privileged communication as provided in RCW 5.60.060." In other words, other confidential communications — doctor-patient, attorney-client, spousal — are exempt, but priest-penitent are not. That's not general applicability.

[Josh R]

I have to agree with David. Even under Smith, and even assuming the most-favored nation doctrine endorsed by SCOTUS in Tandon v. Newsom is not good law, this statute appears to facially target religious conduct. That triggers strict scrutiny.

[not guilty]

Josh, merely bleating "strict scrutiny" doesn't feed the bulldog. Prior to Employment Division v. Smith, when application of Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), to free exercise claims was still in full force, SCOTUS opined:

The mere fact that the petitioner's religious practice is burdened by a governmental program does not mean that an exemption accommodating his practice must be granted. The state may justify an inroad on religious liberty by showing that it is the least restrictive means of achieving some compelling state interest.

Thomas v. Review Bd., Ind. Empl. Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 718 (1981).

Josh, as I have asked other commenters, Do you dispute that the State of Washington's interest in detecting and punishing child abuse or neglect is compelling? Yes or no?

What less restrictive means do you contend will suffice to achieve the State of Washington's compelling interest here in detecting and punishing child abuse or neglect? Please be specific.

[Josh R]

And as I replied elsewhere, the underinclusiveness of the law could sink it under strict scrutiny.

[Brett Bellmore]

" Are the Dems of the opinion that conservatives are not racist because its been awhile since they wrote a bill explicitly mentioning they were going to go after black people specifically? "

"A while"? When did this happen?

[Frank Drackman]

Roe v Wade wasn't a "Bill" per se but it was decided by 5 Repubiclown Judges (including 3 nominated by Milhouse Nixon) and certainly went after black people..

[Brett Bellmore]

Don't tell me you've joined the epidemic of Volokh commenters who don't know the definition of "explicitly".

[Commenter_XY]

The law will be tossed in federal court, NG. It is nakedly anti-Catholic (and anti-religious). Who is going to throw Catholic priests in prison for hearing confessions?

The Church has made it's position clear. Any priest who violates the secrecy of confession will be excommunicated.

Why isn't attorney liable for what a client tells them? Why are they exempt?

[not guilty]

"Who is going to throw Catholic priests in prison for hearing confessions?"

Don't be silly, XY. RCW 74.34.053 provides:

(1) A person who is required to make a report under this chapter and who knowingly fails to make the report is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(2) A person who intentionally, maliciously, or in bad faith makes a false report of alleged abandonment, abuse, financial exploitation, or neglect of a vulnerable adult is guilty of a misdemeanor.

The prohibited actus reus is not hearing confessions. It is the knowing failure to report any child abuse or neglect disclosed during the confession.

In a statement reportedly issued to Catholics in his diocese, Bishop Thomas Daly of Spokane reassured them that bishops and priests “are committed to keeping the seal of confession — even to the point of going to jail.”

More power to them -- civil disobedience is always an option. But civil disobedience includes acceptance of the consequences thereof. I admire that a man of faith is willing to spend 364 days in jail to uphold the tenets of what he believes.

[Speaking for normal people]

Your last paragraph brands you as a hyporcrite. Maybe you should be in prison for opposing religious freedom 🙂

[not guilty]

What do you contend is hypocritical about admiring those who stand up for their religious beliefs? Civil disobedience has a proud tradition. I was never faced with the choice, but when I practiced law, I would have cheerfully gone to jail sooner than to breach a client confidence.

But civil disobedience includes accepting the consequences thereof.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

You let the cat out of that bag that you know and understand this bill targets Catholics.

[Riva]

A law targeting catholics is constitutional? Animus against a particular faith is not really a valid basis for a law, just so you know.

[not guilty]

Riva, how on earth does a Washington law which applies to every "member of the clergy, practitioner, county coroner or medical examiner, law enforcement officer, professional school personnel, registered or licensed nurse, social service counselor, psychologist, pharmacist, employee of the department of children, youth, and families, licensed or certified child care providers or their employees, employee of the department of social and health services, juvenile probation officer, diversion unit staff, placement and liaison specialist, responsible living skills program staff, HOPE center staff, state family and children's ombuds or any volunteer in the ombuds' office, or host home program [who] has reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect" target Catholics?

[Armchair]

Because of the section you're not citing.

"Except for members of the clergy, no one shall be
required to report under this section when he or she obtains
information solely as a result of a privileged communication as
provided in RCW 5.60.060"

[Riva]

Good point.

[not guilty]

Armchair, I quoted the definition of "member of the clergy" above. It is not at all restricted to Catholic clergy.

[Armchair]

If something is targeting "all" clergy, it is also targeting Catholics.

Although it is notable that Catholics and other specific Christian faiths specifically have a ritual of confession which has a seal of confidentiality.

[A Woman of No Importance]

If something is targeting all humans, it is also targeting all Catholics. So what?

Other religious groups may not call it by the name "sacrament of confession" but all religious groups have traditionally defended the clergy/penitent privilege, which is a thing. Prior to passage of this law, anything I told my spiritual advisor was confidential and s/he could not be forced to disclose it. Doesn't matter if the spiritual advisor is called father, pastor, rabbi, imam or satanic high priest.

[Armchair]

Yes, priest - penitent privilege is real, and honestly a good thing across all religions in my opinion.

My only point here was the sacrament of Confession was a particularly public and well known example, especially with the required seal.

[A Woman of No Importance]

And my point is that the fact that Catholics have a specific name for it doesn't mean it doesn't exist elsewhere under a different name.

[Brett Bellmore]

At most you can claim this clause isn't targeting Catholics specifically, but it unambiguously is targeting religion, by making it the only basis for a privileged communication NOT being protected.

[A Woman of No Importance]

Oh that's pish posh Brett. *Most* confidential communications aren't protected in litigation; there are a very few that are like priest/penitent, doctor/patient and husband/wife. The privilege is the exception, not the rule.

And what this really says is that religion no longer gets special privileges. It doesn't get discriminated against, but it doesn't get special favors either. Which is how I understand the First Amendment.

[Brett Bellmore]

AWoNI, it specifically calls out religion for having the privilege lifted. That IS discriminating against religion.

[A Woman of No Importance]

Suppose there is a law that applies to everyone, but Group A has been given an exemption. Suppose the legislature removes the exemption so Group A is now subject to the law just like everyone else. Is your position that Group A is now being discriminated against because they are now subject to the same rules as everybody else?

And by the way, after the sex abuse scandals in the Catholic church, the Catholic church is not exactly a sympathetic plaintiff here.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Do feelings count?

[not guilty]

If something is targeting "all" clergy, it is also targeting Catholics.

Although it is notable that Catholics and other specific Christian faiths specifically have a ritual of confession which has a seal of confidentiality.

Uh, no, Armchair. As a Middle Tennessee preacher from my youth was fond of saying, that doesn't make good sense. Indeed, it doesn't even make good nonsense.

And your second paragraph flies in the face of your first. But then, as Ralph Waldo Emerson said in 1841, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

[Josh R]

It doesn't facially target Catholics (but it might nonetheless target Catholics). But legally, we don't care because it facially targets religious conduct.

[Riva]

And because only Catholicism recognizes the sanctity of the confessional. Famously so. Catholic faith is being targeted. Your being a vile anti-catholic bigot obviously blinds you to this.

[Armchair]

There are other Christian faiths that recognize confession.

In fairness here, ng is not "just" an anti-catholic bigot, but bigoted against all religious faiths.

[A Woman of No Importance]

Really? It's bigoted to say that people who are aware of child abuse should be required to report it?

We can discuss whether it's good policy, but bigotry it is not.

[Riva]

You seem to like persecuting the only faith that maintains the absolute inviolability of the seal of confession. You would have done well in revolutionary France, and there are a host of other modern communist countries today that share your fear of the Catholic faith. Try the CCP, I'm sure they'd be very receptive.

[A Woman of No Importance]

It's not persecution to not give it special favors that nobody else gets. I'm not more hostile to Catholicism than I am to any other revealed religion, though it does strike me that it has a massive sense of entitlement sometimes. Which may be why some people actually do hate the Catholic church.

And like I told Brett, its history of covering up sexual abuse does not make it a sympathetic party here.

[Brett Bellmore]

"It's not persecution to not give it special favors that nobody else gets."

The problem here is that your "that nobody else gets" is bullshit.

[Riva]

Bad acts by some have zero to do with the doctrine of faith. Trying to equate the 2 things only highlights your phenomenal ignorance. And exposes your fear and hatred of the Church.

[David Nieporent]

It's not persecution to not give it special favors that nobody else gets.

That's true… but others do get it. Washington law establishes a bunch of relationships that enjoy confidential communications, including clergy-penitent, but then says for the purposes of this one particular law, "Everyone gets to maintain their confidentiality except clergy."

[not guilty]

No, Armchair, I am not bigoted against all religious faiths. To the contrary, I am a Christian believer, reared among fundamentalist evangelicals. I understand their mindset, and I am glad that they find comfort therein.

As for me, my karma ran over my dogma. I refer to myself, only partially in jest, as a recovering Campbellite.

The Roman Catholic Church, however, is a profoundly evil institution. As Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapter 7, RSV):

15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?
17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit.
18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.
21 "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'
23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'

[Don Nico]

ng,
You have truly let the cat out of the bag with your confession:
"The Roman Catholic Church, however, is a profoundly evil institution."

[not guilty]

That cat was never in the bag to begin with, Don Nico. Whom do you think Jesus had in mind when he spoke the words I quoted from the gospel of Matthew?

"A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit." As I wrote earlier in the week, the fruits of the Catholic Church are Inquisition, corruption, misogyny and pederasty.

[Riva]

Like I noted above, you could have made a name for yourself on the Committee of Public Safety. Good times, huh? But still many other communist holes that would welcome vile bigots like you. Again, I wholly recommend the CCP.

[Don Nico]

Again ng, your animus toward the Roman church was deeply instilled during you evangelical Protestant upbringing. That community, which you still decry because of MAGA inclinations, has a profound effect on your prejudices.

[Riva]

That is incorrect, and it doesn't get more correct the more it's repeated. No other faith recognizes the absolute inviolability of the seal of confession.

[Riva]

But I'll concede NG probably also hates other religions. I'm sure he's not too found of the Jewish faith.

[not guilty]

Riva, you have no clue as to what I think of any religious group that I haven't specifically discussed. I generally admire today's Jewish faith. The nation of Israel as described in the Old Testament, not so much. Yahweh is probably the vilest character in all of English literature.

The Nobel physicist Steven Weinberg observed that "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

[Riva]

I guess, being a religious bigot, you're attracted to prominent atheists. I never had much respect for the Nobel committee and while I have no opinion on his credentials as a physicist, Weinberg was, as noted, an atheist, and, obviously, no great moral theologian. Don't know what his definition of "good" or "evil" is, but it apparently depends on his own subjective assessment. Did he have his own special equation for defining "religion" as the cause of evil? Communists around the world are probably jealous.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What about the 13th Amendment.
Or will WA State be willing to write an 8 figure check annually to the Catholic Church?

They are requiring Priests to evaluate hours upon hours of confessions to determine what should be reported, and that is what are called "billable hours."

[David Nieporent]

What about the 13th Amendment.

Has no relationship of any sort to this case.

They are requiring Priests to evaluate hours upon hours of confessions to determine what should be reported,

They are not, in fact.

and that is what are called "billable hours."

It is not, in fact. It would not be called that even if priests had billable hours, which they do not.

Imposing legal requirements on the public is not the definition of slavery.

[SRG2]

Wherein the Trumpist right decides t does believe in disparate impact after all.

[Krayt]

I still don't see how one needs to rely on anti-Catholic to get it tossed. It directly impacts the free exercise of religion in its core mission of saving souls. It targets religion straight up, and so cannot even rely on "laws of general applicability" sophistry, which should not apply here, either, as it is such a direct violation of religious freedom.

We The People informed government, when we created it, of the relative value judgement weightings of busibody lawmakers wanting to interfere with rights like free speech, religion, assembly, vs. those rights.

Free speech zones, permits for assemblies, porta potty requirements, religion must bend the knee and stop what it's doing, weasels gotta wease. We see you there, weasels, weasing.

[not guilty]

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. The Supreme Court opined in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), that laws incidentally burdening religion are ordinarily not subject to strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause so long as they are neutral and generally applicable. Id., at 878–882. The Court there explained that:

The government's ability to enforce generally applicable prohibitions of socially harmful conduct, like its ability to carry out other aspects of public policy, "cannot depend on measuring the effects of a governmental action on a religious objector's spiritual development." Lyng [v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Assn.,] 485 U.S. [439,] 451 [(1988).] To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is "compelling" -- permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, "to become a law unto himself," Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. [145.] 167 [(1879)] -- contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.

442 U.S. at 885.

The instant Washington law applies to every "member of the clergy, practitioner, county coroner or medical examiner, law enforcement officer, professional school personnel, registered or licensed nurse, social service counselor, psychologist, pharmacist, employee of the department of children, youth, and families, licensed or certified child care providers or their employees, employee of the department of social and health services, juvenile probation officer, diversion unit staff, placement and liaison specialist, responsible living skills program staff, HOPE center staff, state family and children's ombuds or any volunteer in the ombuds' office, or host home program [who] has reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect[.]" Strict scrutiny is accordingly inapplicable pursuant to Smith and its progeny.

Suppose, however, for the sake of argument, that strict scrutiny does apply. If the object of a law is to infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation, the law is not neutral, and it is invalid unless it is justified by a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to advance that interest. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 533 (1993).

Does anyone dispute that the State of Washington's interest in detecting and punishing child abuse or neglect is compelling? Prior to Smith, SCOTUS opined that:

The mere fact that the petitioner's religious practice is burdened by a governmental program does not mean that an exemption accommodating his practice must be granted. The state may justify an inroad on religious liberty by showing that it is the least restrictive means of achieving some compelling state interest.

Thomas v. Review Bd., Ind. Empl. Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 718 (1981). What less restrictive means will suffice to achieve the State of Washington's compelling interest here in detecting and punishing child abuse or neglect?

Please be specific.

[Armchair]

You keep not citing the relevant text.

"Except for members of the clergy, no one shall be
required to report under this section when he or she obtains
information solely as a result of a privileged communication as
provided in RCW 5.60.060"

[not guilty]

You are tap dancing around the questions I raised, Armchair.

Do you dispute that the State of Washington's interest in detecting and punishing child abuse or neglect is compelling? Yes or no?

What less restrictive means do you contend will suffice to achieve the State of Washington's compelling interest here in detecting and punishing child abuse or neglect? Please be specific.

[Armchair]

Watch ng dance as he avoids....

This was all talked about on Wednesday. There were a broad swath of exemptions to the mandatory reporter requirements for confidential communications. If you want to strike down ALL those exemptions (including attorney-client privilege, spousal privilege, medical doctor - patient privilege, etc)...then you might have a case for general applicability.

But to keep all those exemptions and specifically call out and name priest - penitent privilege as not exempt. It's clear anti-religious activity and violates the first amendment.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Armchair.

Do you dispute that the State of Washington's interest in detecting and punishing child abuse or neglect is compelling? Yes or no?

What less restrictive means do you contend will suffice to achieve the State of Washington's compelling interest here in detecting and punishing child abuse or neglect?

Even where strict scrutiny analysis applies, "The state may justify an inroad on religious liberty by showing that it is the least restrictive means of achieving some compelling state interest." Thomas v. Review Bd., Ind. Empl. Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 718 (1981). "When a plausible, less restrictive alternative is offered to [compare to the challenged regulation,] it is the Government's obligation to prove that the alternative will be ineffective to achieve its goals." United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 816 (2000) (applying strict scrutiny to a content-based regulation of speech). What less restrictive means do you propose?

[Armchair]

If it's a such a major compelling interest such that it justifies violating priest-penitent privilege, then it justifies violating ALL confidential privileges.

If it's not so compelling that you write into the text that all privileges can be violated...you don't get to pick and choose to violate just the ones you don't like.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Armchair.

Do you dispute that the State of Washington's interest in detecting and punishing child abuse or neglect is compelling? Yes or no?

What less restrictive means do you contend will suffice to achieve the State of Washington's compelling interest here in detecting and punishing child abuse or neglect?

[Bwaaah]

You seem to be the only one in the room who can't identify the tap dancer.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

David N., not some easy target, pointed out the problem with your argument. Can you please respond to him?

[not guilty]

I will acknowledge that David makes a fair point about treating privileged communications to clergy differently from other privileged communications may mean that the statute is not of general application. But even if it is not, the statute passes constitutional muster even applying strict scrutiny.

As I have said time and again -- and no one here has disputed -- the State of Washington has a compelling interest in detecting and punishing child abuse or neglect.

What less restrictive means would suffice to achieve that compelling interest? Especially where a significant number of religious leaders themselves are notorious perpetrators and/or facilitators of the most heinous kinds of abuse.

Extending the duty to report child abuse or neglect to other professionals who may receive privileged communication would not make one whit of difference in any parishioner's exercise of religion. Ergo, that is not a "less restrictive means" for purposes of strict scrutiny.

[Josh R]

Extending the duty to report child abuse or neglect to other professionals who may receive privileged communication would not make one whit of difference in any parishioner's exercise of religion.

True, but if Washington has a compelling interest in protecting children from abuse, why doesn't that apply to other privileged communications?

[Don Nico]

If the state of State of Washington has such compelling interest in detecting and punishing child abuse or neglect, that clause that you cited would read
"No one shall be required to report under this section when he or she obtains information solely as a result of a privileged communication as
provided in RCW 5.60.060"

[Bored Lawyer]

Do you dispute that the State of Washington's interest in detecting and punishing child abuse or neglect is compelling? Yes or no?

This was discussed at length in Wednesday's thread. The short answer to your question is No. Because the State of Washington itself does not consider it to be compelling. How do I know that? Because it has made numerous other exceptions to the reporting law. Under the law, if someone confesses to a priest that he is abusing children, the priest has to report it. But if he confesses it to his union representative, or to a whole list of other relationships, that person does not. The statute exempts them.

So child abuse is not so compelling an interest if a union representative, and the many others, are exempt.

Do you not understand this, or are you being disingenuous?

[Don Nico]

He is just expressing his animus about what he thinks is a "profoundly evil institution."

[Krayt]

I do not dispute there's a compelling interest. I dispute any such interest can override the First Amendment.

This impacts the free exercise of religion, and in its core mission of saving souls. That's it. We're done.

[Bored Lawyer]

That's not the law, though. No one thinks that human sacrifice for a religious ceremony is beyond the power of the state to ban.

[not guilty]

I do not dispute there's a compelling interest. I dispute any such interest can override the First Amendment.

This impacts the free exercise of religion, and in its core mission of saving souls. That's it. We're done.

Krayt, SCOTUS upheld the bigamy conviction of George Reynolds in the territorial courts of Utah, even though he asserted that he believed it was his religious duty to take a second wife. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878). Do you regard that case as being wrongly decided?

In Harden et al. v. State, 188 Tenn. 17, 216 S.W.2d 708 (1949), the Supreme Court of Tennessee opined that a state statute making it unlawful for any person to display, exhibit, handle, or use any poisonous or dangerous snake or reptile in such a manner as to endanger the life or health of any person, does not violate constitutional religious guaranties. The Court rejected the appellants' contentions that: (1) this statute "does not apply to religious services conducted in a Church," or, if it does so apply, (2) violates their freedom of religion guaranteed by both the Federal and State Constitutions. The Court specifically opined:

Reasonable minds must agree that the aforementioned practice of so handling poisonous snakes as a part of the religious services of this Church is dangerous to the life and health of people. It is equally certain that this danger is grave and immediate when and wherever the practice is being indulged. Therefore, under the holdings of the United States Supreme Court, the Tennessee statute which forbids such a practice does not appear to violate those provisions of the Federal Constitution with reference to the individual's freedom of worship.

Do you agree or disagree with that ruling, Krayt? Suppose that a religious group engages in the ritual sacrifice of virgins?

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, NG, why shouldn't DEFENSE ATTORNIES have to report as well, for all the reasons you mention?

Hell, why shouldn't you be required to testify against your client?

[David Nieporent]

Do you dispute that the State of Washington's interest in detecting and punishing child abuse or neglect is compelling? Yes or no?

The state of Washington itself disputes that, since they exempt, e.g., doctors and lawyers from this very same requirement. Which makes this not a law of general applicability.

[Josh R]

You have restated the most-favored nation doctrine. Although I believe this law is not neutral because it facially targets religious conduct, this is a good example of why the most-favored nation doctrine is not a good idea.

Imagine instead the law simply lists exceptions without facially mentioning the clergy, just like anti-discrimination law exempts small employers. The most-favored nation doctrine demands that both the clergy in this modified case and religious objectors to hiring blacks win their cases. Strict scrutiny applies and the fact there are exceptions means the state doesn't meet it's burden.

See something wrong with that result?

[Bored Lawyer]

Your hypothetical result proves the point. If racial discrimination is so bad, then why make exceptions?

If your law says, "it's perfectly legal or employers having 10 or less employees to practice religious discrimination" then you don't think it's such an evil thing. So if someone then says, "my religion tells me I have to discriminate," the state's argument that is has a compelling interest rings hollow.

Same thing during COVID. If it's ok for 100 people to gather for a bowling tournament, then it should be ok for 100 people to gather to pray to their God. The state has no business deciding that a bowling tournament is more valuable than communal prayer.

[Josh R]

The state should not have to overcome strict scrutiny. The most-favored nation doctrine is flawed.

Just about all laws have exceptions. Under the most-favored nation doctrine, the Constitution demands that religious conduct be given an exception because (as you observed) the state cannot overcome strict scrutiny because of those exceptions. The result is a get-out-of-jail free card for religious conduct that violates virtually any law. That result goes well beyond even the favored treatment given to religious conduct during the Verner era. Is that what Free Exercise of religion means?

SCOTUS opened a can worms when it endorsed the most-favored nation doctrine in Tandon v. Newsom which it will have deal with at some point.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It is not that "all laws have exceptions."

It is this law that specifically makes an exception for religion. This is not a "most favorite nation" problem.

Religion is singled out. There has to be some clarity on why singling out religious institutions is defensible.

A bunch of things have privileges, but religious privileges are specifically limited. This isn't akin to the COVID cases, where religions were treated like other things, while a few things had exceptions.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

NG, whatever the motive of the legislatures, you've made clear in a comment in a previous thread that you yourself are motivated by anti-Catholic bigotry ("The fruits of Catholicism are Inquisition, corruption, misogyny and pederasty."). Of course you're going to support any law which for whatever reason has the effect of oppressing the Church and committing sacrilege against the confessional seal.

Fortunately, the Fathers of the Republic were not as bigoted as you, and recognized the confessional privilege in the 1813 New York case of People v. Phillips.

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/people-v-philips/

DeWitt Clinton (also known as the father of the Erie Canal) affirmed that the courts could not compel the violation of the seal of the confessional. He dismissed Irish precedents against the confessional seal, since in Ireland there were “two great parties, the oppressors and oppressed.” Clinton pointed out that it was far otherwise in the United States, with state and federal guarantees of religious freedom.

Clinton's fame will survive long after memories of you have settled back into the muck whence they came.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm no Establishment Clause expert, but I wouldn't bet money on this statute passing a legal challenge, given the Supreme Court's adoption of most-favored-nation analysis (thanks for the pointer, Josh R!)

That being said, it's whole 'nother level to declare this is persecution of Catholics.
Some people are thirsty to feel persecuted. Or righteously stand against persecution of others. To the point they'll see persecution everywhere.

[Kazinski]

Does anyone think its just coincidence that JD Vance was Pope Francis's last visitor a few weeks ago before he suddenly died, now we get the first American Pope?

[Frank Drackman]

Certainly appears fishy as Francis was in such great health

[Speaking for normal people]

You posit a connection and then ask if you posited a connection !!!
The last visitor to every dying Pope had a nationality, if it was not American , what does that mean ?????

[Michael P]

It looks like proof that Trump's tariffs are working: even the Pope is now made in the USA.

[Frank Drackman]

+1

[Moderation4ever]

What is more interesting is that the new Pope Leo des not seem to like JD Vance anymore than the late Pope Francis did.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If we had a truly based TradCath pope like JD wanted, the Pope would declare Trump’s immigration policies anathema to him and then place the whole country under interdict until Trump submitted to his suzerainty.

[Moderation4ever]

Can you picture President Trump begging like Henry II for forgiveness?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Trump wears a hairshirt and walks through the snow barefoot to the basilica in DC.

Truly Based TradCath Pope forgives him, but also kidnaps Steven Miller, forces a baptism upon him, and then places him in a monastery.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And the half of the country that is Protestant, which includes Trump, would tell the Pope to Go Fuck Himself.

Or maybe declare the Catholic Church to be a Terrorist Organization with all the financial implications of that. How many American Catholics would abandon their material luxuries to support the Pope?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Truly Based TradCath Pope would call a crusade to purge this heresy.

[Drewski]

From most people I would read this as a joke, but just for you I'll say it obviously it is a coincidence, yes.

[Bored Lawyer]

"last visitor" -- really, Pope Francis did not see a single human being after Vance left? No one from the Vatican looked in on him? No doctor or nurse?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Has Kazinski seen what Pope Leftist has said about JD Vance?

[AmosArch]

Washington Governor Bob Ferguson has signed into law a bill which requires members of the clergy to report child abuse or neglect to authorities, even if that knowledge arises during the sacrament of confession. https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5375.pdf
....................................

Now however many there are will just keep it to themselves and everything either stays the same or worsens. But the church is pwned which I guess might have been the goal all along.

[Krayt]

It's flat out interfering with the free exercise of religion, and in its core activity, saving souls.

As a side note, the term sinecure, "without care", was coined to describe goldbricking corruption jobs paid for by the church, where the positions had nothing to do with the mission of saving souls.

It is used in more modern times to describe the explosion in university jobs unrelated to the mission of teaching. At some universities, this now exceeds 50%.

It's ironic those who screetch the vital importance of sinecure positions in universities today, want to stomp on the care positions of the church today.

[Bob from Ohio]

The new Pope should put the whole state under an interdict.

Motivate the Catholic citizens to lobby against this.

[Kazinski]

Europe had a big win this week in the Middle East: Hegseth bombed the Houthis into submission and they said they are going to quit shooting missiles at ships in the Red Sea.

"A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry of Oman confirmed the announcement in an X post on Tuesday.

"Following recent discussions and contacts conducted by the Sultanate of Oman with the United States and the relevant authorities in Sana'a, in the Republic of Yemen, with the aim of de-escalation, efforts have resulted in a ceasefire agreement between the two sides," the Foreign Ministry of Oman said in the statement.

"In the future, neither side will target the other, including American vessels, in the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab Strait, ensuring freedom of navigation and the smooth flow of international commercial shipping," it added."

Rubio added that "this was always a freedom of navigation mission."

"These guys, these are, you know, a band of individuals with advanced weaponry that were threatening global shipping," he said. "And the job was to get that to stop."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-announces-us-stop-bombing-yemen-houthis-attack/story?id=121525865

I guess i missed the fact in Wednesday's open thread that it was all international shipping, not just American ships, as the initial reports said.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and a good thing, because the USS Harry Truman keeps losing F-18s overboard.

[Frank Drackman]

They didn't really "lose" the Super Hornet the other day, they know where it is.

[Mr. Bumble]

Actually they've "lost" two. First one just rolled off the deck.
The most recent one apparently was landing and somehow wasn't arrested (no reason why given). Pilots ejected.
Has the Captain been relieved yet?

[Frank Drackman]

Sometimes the Jet bounces, sometimes the tailhook does, the Carrier always does (See, the Carrier is in this thing we call the "Ocean" and the Ocean has these things we call "Waves") Thats why they go to full throttle when they land, so if they don't stop they can go around, and if something goes wrong you've only got a second or two to decide whether to stay or take the Martin-Baker shortcut.

Frank "If in Doubt, Punch Out"

[Mr. Bumble]

"If in Doubt, Punch Out"
In this case bail out?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Which raises the first question I had -- what is the anticipated percentage of landings where this is expected to happen?

And isn't the Truman the one with three wires instead of four?

They reportedly lost the first one dodging an incoming missile -- I found it amazing that a ship that large answered the helm quickly enough to facilitate that.

[Michael P]

That article describes the ceasefire as being limited to US ships. Why is that good for Europe? I think few ships carrying goods to or from Europe are US-flagged.

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts cleared up some confusion related to the state law concept of a lesser included offense. A crime may be a lesser included offense despite not being a subset of the greater crime.

In the case at hand, a driver smoked marijuana, drove recklessly, and crashed into and killed a police officer. He was convicted of manslaughter, motor vehicle homicide, and operating negligently so as to endanger the public. Under a strict elements based test the charges are not duplicative. Manslaughter does not require proof of operation of a motor vehicle. Motor vehicle homicide does not require proof of wanton or reckless conduct. Ordinary negligence is sufficient. Nevertheless, the SJC said the convictions on the two motor vehicle offenses were to be treated as lesser included offenses that merged into the greater offense. The defendant should only have been convicted of manslaughter. The crime of misdemeanor motor vehicle homicide was enacted as a middle ground between manslaughter and operating to endanger. It was not meant to pile on charges. This is a question of statutory interpretation rather than constitutional law.

I observed when the case was still fresh news that it was an example of how the result differs depending on relative status of killer and victim. A drunk police officer had recently killed two women and got off with a 60 day jail sentence. The possibly stoned driver who killed a cop was destined to get the five year mandatory minimum for OUI manslaughter. He was actually acquitted on the OUI count but sentenced as if he had been convicted. The sentencing range for ordinary manslaughter is 0-20 years. No reversible error in picking five years even if it does suggest sentencing for acquitted conduct.

Commonwealth v. Njuguna, https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2025/05/05/e13654.pdf

In some states I see three murder charges filed for each dead body. The law there has been written to maximize the number of possible counts.

[A Japanese Student]

Interesting. My impression has been that Americans are way more lenient on drunk driving than Japanese people.

Here, simple DUI is punishable by 3 years in prison or 0.5M yen ($3,400) in fines, with the average fine being $2,000. Drunk driving is punishable by 5 years or 1M yen. Last time I checked, only two States punish DUI as a felony.

And even without alcohol, traffic accidents come with a heavy punishment. "Negligent driving causing injury or death" is punishable by up to 7 years or 1M yen. For a particularly egregious cases of DUI, vehicular homicide statute (1-20 years in prison) applies. And guess the public opinion - even this is seen as too lenient. (I've seen many people suggest death penalty for deadly DUI; I don't think any country has implemented this.)

Number of counts don't really matter here. For defendants convicted of multiple counts, the judge can impose up to 150% of the maximum sentence of the most severe offense. There is no difference in maximum authorized sentence between someone who robbed 2 people on one occasion or 20 people on 20 different occasions; the maximum is 30 years in both cases.

[Frank Drackman]

You guys drive bad enough sober, what's the penalty for "Driving While Japanese"????

[Mr. Bumble]

They even drive on the wrong side of the road.

[Riva]

On paper a little harsh. But are those offenses actually enforced? Enforced evenly across Japan?

[A Japanese Student]

I haven't seen people get jailed for simple DUI only. It's easy to fine someone - the prosecutor asks the judge, in the indictment, to sentence the defendant to fine. The judge can then grant the request and sentence the defendant. (The prosecutor is supposed to only file this if the defendant pleads guilty - in any case, they have fourteen days to seek a regular proceeding.)

Prison time becomes more likely if the defendant is unlicensed or causes an accident - courts here don't like very short prison sentence.

As to the negligent driving - yes, if you cause an accident, you will be arrested on the spot, and if the victim died, you will almost certainly face prison sentence (though in many cases it will be suspended).

[John F. Carr]

In much of the USA there is a standard deal for routine traffic offenses.

In Massachusetts, first time OUI charges usually end with a noncriminal disposition and 60 day loss of license. The statutory maximum is 2 1/2 years in jail. Jail rather than prison makes OUI a misdemeanor under state law. A term over a year makes OUI a felony under federal law (lifetime gun ban). The drunk cop I mentioned didn't get the usual deal because there were two dead women. His fellow cops sabotaged the homicide case and a charge of gun possession while drunk. He was only convicted of OUI because the blood sample at the hospital came up around .20% alcohol.

When I was in college the state made posters showing the financial cost of a DUI charge. It was well over $2,000 even then. There's legal costs, a fine, a probation fee, a license reinstatement fee, and a state-mandated insurance surcharge.

For killing somebody without alcohol involvement the sentence is also up to 2 1/2 years per victim. The prosecution must prove ordinary negligence beyond a reasonable doubt. Not far from where I used to live a man hit the gas instead of the brake and killed two people. The judge gave him four years, two for each victim. The sentence was harsh by local standards. If it's "just an accident" probation is likely. Otherwise, a couple months up to a year. Old people will be spared jail if they surrender their licenses.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Massachusetts offers a "three for the price of one" discount on murder? The 2nd & 3rd persons weren't human beings?

[Mr. Bumble]

In today's edition of waste, fraud and abuse:
"Amtrak taken for a ride in wild $12M scam by 119 employees, crooked docs – but more than half kept their jobs: bombshell probe "
https://nypost.com/2025/05/08/us-news/amtrak-hit-with-its-largest-employee-fraud-scheme-119-workers-in-12m-health-care-heist/

[Michael P]

That's unpossible. I was told just in Wednesday's open thread that Trump had fired all the people investigating fraud and abuse. How can he be cracking down on a scheme that the Autopen administration was lax on?

[Mr. Bumble]

...and another example?:
Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett says she doesn't have to explain why her family has been cashing their dead grandmother's Social Security checks since 2004.

https://x.com/MustangMan_TX/status/1920507374063734861?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1920507374063734861%7Ctwgr%5Ea5792968c52c9c903300e418e63a8bce654b3dcc%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F718950%2F

[Life of Brian]

This apparently started making the rounds last month on a "Facebook satire account", but much more conservatively claiming the grandmother died in 2012. Gets embellished a bit more every cycle.

[David Nieporent]

If Mr. Bumble would try getting his news from real news sources instead of MAGA loons, maybe he wouldn't get fooled so often by hoaxes.

[Glaucomatose]

Doesn’t seem like a coincidence that this fraud was uncovered by one of the Inspectors General that he hadn’t gotten around to firing yet.

[Sarcastr0]

I was told just in Wednesday's open thread that Trump had fired all the people investigating fraud and abuse

If you're talking about me, here is what I said: "We can talk about the scope and policy failures of fraudulent reporting elsewhere if you want. I would just note that cutting a ton of staff from the federal government certainly won't help that issue!"

Now that the strawman is cleared up, do you dispute that finding fraud requires dedicated people to find said fraud?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Some of the allegedly dirty workers — mostly located in the New York to DC region

I am not at all surprised. That sector is dirty.

[David Nieporent]

Note that this helps illustrate the point many of us have been making: nobody denies that, in a budget of trillions of dollars, there is going to be some fraudulent payments. But those are likely to be — as here — individuals cheating the government, not government programs themselves. People claiming disability without being disabled, doctors claiming Medicare reimbursements for procedures that were unnecessary or never performed at all, a local school district claiming higher low-income enrollment than it actually has to get more federal funds, farmers seeking crop assistance they're not entitled to. That sort of thing. All of that's real, and criminal, and I have no problem prosecuting it whenever and wherever it occurs. But it's not going to be detected by a bunch of 20-year olds with no background or experience, hired because they say edgy things online, smashing their way into federal offices and demanding to inspect the computers, and it amounts to a rounding error in federal spending.

[John F. Carr]

In other Massachusetts news, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a two year license suspension for a veterinarian who sent an email to customers suggesting they get ozone generators to ward off COVID. That was practicing medicine "beyond the scope of her license." She was licensed to care for animals, not humans.

Ozone is not FDA approved for prevention or treatment of COVID and probably doesn't work. See 21 CFR 801.415. Legally speaking, she was charged only with exceeding her license. Practically, if she gave good advice instead of bad the state would have gone easier on her.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2025/05/06/i13653.pdf

The email was sent during the initial pandemic panic in early 2020. It took over five years to get a final decision.

[Mr. Bumble]

" It took over five years to get a final decision."
...and you find that surprising?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm quite sure ozone doesn't treat Covid. Neither does washing doorknobs or wearing a mask. It may slow the spread at least some.

As a practical matter she gave as good of advice, or better, than those advising that you wear a mask.

Should have suffered the suspension for recommending homeopathy, instead...

[Stephen Lathrop]

Somerville, MA is characterized by dense settlement, and a population of younger adults crammed many-to-an-apartment, while they work typically menial and low-income service jobs. In short, a setup for severe Covid spread. Which was the initial experience there.

After masking and public closures were promptly implemented and systematically enforced, with high compliance, Somerville went on to get through the pandemic with much-reduced infection rates. Those public health measures demonstrably worked in Somerville, and demonstrated that with compliance they ought to have worked everywhere. That reduction in Somerville was achieved despite another program to increase dramatically the Covid testing rate.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Somerville is actually North Cambridge, but before dismissing Ozone, explain how it was accepted to sanitize masks for reuse?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — Why wouldn't the normal expectation be that ozone would aggravate Covid? Isn't it already understood to be a systematic lung irritant?

[Brett Bellmore]

Depends on the level, sure. But it also kills viruses in the air. I've seen studies from medical experts that thought it could be useful, though they DID recommend that you only run the generator while you were outside the room.

[Michael P]

https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/will-ozone-generator-protect-me-and-my-family-covid-19 says ozone doesn't have protective effects at generally permitted levels.

[Brett Bellmore]

"We don't want you to do that, therefore we will say it doesn't work." Standard bureaucratic behavior.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Except on the basis of tendentious preference, how does that differ from, "We think that doesn't work, so we don't want you to do it?"

[Brett Bellmore]

If you don't understand how to parse English sentences by this time, I doubt I can remedy that problem.

[Stephen Lathrop]

That baffles me as much as your yesterday's insistence that President John Kennedy's personal moral character was inferior to Trump's.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're easily baffled, I guess.

The Strange Saga of JFK and the Original ‘Dr. Feelgood’

Trump, by contrast, doesn't drink, the hardest drug he consumes is diet coke.

They both cheated on their wives, of course, but JFK did so on a much larger scale.

They say not to speak ill of the dead, but JFK has been dead long enough we no longer have to pretend he was some kind of saint.

I will give JFK this much: He certainly tried to pry the Democratic party loose from its addiction to racial discrimination.

[bernard11]

I guess you don't count theft, constant lying, smearing of individuals and groups, etc. as moral failings.

But hey, you really don't like Trump, right?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not saying Trump is great. I'm just saying JFK was worse.

[Sarcastr0]

And don't get me started on that bastard Harding!

Can't be mad at Trump while Harding's not been posthumously impeached.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Marla Maples v. Maryln Monroe. Which one remained alive?

[CountmontyC]

If it causes no harm why interfere in a person's choice? For example there are people who take vitamins when they likely will have little to no effect on their health either way. Why should the government interfere in their choice on taking those vitamins?

[Sarcastr0]

Who is interfering with a person's choice to buy an ozone dealio?

[Frank Drackman]

I don't know, Ozone is used to sterilize surgical instruments, If I was a Covid Virion I'd avoid it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Doesn't anyone remember Puritrons?
https://www.etsy.com/listing/211554683/puritron-air-purifier-f-20-1950s-mid
You would often find wall mounted units in restrooms at bars and restaurants.

[Michael P]

Does/did that version use ozone? Other Puritron products, and modern similar units I've seen from other brands, use UV light rather than ozone.

[Mr. Bumble]

I believe they used ozone generating UV lamps.
https://www.oxidationtech.com/ozone/ozone-generation/uv-lamp.html

[Brett Bellmore]

There's actually a wavelength of UV that's long enough to penetrate air, (For reasonable distances, anyway.) but short enough that it can't penetrate even the amount of water in your tear film on your eye, that is highly effective for killing viruses and bacteria in the air and on surfaces, but biosafe on account of not being able to reach living cells in humans.

It used to be impossible to produce with LEDs, took carefully filtered discharge lamps. But this has recently changed.

Germicidal Efficacy and Mammalian Skin Safety of 222-nm UV Light

This sort of UV light can be used for sterilization without extensive precautions to avoid people being directly exposed.

[A Japanese Student]

Sure, with the sterilizing concentration ozone probably works - but at that point I expect the user to face the same fate as the pathogens.

[Brett Bellmore]

At the lower levels for air sterilization ozone is just an irritant, not a killer, but I did note that the medical study I saw recommending their use said to leave it running while you were away, and shut it off while the room was occupied. It only has a half life of about 20 minutes, after all.

[Life of Brian]

That was practicing medicine "beyond the scope of her license." She was licensed to care for animals, not humans.

So... because she did something that had nothing whatsoever to do with caring for animals, she's now prohibited from caring for animals for two years? Yeah, that makes exceptional sense and most definitely is not cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Feels like she was deemed as needing to be punished for bucking the orthodoxy, and this was the only avenue they could come up with.

[Sarcastr0]

If we're not suspending medical-type licenses for quackery, then what are we even doing here?

[Krayt]

I'm inclined to agree, but she wasn't practicing medicine on animals, and so was not being a snake oil salesman in that realm (which does also have that problem!). Maybe practicing human medicine without a license, but even that seems a stretch.

[Life of Brian]

Wow, it's barely past breakfast and we've already received one of the tightest lessons I can remember on the tenants of SarcLaw, all in one convenient thread!

"It is our job to destroy imperialism, destroy the United States, and destroy capitalism" -- free speech, d00d -- whatevs.

"Ozone is important for prevention (because it disinfects) and [a] possible cure for the coronavirus" -- if we don't put her head on a pike, what are we even doing here?

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not making a legal argument, though I think that's a winner as well, with deporting people for speech being impermissible and suspending people's licenses for same is fine.

I'm talking free speech principles.

Labeling someone as a terrorist for saying they're gonna destroy capitalism is authoritarianism.

Suspending the license of someone for being a quack is pretty course-of-doing business. Happens to lawyers too!

Unneeded licensing regimes can be a thing, but I don't think that's the argument being made, nor is it really supportable one re: veterinarians.

[Life of Brian]

Suspending the license of someone for being a quack is pretty course-of-doing business. Happens to lawyers too!

You're throwing around ill-defined words like "quack" in lieu of grappling with the actual speech at issue and its lack of nexus to the license at issue. I'm exceptionally comfortable that you can't point to a single example of a lawyer who had their license suspended for dispensing health advice.

[David Nieporent]

you can't point to a single example of a lawyer who had their license suspended for dispensing health advice.

Well, unfortunately, RFKJr. didn't have that happen to him, and if not him, then nobody.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Feels like she was deemed as needing to be punished for bucking the orthodoxy"

Of course.

I wonder what regulation forbid using e-mail for non-vet purposes?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I fail to see how they consider that "practicing." Would it have been "practicing" if she'd encouraged them to get Covid injections (it's not a "vaccine")?

Would it have been outside the scope of a plumber's license to do either?

She's not a physician, she didn't pretend to be one -- what if she instead encouraged her customers to stop smoking or to eat carrots while pregnant? Or to vote Republican?

[Kazinski]

It looks like the US is getting ready to unilaterally capitulate on Chinese tariffs before talks with China start this weekend in Switzerland.

Not really, but Trump may cut them in half to only around 60% from the current 124%.

"People familiar with preparations for the talks, which are due to begin in Geneva on Saturday led by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng, say the US side has set a target of reducing tariffs below 60% as a first step that they feel China may be prepared to match. Progress in two days of scheduled discussions could see those cuts being implemented as soon as next week, they said."
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-team-seeks-tariff-cuts-053233874.html

[Stephen Lathrop]

Donald Trump said on Thursday he would name Jeanine Pirro, a Fox News host and former state-level prosecutor, to be the interim US attorney for the District of Columbia . . .

Another Fox News appointment. Once again, of someone with an extravagant record of public utterances which ought to be disqualifying. Pirro at Fox was a full-throated election denier, and an explicit advocate of vengeful prosecutions for Trump's political enemies.

Thus Trump evades being held responsible for his previous appointment of the anti-qualified nominee Ed Martin. Martin, after a brief reign of astonishing misrule faced a failed Senate confirmation test without getting out of committee.

Who thinks Pirro ought to be confirmed when her turn for Senate confirmation arrives?

Does anyone think appointments of the likes of Pirro, Hegseth, and Noem would not normally be taken as legitimate grounds for impeachment and removal of any President except Trump?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"a Fox News host and former state-level prosecutor"

She was also a judge and DA for Westchester County. Why omit those?

[Frank Drackman]

She’s a tough broad, her and Judge Judy would really shake things up

[Stephen Lathrop]

They are justifiably omitted after Pirro says on air, nationally, repeatedly, and emphatically that she favors judicial vengeance against Trump's political opponents. Manifest grounds for disqualification cannot be mitigated by ordinary evidence of qualifying experience.

[Krayt]

Tit for tat is wrong because two wrongs don't make a right, not because one side facetes about pretending there was no initial tit.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krayt — Though mystified by what your words denote, is it safe to guess you once again assert it is legitimate discourse to whatabout the un-whataboutable?

[Krayt]

I submit politicians wielding the power of government against opponents long preceded anyone alive, and was old, problematic news so pervasive and already well-understood, the Founding Fathers built in protections against it as a core design principle of the Constitution. Pervasive? They lived under it!

Faceting about that it's all disinterested concern for rule of law does not "cleverly work around this."

Many, many, many such initiatives. One fails, move on to the next.

Remember, the Republicans always learn slowly on these kinds of issues. We can thus predict the firing up of a new facetious investigation engine.

What? You don't believe me? They just got done playing the previous long game for balance on the Supreme Court, a 50 year effort. So the Democrats try to change the rules and pack the Supreme Court. I wonder what'll be the fallout from that once the Republicans, again, play catch up?

This is your world you've built. I'm the one trying to put the brakes on it.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

[Riva]

You expect reasonable comments from a clownish troll? It’s a good thing they don’t like her.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Does anyone think appointments of the likes of Pirro, Hegseth, and Noem would not normally be taken as legitimate grounds for impeachment and removal of any President except Trump?"
Caffeine overdose already?
Your rant's are becoming more and more insane.

[Frank Drackman]

You left out Pete Booty/Judge and Alejandro Major Dork-Ass and while we’re at it, That Penis-Fly-Trap, Cums-a-lot

[SRG2]

Does anyone think appointments of the likes of Pirro, Hegseth, and Noem would not normally be taken as legitimate grounds for impeachment and removal of any President except Trump?

No. Because the Senate, being cowardly lapdogs less concerned about the welfare of the US than keeping Trump happy, approved their nominations. No Senate is going to impeach a president for nominations they approved of.

[Mr. Bumble]

House impeaches, Senate tries.

[SRG2]

Yup - I was eliding between impeachment and trial. The trial is the one that matters.

[Frank Drackman]

Be careful what you wish for, Ex-POTUS's can be impeached and tried also.

[Riva]

No you were just eliding between being an ignorant and being a childish troll. Alarm bells would ring if you liked the choice.

[Mr. Bumble]

Lighten up. He was wrong and when pointed out admitted so.

[Riva]

I’m disinclined to show any courtesy to a clownish troll.

[Mr. Bumble]

Be better than them.

[David Nieporent]

You're not programmed to show courtesy (or intelligence, obviously) at all.

[Frank Drackman]

You call yourself a Lawyer?? (no slam, I'm not sure if you do) The Senate doesn't impeach anyone, the House does (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5) But you're right, they're not anywhere near Barry Hussein's Murderers row of Tom Ball-Sack, Ray the Hood, Janet Napoleon-Complex-atano, Timothy Gau-leiter, and the Enforcer Rahm "Dead Fish" Manuel

[Stephen Lathrop]

SRG2 — Is it possible a Senate could decide on the basis of egregious experience to distinguish, "voted for," from, "approved of?"

More generally, is it wise to keep up insistence that, "flip-flopping," shows political vice, instead of political virtue?

[Riva]

As long as you clowns are unhappy, it’s a good pick. If you liked the choice, then I’d be worried.

[Krayt]

As long as you clowns are unhappy, it’s a good pick.

What would you like to have been?

[David Nieporent]

The bot is here just repeating the things that MAGA people all over social media are saying about picks like this. But the thing is, you will then find those same MAGA people ranting and raving about how the Trump administration isn't delivering the results they wanted and were promised. It's like they're not smart enough — it's exactly like they're not smart enough — to understand that selecting nominees to pwn the libs is not a recipe for selecting competent people.

(To be fair, those MAGA people are also too dumb to know that most of what they were promised was always going to be fictional. Like releasing an Epstein list that would lead to mass arrests of Democrats, or auditing Fort Knox, or whatever.)

[Moderation4ever]

What the appointment does do is confirm my suspicions that President Trump is functionally illiterate relying on TV rather than reading a candidates profile and qualifications.

[Mr. Bumble]

Guess you missed this.

TwelveInchPianist 2 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User

"a Fox News host and former state-level prosecutor"

She was also a judge and DA for Westchester County. Why omit those?

[David Nieporent]

She was also a judge and DA for Westchester County. Why omit those?

Um, what do you think "former state-level prosecutor" means?

Also, while she was briefly a very low level judge, that was decades ago, and Trump has proven that he hires people who appear on TV.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Um, what do you think "former state-level prosecutor" means?"

It usually means an ADA, no?

"Trump has proven that he hires people who appear on TV."

Appearing on TV isn't a disqualification.

[ThePublius]

You're functionally illiterate for relying on the internet echo chamber rather than the candidates profile and qualifications.

[Moderation4ever]

Do you think that President Trump is capable of reading a judges profile? Because I don't think he can and I think your looking for a juicy rationalization.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and I think you're a idiot, but that's just me.

[ThePublius]

"Does anyone think appointments of the likes of Pirro, Hegseth, and Noem would not normally be taken as legitimate grounds for impeachment and removal of any President except Trump?"

That has to be one of the whackiest, most deranged comments I've read here. The particular people he nominates can be grounds for impeachment? Are you serious?

[hobie]

They should give Hannity a taste. What's a good position for him? He's good at repeating the same thing for decades

[LawTalkingGuy]

Ah man, I was looking forward to seeing his plan to somehow stop the public defenders from embarrassing police during cross-examination.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Stupidity is not really a "high crime" or "misdemeanor", is it?

[David Nieporent]

Does anyone think appointments of the likes of Pirro, Hegseth, and Noem would not normally be taken as legitimate grounds for impeachment and removal of any President except Trump?

1) I don't much care for Noem, but she's a pretty bog standard type of appointment for that job.
2) As for the other two, no president has ever been impeached for appointing an unqualified person, and it would be rather absurd to do so, given that the president can't actually appoint people (except on a temporary basis) but only nominate them. It would be passing strange for a senate that had confirmed a nominee to then turn around and remove the president for nominating that person.

[Michael P]

The RSV vaccine looks like it's at least as effective as the flu vaccine: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/74/wr/mm7416a1.htm

[John F. Carr]

"As effective as the flu vaccine" is a low bar to clear. Maybe more important, it's just a routine vaccination now instead of antibodies. I mentioned a couple years ago the story of a new mother trying to get an antibody injection covered by insurance. You can't do it if you work full time. The system stalls you until you go away. A routine vaccination is much easier than a $2,000 shot requiring prior authorization.

[hobie]

A couple years ago I was in the little town of Kemerer, WY hunting for fish fossils. Bill Gate's TerraPower had just broken ground on its nuclear natrium fast reactor there. In the local bar there I asked one of the hillbillies what the town thought of Bill Gates. Weren't they still of the belief that he put nano-trackers in their vaccines? He said, Yes, but now that Bill was bringing in all this moolah, the town had embraced him.

So don't you see. You rubes can still cling to your antivax convictions, while simultaneously accepting handouts

[Mr. Bumble]

Nice story.

[Frank Drackman]

Such a Bullshit story, any Rube worth his salt would have given you the Matt Shepherd treatment.

[Brett Bellmore]

Students for Justice in Palestine leader at Temple University: "It is our job to destroy imperialism, destroy the United States, and destroy capitalism,"

But they're not terrorists, oh, no.

[Moderation4ever]

Terrorism is based on actions not on a person's words. That is why we have a first amendment. These students are not terrorist for words only. They are ignorant, but that is not a crime.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, but,

1. Material support for terrorism is a crime, too.

and,

2. It doesn't take crimes to justify deportation.

[Sarcastr0]

Your quote, which you cited to call the guy a terrorist, does not establish material support.

The very fact that your handwaiving that shit shows what you are: someone eager to use state power to go at people you don't like.

I don't like that guy either. But I'm not going to call him a terrorist, with all that implies.

[ThePublius]

Speech can be material support.

[Sarcastr0]

"Your quote, which you cited to call the guy a terrorist, does not establish material support."

If you can't deal with the facts at hand, maybe it's because you're wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

I am eager to deport aliens who support genocide, and I am unapologetic about that.

Even if we must, constitutionally, tolerate support of genocide by American citizens, we are not obligated to tolerate it on the part of aliens.

And I want to make clear: The people who clam SJP is just pro-Palestinian are at best stupid dupes. At best, and a not very credible best.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, you have made it clear that your sense of rights is a pinched and weak one. High on rhetoric, and low on humanity.

Your main throughline is binding the outgroup and protecting the ingroup. Immigration status, race, gender...you're no friend of freedom.

[Brett Bellmore]

I am no friend of pretending that citizens and aliens have the same rights, to be sure. I'm all in favor of aliens who want to exercise the rights that they don't have here on account of not being citizens going home to exercise them.

[Sarcastr0]

We're not making legal arguments.

You do love to hide behind legality when we're having a moral/policy question.

We can talk about what you can do elsewhere - I'm sure we will. In the meantime, what you think we should do bespeaks a fundamental misunderstanding of what rights are, and why they exist.

[Armchair]

I'm going to go out on a limb and argue that if you're a foreign national and you publicly state your job is to "destroy the United States," maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't be allowed in the United States.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, this shows you're the fragile kind of person who is afraid of speech.

If you believe in the exceptionalism of America, then you should have the confidence that the yells of angry activists on the wrong side of an issue are something we can handle.

You seem constantly afraid and threatened by rando leftists. Seems like a personal problem to me.

[Brett Bellmore]

This shows you're the kind of idiot who doesn't take people at their word.

Look, when somebody declares they want to destroy you, take them seriously.

[Sarcastr0]

when somebody declares they want to destroy you, take them seriously.

You've said you want to destroy America. You want to wreck the government, burn down American civic institutions, lynch bad judges.

STRAIGHT TO JAIL.

[Brett Bellmore]

Geeze, maybe produce an example of me saying this, if you're going to claim something like that?

[Sarcastr0]

You're going to deny wanting radical changes to America? Or are you making a magic words argument that so long as you don't say destroy it's all good?

You rail against the post-New Deal America all the time. You voted for Trump so he could destroy the bureaucracy. You want to roll back to the pre-Lochner era.
And the judge lynching has been linked here a number of times.

You want to destroy America.

Terrorist.

[There's a rhetorical point being made here, for the thick-headed.]

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I absolutely want radical change in America. Which is hardly the same thing as destroying the country or its civil institutions.

Yes, I want the original meaning of the Constitution restored, which would mean that a lot of what the federal government illegitimately does today would have to cease.

Yes, I want our economic liberties restored.

But when did I advocate lynching judges?

I think you've got me confused with Dr. Ed, actually.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh, I absolutely want radical change in America. Which is hardly the same thing as destroying the country or its civil institutions.

Says you.
See, once the definition of terrorism encompasses speech, you've got a problem.

when did I advocate lynching judges?
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/08/19/north-carolina-state-supreme-court-makes-a-bold-move/?comments=true#comment-9660495

Brett: "Extraordinary? That's 'nearest lamp post' material."

[Brett Bellmore]

And what did I say?

"This is judicial usurpation of the highest order. It calls for immediate impeachment, they can resort to the lamp post when the majority on the court rules that the legislature has lost that power, too."

And I'll stand by that: At the point where the judiciary purport to strip the legislature of the power to impeach them, it is indeed lampost time, because the judiciary have decided to dispense with the constitution and rule as dictators, leaving only the lamp post, if only figuratively.

[ThePublius]

"Terrorism is based on actions not on a person's words."

That's not true,

"In some instances, speech can be considered terrorism, but it's a complex issue with legal and philosophical considerations. While the First Amendment protects a wide range of speech, it does not protect speech that constitutes true threats, incites imminent violence, or provides material support to terrorist organizations. The key factor is intent and the potential for harm, not simply the expression of an opinion."

[Armchair]

Indeed. Much of the "best" terrorism is speech. "Do what we say, or we'll come back and kill your family".

[Sarcastr0]

Quite a wander from the quote in the OP!

Kind of a big difference there. One you should consider when calling people terrorists, I think.

[Sarcastr0]

A student using bombastic rhetoric?

STRAIGHT TO JAIL.

[ThePublius]

So, you support this person, and believe they should be allowed to remain in the United States? Or do you just hate all conservatives?

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I do believe he should stay in the US. I have faith in the US and in people. Plenty of folks have an angry activist phase in school and calm down and do great.

If he crosses beyond speech, we can talk. And if a company doesn't want to hire him, that's legit too. But truly believing in freedom of speech means not bogarting it for citizens.

I also - get this - think conservative immigrants get to stay as well. Even angry ones.

I know, I know, I'm great and a lesser man would not be able to maintain that kind of consistent standard across the political spectrum. But what can I say, I'm amazing.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Now student visa holders are "immigrants" and "citizens" even.

You're not even consistent in your own comment.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

However, it would be legitimate for the authorities to monitor persons expressing such radical sentiments. Whether extreme left or extreme right. Watch them. Infiltrate them. And prosecute them when a crime is committed.

We should be thankful when extremists self-identify, shouldn't we?

[Sarcastr0]

Don't break the 4A but sure, that's all legit.

Though legitimate doesn't mean good policy. I do want to be careful about weighing the cost/benefit in both resources and privacy when doing that kinda thing.

[Glaucomatose]

Is this person a foreign national? He doesn’t appear to be from what I can tell based on a quick Googling.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

?? Anyone can see he's foreign!

[Glaucomatose]

He wasn't holding a passport in that video, so how can anyone see his citizenship? You realize there are plenty of naturalized American citizens who are non-native English speakers and have foreign accents, right?

[Sarcastr0]

Not REAL Americans, though. You know the ones.

[Hard to tell these days, but I know ONS. You got Poe'd]

[hobie]

At a KKK meeting in the mid 50's:

"And we's-a gonna rid the South of the neegra and the jewwww! And we's-a gonna do it dressed up...as scaaaaaaary ghosts!"

You feel me? When the pappies of the rubes here were walking around making these statements, no one called them terrorists

[ThePublius]

No, they were called Democrats.

[hobie]

Yep, and when us Dems started to register blacks to vote, guess where all them Dixiecrats migrated to. Good riddance I say

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

The South voted Democrat in local and State elections (and many Federal ones) until the 90s when it was clearly economics that turned the South to Republican.

This "Southern Strategy" trope is only believed by very very very ignorant and stupid people.

Given how the facts don't support it.

[Frank Drackman]

"Ignorant and Stupid people"???
This is Hobie-Stank we're talking about (Willis), you forgot
"Ugly"

Frank

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

I keep telling him that if there's a little niglet playground nearby his house, I know an easy way he could cash in a cool $1M.

[ThePublius]

Oh, so you subscribe to this fiction that the parties flipped, and all the Dem racists became Republicans? Ha, ha. That's almost as bad as the left and progs painting Nazism as a phenomenon of the right, when the opposite is true.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Right, this trope is so stupid. The Republicans supported the CRA more than the Democrats did. Why would the pissed off racist Democrats switch parties?

The Left is so stupid. Like as a rule.

[Brett Bellmore]

They migrated to six feet under, eventually, and their kids became Republicans.

[Frank Drackman]

Didn't realize you were that old, be careful with that Stolen Valor, some of those Korean Vets can swing a mean cane.

[ThePublius]

Did you watch the video? It's not long. Watch it:

https://x.com/MEMRIReports/status/1919740630772633631

[Sarcastr0]

MFer is in an office. Good lord you're a snowflake if this has you threatened.

[ThePublius]

And you're not threatened when Trump speaks from an office?

But what does him being in an office have to do with anything?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's just a stupid deflection from what the guy is saying, since what he's saying is indefensible.

[Sarcastr0]

what he's saying is indefensible

As I noted above, you and plenty of others around here have used destruction type rhetoric.

But also indefensible or not doesn't matter.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

But we're citizens. Not visitors implementing destruction of the host country.

I know you don't see a distinction between citizens and non-citizens (see above). But us humans do.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Trump is not some rando on the Internet. He's the President of the US. And he's going well beyond that role in his diktats.

2. Do you see me calling Trump a terrorist?

3. Yeah, being in the street could be actually threatening people. This is just a dude talking.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Not on those facts, no. Are there others?

[David Nieporent]

But they're not terrorists, oh, no.

They are not in fact terrorists, no. They are immature, ignorant blowhards who have as much chance of taking any substantive action to do any of those things as they do of putting together a squad of people to win the Super Bowl. (They may throw soup on a painting someday, if they get really brave.)

[Moderation4ever]

My local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal, reports this morning that Jeffery Rupnow father of Natalie Rupnow has been charge. Natalie was the active shooter at the Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, WI. This is another case of a parent buying firearms for their children only to have the firearm used in a school shooting. This case like the ones before it will not solve the problem of school shootings, but it will lay down a line that parent must take responsibility when they allow their child access to firearms.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sigh. For every case of parents buying a firearm for a minor child and it ending with a school shooting, there are about 10,000 cases of parents buying a firearm for a minor child and it ending in rabbit stew. You'd save more lives by demanding that parents be more responsible about providing minors with cars.

[Moderation4ever]

For every case of a young driver in a car getting in an accident there are many thousands of cases of kids driving responsibly. Going to school or a part time job. Running errands for their parents. So, remind me of the number of people killed last year by children deliberately running people down or crashing into people?

[ThePublius]

You are being disingenuous, comparing responsible driving with deliberately harming others, rather than responsible versus irresponsible driving.

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't say that the latter demand would be sensible, just that it would probably save more lives, given how incredibly rare school shootings are, vs fatal accidents by new drivers.

The stupidity here is demanding that a widespread benefit be foregone in order to reduce a rare evil. It evinces no sense of proportion at all. Or rather, animus towards that benefit.

Death by school shooting is so incredibly rare that, if your goal were to save lives, you'd direct your attention to almost any other cause of death. So we know going in that saving lives isn't your aim here. It's just reducing how many people exercise a civil liberty you dislike.

[Moderation4ever]

The issue here is the rarity but the impact. School shooting rare, public's perceived impact large. Immigrant crimes low, MAGA's perceived impact large. Voter fraud very rare, MAGA's perceived impact large.

[Brett Bellmore]

"School shooting rare, public's perceived impact large."

That's true: Some years ago, a clever gun controller got an idea: Suppose that every rare school shooting were reported endlessly, nation-wide? You could give people the mistaken impression that the rare was actually common!

The media decided that it sounded good to them, and the rest is history.

But the fact remains that school shootings are an incredibly rare cause of death in America, and if your goal is to save lives, they're about the last cause of death you'd direct your attention to.

[Illegal] Immigrant crimes? Not so rare. Even if you take open borders advocates' numbers at face value, the crime rate among illegal immigrants is not impressively lower than for American citizens.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Are you admitting that the crime rate among illegal immigrants is lower than for American citizens? Doesn't that go against the narrative?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, which is why I said, "even if you take open borders advocates' numbers at face value".

Which I don't.

[bernard11]

Some years ago, a clever gun controller got an idea: Suppose that every rare school shooting were reported endlessly, nation-wide? You could give people the mistaken impression that the rare was actually common!

The media decided that it sounded good to them, and the rest is history.

Wow. This must be on the list of top ten Bellmore BS conspiracy theories.

Some anti-gun mastermind issued orders to "the media," who all fell smartly in line and furthered his plot.

That's truly deranged.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Goalpost-dragging leaves marks...

I'm surprised, Mod. You generally do better than this.

[Krayt]

It's been pointed out the US would have gotten a lot more bang for its buck, saving-lives-wise, spending $2 trillion extra on medical research than war.

[bernard11]

But the current President hates medical research, and is trying to stifle it as much as he can.

After all, the researchers might learn something, and we can't have that.

[Bob from Ohio]

"school shootings"

How about non-school shootings done by black teenagers?

[Moderation4ever]

President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize was a clear signal that the world community was not happy with American wars in the Middle East. So, is the election of Pope Leo XIV a statement on American treatment of immigrants. I doubt it was the sole reason but I am guessing it contributed to the Pope's quick election.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and what "peace" did Obama achieve?

[Moderation4ever]

He did not do anything, it was a statement. Is the election of Leo XIV also a statement?

[ThePublius]

That's B.S., he got the peace prize in advance of doing anything because he was black.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, the famously anti-white Norwegian Nobel Committee. In 2009.

Haha this is a new level of importing America's shittiest white fragility worldwide.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

And here is where Sacastr0 forgets the Cult of Obama existed. Just like he forgets the State Tyranny of the Covid Sarcastr0s.

[Krayt]

Well, this is a new take on it. I thought slapping George W. Bush in the face was the intent of the Nobel Prize Committee, not that it was some sloppy flip to a black man only the sketchiest corners of the Internet could glean.

Learn something new every day, I guess! @sarc

"Pope" is same root word as "papa", father.

"Supper" is the same root word as "soup", ultimately to eat/drink something in big gulps.

[Brett Bellmore]

That was my impression, too, that it was a slap in the face for Bush. And their way of saying, "Please don't take us seriously in the future!", of course...

[Frank Drackman]

Barry Hussein (Peace be upon Him) did "do anything" he sent troops back to Off-Gone-E-Stan (the "Good" War) Took Sleepy Joe to get them home (in boxes)

[Bob from Ohio]

"I am guessing it contributed to the Pope's quick election"

Yes, a bunch of non-Americans care about internal US politics so much.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

The Great Replacement is worldwide. Not just the US.

[Joe_dallas]

https://x.com/2waytvapp/status/1920474343705817582?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1920474343705817582%7Ctwgr%5Eb792503ce90e274abc2559b2638568bc6c31db5f%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F718878%2F

The revenue stream for the Biden family appears to have been significantly curtailed since he left office. Somewhat similar to the drop in funding to the Clinton foundation once HRC ceased being a viable candidate for president.

[ReaderY]

There now being a pontiff, we can all stop pontificating and leave it to the professionals.

[hobie]

We need a MAGA pope. The woke-ass ones we keep getting are always like, 'Jesus embraced the stranger this...Jesus forgave that'. Completely out of touch with modern, American Christianity

[Frank Drackman]

Jesus is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice

[Krayt]

Jesus said to help your neighbor, not to pull out a gun and demand your neighbor help your other neighbor.

As a side note, or maybe it's the main event, some of the very earliest writings about Christianity, which are not from the Bible itself, note how positively people were looking on the selfless behaviors of Christians, helping the poor and sick, without concern for themselves, and how enticing that was to make people seek out to join it.

It was noted some decades back that the collapse of religiosity in Europe mapped to the rise of government in doing all the things religion did: run hospitals, orphanages, help the poor, help the sick. Coincidence?

Modern government has evolved to adopt that which made religion seductive and growing in adherents. It doesn't need the word "God" to do this.

Memes and memeplexes, they're alive and evolving!

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Do you think that's why there are so many of the Left that now worship the State?

Because the (sub)humans that make up the institutions have become their gods?

[Krayt]

The State, like sclerotic religions many centuries old, use the power of masses supporting them to enrich themselves. The ones at the top with the gift of gab, that is.

Fundamental Theorem of Government Corruption is not an unfortunate side effect of the wielding of power. It is the purpose of it from day one.

[Krayt]

I wonder if "gab" and "gob" have the same root word...nope! Too bad. That would have been pretty cool.

[Sarcastr0]

It was noted some decades back that the collapse of religiosity in Europe mapped to the rise of government in doing all the things religion did: run hospitals, orphanages, help the poor, help the sick. Coincidence?

Churches were not sufficient to that task. Neither were private secular institutions who stepped in at the tail end of the Victorian era.

That's why Labour, being literally socialist, rose to prominence - Dickensian England was a great advertisement for governmental support programs being needed.

Bottom line, I leave you to your faith, but it really looks to me like it's libertarian first, and then Christianity is the round peg fit into that square hole.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Can you give him some action items so he can rejigger his belief system to meet your standards?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

First, RIP David Souter.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/pr_05-09-25

Second, the new pope is a White Sox fan. Okay.

I see Angels in the Outfield potential.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Nova grad and Chicago native. High chance he knows ball, has a Michael Jordan jersey, and watched Space Jam.

[Sarcastr0]

"Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, David H. Souter, died peacefully yesterday at home in New Hampshire. He was 85 years old. Justice Souter was appointed to the Court by President George H.W. Bush in 1990, and retired in 2009, after serving more than 19 years on the Court.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. said of Justice Souter: “Justice David Souter served our Court with great distinction for nearly twenty years. He brought uncommon wisdom and kindness to a lifetime of public service. After retiring to his beloved New Hampshire in 2009, he continued to render significant service to our branch by sitting regularly on the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for more than a decade. He will be greatly missed.”

[LawTalkingGuy]

Also interesting that Souter chose to retire at 69 and Leo XIV is taking on one of the biggest responsibilities on the planet at the same age.

[Krayt]

Wait'll you hear about the last two presidents!

[LawTalkingGuy]

We really need more Souters: people who do high level jobs in their 50s and 60s and then retire before getting way too old to do them well.

[Frank Drackman]

Said by somebody who probably voted for Parkinsonian Joe (after yesterday's appearance on that Yenta Blab-Fest "The View", I'm thinking maybe he's just "Inebriated Joe")

[Mr. Bumble]

Joe, sharp as a tack. Bingo.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's true, even if I don't like what Souter was doing.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

I saw a stat that said 65% of black women with a university degree are employed by the government. Think about that. 65% of ALL college educated black women work for the State.

Draw your own conclusions.

[Moderation4ever]

Make me wonder why private companies are so reluctant to hire black woman. Would you agree?

[Mr. Bumble]

No.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

x - wrong thread

[Brett Bellmore]

71% of Democrats Want Elon Musk in Prison

"A new telephone and online survey by Rasmussen Reports and the Heartland Institute finds that 54% of Likely Voters would support a hypothetical law that would imprison Musk for his role in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), including 39% who would Strongly Support such a law. Thirty-six percent (36%) oppose a law that would send Musk to prison, including 26% who Strongly Oppose it, while 10% are not sure.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of Democrats would favor a hypothetical law to put Musk behind bars, as would 80% of self-identified liberal voters. Fifty-four percent (54%) of Republicans and 57% of conservative voters. would oppose such a law. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 52% would support a law to imprison Musk for his role in DOGE, 34% would oppose it and 17% are not sure."

Oh, and the wording of the question makes it clear: What was being asked about was a literal bill of attainder...

[Krayt]

Oh, and the wording of the question makes it clear: What was being asked about was a literal bill of attainder...

What issues, exactly, should be criminalized? I've seen oodles of kitchen sink objections, wrapped in disapproval frownie faces, but to make something illegal, we need specifics.

[Brett Bellmore]

The question: " Would you support a hypothetical law that would imprison Elon Musk for his role in DOGE?"

It's a bill of attainder, AND ex post facto since his role in DOGE is already done.

I'm frankly disturbed by how many people who AREN'T Orwellianly identifying as "liberal" would support something like this.

It would be one thing to think that Musk somehow violated existing laws, and should be prosecuted and convicted for it. I can see that position. But that's not what they were asked. It was pretty clearly just a bill of attainder.

[Sarcastr0]

"A new telephone and online survey by Rasmussen Reports and the Heartland Institute"

Brett...

[Don Nico]

This great support to imprison Mr. Musk seems typical of the authoritarian impulses of the extreme left.

[Estragon]

I note with satisfaction the exodus of lawyers, including several partners, from Cadwalader in the aftermath of their shameful kowtowing to the Trump Administration’s demands. I have been assured that this capitulation was in fact a savvy move by C_XY, however the people that work there seem to disagree.

As I said when this began, you can always find another law job but you can only destroy your reputation once. I’ll close with Beryl Howell here:

“This message has been heard and heeded by some targeted law firms, as reflected in their choice, after reportedly direct dealings with the current White House, to agree to demand terms, perhaps viewing this choice as the best alternative for their clients and employees. Yet, some clients may harbor reservations about the implications of such deals for the vigorous and zealous representation to which they are entitled from ethically responsible counsel, since at least the publicized deal terms appear only to forestall, rather than eliminate, the threat of being targeted in an Executive Order... If the founding history of this country is any guide, those who stood up in court to vindicate constitutional rights and, by so doing, served to promote the rule of law, will be the models lauded when this period of American history is written.”

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

I'm surprised Beryl-Howell heard of the word "ethics".

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Apparently that tranny who shot up that WI school's father is being charged with a crime related to the shooting.

Is it weird that only White parents get arrested for these things, but never black ones?

Do they not do it because then the single mothers would be joining their sons and baby daddies in prison and there would be no blacks left to abort?