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?

[Nelson]

They are called mandated reporters and it is very common.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandated_reporter

[TwelveInchPianist]

OK, but how is it a generally applicable law?

[santamonica811]

TIP,
Come on, you understand. It does not apply to every citizen. But, in the area of mandated reporters (and he gave the HUGE list of them--and that covers *a lot* of categories...mostly entirely non-religious, as you will grant) it applies equally to all. It does not single out religion in the slightest, nor does it single out a specific type of religion in any way...and this was his point, and I think you know.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So it's a HUGEly applicable law? Not even that, it applies to a tiny minority of people.

It's not facially neutral, it singles out clergy specifically. Just because it also targets a few other categories of people (that the government is entitled to target) out of potentially thousands of categories of people, doesn't make it a generally applicable law.

And SCOTUS has said as much, as quoted from Tandon below, "government regulations are not neutral and generally applicable, and therefore trigger strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause, whenever they treat any comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise."

"It does not single out religion in the slightest,"

It does. It calls out "clergy" as a category of people for mandated reporting.

[Nelson]

“ It's not facially neutral, it singles out clergy specifically.”

Every mandated reporter law singles out one group specifically: the group that is being designated as mandated reporters. All people aren’t mandated reporters, only specific groups (like teachers) are. So that group must be identified by the law. It isn’t that hard to understand.

“ And SCOTUS has said as much”

SCOTUS has not, in any way, shape, or form, said mandated reporter laws aren’t OK. I believe decades ago when they were starting to become a thing there was a case about it, but I have no idea how to find such a thing.

The short version? Mandated reporter laws aren’t unconstitutional even if one of the groups that are subject to them happen to be religious.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Every mandated reporter law singles out one group specifically..."

Yes, and if you single out protected categories of people, you get heightened scrutiny.

Do you seriously think that a law could make black people mandated reporters, even if it was one category among several?

[Nelson]

What would black people be mandated to report?

[David Nieporent]

What would black people be mandated to report?

Presumably the same thing as other mandatory reporters: reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect,

[Nelson]

OK, WHY would black people be mandated reporters for child abuse? Most people aren’t unless they interact with children regularly, which is why teachers are and garbage collectors aren’t.

Just based on the rampant sexual abuse of children that occurs among religious organizations and the efforts they make to cover it up, mandated reporting seems justified.

[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."

[Nelson]

And yet Jesse continues to post as if he is honest. Weird, right?

[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."

[Nelson]

Because it is a law establishing a mandated reporter status for clergy. That’s how mandated reporter laws work, they specify who is bound. It’s a limitation, not discrimination.

[Bwaaah]

It's not the "mandated reporter" status that's discriminatory. It's that an exception to that mandate in cases of "privileged communications" has now been stricken only for clergy people. That exception still applies to all other mandated reporters. (Because the state doesn't want to protect your privacy only when you talk to clergy people?)

[not guilty]

Very few of the categories of mandated reporter under this Washington Act routinely receive privileged communications. A psychologist does. Section 2(1)(a) doesn't mention physicians except when serving as a coroner or medical examiner -- but their "patients" aren't very loquacious. It doesn't mention psychiatrists. It does mention "practitioner," albeit without specifying what kind of practice. A social service counselor, depending on what license has been issued, may receive privileged communications. That section does not identify an attorney as a mandated reporter. Perhaps other statutes apply, but not this one.

[Nelson]

“ It's that an exception to that mandate in cases of "privileged communications" has now been stricken only for clergy people”

Excuse almost no one else has such extraordinary protections. They are merely being treated like everyone else except doctor/patient and attorney/client.

[Nelson]

So a law making clergy mandated reporters specifies clergy? How weird that a law about a specific group would be so specific. All other mandated reporter laws specify the group being designated, so why do you think this one wouldn’t?

If I was a paleocon and the discussion was about teachers, this is where I would accuse conservatives of supporting pedophilia. That, of course, is nonsense and bad faith. Opponents of this law are not supporters of pedophiles.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"So a law making clergy mandated reporters specifies clergy?"

Sigh. Yes, a law placing a unique burden on clergy specifies clergy. Just like a law placing a unique burden on black people would specify black people. What's your point?

[Nelson]

It isn’t a unique burden. It’s a very common burden, especially for those who work with vulnerable populations like children, the mentally ill, the elderly, etc.

[David Nieporent]

You're making the same mistake ng was. The issue is not making clergy mandatory reporters. The issue is that the law creates an exception to mandatory reporting for confidential communications, but then carves out an exception to that exception only for clergy.

[not guilty]

Clergy are by no means the only mandated reporters of child abuse or neglect. Section 2(1)(a) of the Act provides: "When any 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 has reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect, he or she shall report such incident, or cause a report to be made, to the proper law enforcement agency or to the department as provided in RCW 26.44.040."
https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5375.pdf

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. Yes, but there's no free exercise clause for LEO's, coroners, etc.

[not guilty]

How does a report of child abuse/neglect made by someone else to authorities "burden" the clergy's or the penitent's free exercise of religion?

To restate the hypothetical I have posed elsewhere on this thread, suppose Tom and Dick each separately witness Harry sodomizing a 12 year old. Tom tells his preacher in confidence about the abuse. Dick tells his psychologist in confidence about the abuse. Dick's psychologist reports to police that Dick has told him about Harry.

Does the psychologist's report to police about what Dick told him have anything whatsoever to do with Tom's exercise of religion, for good or for bad? Does that report by Dick's psychologist have anything whatsoever to do with Tom's preacher's exercise of religion, for good or for bad?

[David Nieporent]

You're being uncharacteristically obtuse here. It's requiring the priest to report that burdens the priest.

But Smith teaches us that this is permissible if the reporting requirement is a neutral law of general applicability. But once you tell the priest that he has to breach confidentiality to report but the psychologist doesn't have to, Tandon tells us that it is no longer a neutral law of general applicability, and the Smith test no longer applies.

[not guilty]

I am responding to a suggestion that requiring clergy to disclose privileged communication, while not requiring other professionals to do so, somehow "burdens" the clergy's exercise of religion. My point is that, in my hypothetical, what Dick's psychologist does or does not disclose to police has not one iota to do with either the clergy's or Tom's exercise of religion.

To expand on it a bit more, suppose Harry discloses his abuse of the child to his psychologist, who does not disclose to law enforcement. We would then have one psychologist (who is not treating Tom) who has disclosed a privileged communication, as well as another psychologist (who also is not treating Tom) who has not disclosed a privileged communication.

How does either psychologist's conduct affect either the clergyman's practice of religion or Tom's practice thereof? How would requiring other third parties to disclose (as other commenters have suggested) magically ameliorate any such burden?

[tylertusta]

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

[Nelson]

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

There are mandated reporter laws for many professions in America, teachers and ECE staff among them. Why should clergy, who also work closely with children and have a history of pedophilia and enabling pedophiles, be exempt?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"There are mandated reporter laws for many professions in America, teachers and ECE staff among them."

Per Tandon, "government regulations are not neutral and generally applicable, and therefore trigger strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause, whenever they treat any comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise."

There are lots of secular organizations where an affiliation doesn't trigger mandatory reporting.

[Nelson]

You keep trying to pretend that laws that apply to those who work with children (mandated reporter laws) are somehow incapable of being applied to clergy because they are religious. That’s nonsense. It’s like saying tax laws can’t be applied to clergy because they’re religious.

Mandated reporter laws are very common and are not uniquely applied to clergy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

" It’s like saying tax laws can’t be applied to clergy because they’re religious."

Generally applicable tax laws might be able to be applied to clergy. But clergy can't be subject to a special tax, even if they're not the only category subject to the tax.

[Nelson]

You are confusing being a religious organization with being immune from laws.

Religions (and religious people) are NOT a superior category. Something like mandated reporting isn’t something clergy should be immune from.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You are confusing being a religious organization with being immune from laws."

Sigh. No.

"Everybody has to do X." is a generally applicable law, and can bind everyone, including clergymen.

"Clergymen have to do X." is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to free exercise, because it places a burden on the right to exercise one's religion by being a clergyman.

"Teachers have to do X." is not a generally applicable law, but it's still OK because there's no free exercise clause for teaching.

"Teachers and Clergymen have to do X." is still an unconstitutional infringement on the right to free exercise, because it places a burden on the right to exercise one's religion by being a clergyman, even though it also places the same burden on teachers.

[Nelson]

No one is claiming that mandated reporter laws apply to all people. They apply to specific groups, as identified by statute. They are people who work closely with vulnerable groups, including the elderly, the mentally ill, and children.

You are saying that if a law doesn’t apply to every single person in America equally, it can’t be applied to clergy. That is nonsense.

Mandated reporter laws apply to people who are in the same position as clergy (in this case, working closely with children). Clergy, in this law, are being treated exactly like every other person that mandated reporter laws apply to, which is why the extraordinary protections they have (clergy/penitent) have to be specifically removed so they can be treated EXACTLY THE SAME as every other mandated reporter. They don’t get loopholes to hide pedophilia.

[Nelson]

The idea that clergy (or religious people) are somehow a superior class of citizens who can’t be treated the same as everyone else in a similar position is bullshit. I realize that it’s what the godshouters have been working towards for decades, but it isn’t the case. Hopefully, as religion continues to fade into the past, their efforts will be forcefully and definitively rejected.

Religious people aren’t more special than everyone else.

[David Nieporent]

Sigh. Once again: this isn't about clergy being mandatory reporters. This is about the confidential communications issue.

Clergy, in this law, are being treated exactly like every other person that mandated reporter laws apply to, which is why the extraordinary protections they have (clergy/penitent) have to be specifically removed so they can be treated EXACTLY THE SAME as every other mandated reporter. They don’t get loopholes to hide pedophilia.

BUT THEY AREN'T BEING TREATED EXACTLY THE SAME AS EVERY OTHER MANDATORY REPORTER. A doctor who learns of potential abuse/neglect as the result of a confidential communication keeps it secret. A member of the clergy who learns of potential abuse/neglect as the result of a confidential communication is required to breach confidentiality.

Religious people aren’t more special than everyone else.

The constitution calls out religion for special protection.

[Joe_dallas]

No one disputes that the catholic church has a long history of pedophilia problems.

yet dont overlook that pedophiles have a natural gravitation to career positions and social activities that provide access to children.

Most of the other denominations have similar problems, along with youth sports, schools, ymca's etc. Pedophiles in the catholic preisthood are estimated to be approx 5% where as those other organizations are estimated to range in the 1%-2% range.

[Nelson]

“ yet dont overlook that pedophiles have a natural gravitation to career positions and social activities that provide access to children.”

Correct. That is one of the main arguments in favor of mandated reporter laws. And an excellent reason why religious organizations (the Catholic Chirsh isn’t the only religious group who has hidden and enabled pedophilia, they’re just the most shameless) should be mandated reporters.

“ Pedophiles in the catholic preisthood are estimated to be approx 5% where as those other organizations are estimated to range in the 1%-2% range.”

I believe the most extensive examination found it to be almost 7%. And that’s just based on the cases that are known. Everyone knows from the active and enthusiastic interference in abuse investigations that the Church engaged in that there are a LOT more cases than that. 10% is probably a conservative estimate.

It, like I said before, that’s a strong argument for clergy being mandated reporters.

[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.

[grb]

From yesterday's NYT:

"Clergy are considered mandated reporters in a majority of states, meaning they are legally obligated to report to authorities if they suspect a child is being abused. In most states, however, the state reserves protections for the clergy-penitent relationship. In seven states, including New Hampshire and West Virginia, there is no such exception. (In Tennessee, the privilege is denied only in cases of child sexual abuse.) It’s not clear that any priests have been prosecuted or penalized in those states over failing to report abuse that they learned about during a confession."

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/08/us/church-confession-law-child-abuse.html

[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.

[Riva]

Was that an admission that you're wrong? Because it doesn't really seem to be. It seems to be the lack of integrity thing noted above.

[A Woman of No Importance]

No, it's a statement that I'm not going to let you hold me to a different standard than you hold myself. You've ignored my central point so there's no reason for me to respond to yours. I have an answer ready just as soon as you respond to my central point first. Otherwise, your own lack of integrity is noted.

[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.

[Nelson]

Unless they have changed it in the last 35 years or so, Episcopalians have the same requirements as Catholics.

[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.

[Nelson]

It’s a mandated reporter law. Sure, the clergy is guilty of horrible abuses and complicity, but it isn’t unusual as mandated reporter laws go.

[Bwaaah]

There you go, with your horns showing. That pretty much explains your indifference to the singling out, in law, of "clerics."

[Nelson]

They aren’t being singled out. Teachers, for example, are mandated reporters in every state. It is very, very common.

And if you mean pointing out the Catholic Church’s history of enabling pedophilia, that isn’t “my horns”. It’s being the son of a man who was raped by a priest when he was 9, a priest who was moved to 7 other locations and raped 11 other boys that we know of. It was one of the last things he talked to me about in the last week of his life at the age of 82. It haunted him his entire life.

That’s personal knowledge. So fuck off, apologist.

They protected a pedophile in 1944. They have protected pedophiles since then. They protected pedophiles before then. They haven’t made any effort to help find and prosecute the pedophiles they helped. And they have done everything they can to avoid accountability.

Pointing out abuses isn’t bias.

[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.

[Nelson]

You mean attorney/client privilege?

[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.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Do you thus conclude that state interest in enforcement of a law can never be compelling if the law is not broad enough to cure entirely the mischief the law targets?

[Josh R]

Per Lukumi, substantial underinclusiveness makes the law not narrowly tailored (the interest can remain compelling).

[William of Brooklyn]

I think that has it backwards: underinclusiveness undermines the claim that the interest is compelling, not that the proposed measure is narrowly tailored. Narrowly tailored is what is done and how, not to whom it is done. So, if this government interest is compelling, why exempt psychologists etc?

[not guilty]

"Narrowly tailored is what is done and how, not to whom it is done. So, if this government interest is compelling, why exempt psychologists etc?"

Let's flesh that out a bit. Whether a psychologist discloses or does not disclose information regarding child abuse/neglect gained through privileged communication from a client has nothing whatsoever to do with the clergy-penitent relationship. Let's consider a hypothetical.

Tom and Dick each separately witness Harry sodomizing a 12 year old. Tom tells his preacher in confidence about the abuse. Dick tells his psychologist in confidence about the abuse. Dick's psychologist reports to police that Dick has told him about Harry.

Does the psychologist's report to police about what Dick told him have anything whatsoever to do with Tom's exercise of religion, for good or for bad? Does that report by Dick's psychologist have anything whatsoever to do with Tom's preacher's exercise of religion, for good or for bad?

[William of Brooklyn]

To clarify, *everyone* has a duty to report prospective crime ("I'm going to murder so-and-so") but under this law only certain parties have to report past events ("I killed so-and-so last month.") And this law expressly removes clerical parties from those exempt from reporting past events. That strikes me as burdening free exercise in a way that is both targeted and without a demonstrable compelling interest.

[not guilty]

William of Brooklyn, do you dispute that a state's interest in detecting and punishing child abuse and neglect is compelling? (If so, I hope you have no children.)

[not guilty]

[duplicate comment deleted]

[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?

[Nelson]

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

As well as a much-utilized loophole for pedophile priests to avoid prosecution, by having other priests take their confession. It’s but one way that the Catholic Church specifically, and religious organizations with confession in general, helped run national or international pedophile rings.

It is a bad thing that there is a clergy/penitent privilege. It’s a relic of the past when religions were assumed to be moral. History has exposed that falsity.

[David Nieporent]

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

As well as a much-utilized loophole for pedophile priests to avoid prosecution, by having other priests take their confession.

Um, what? That makes no sense. It's not a loophole to avoid prosecution.
If there were no such privilege, then they could just… not confess.

[Nelson]

Yes, David, but by confessing their pedophilia to another priest, that priest cannot discuss (never mind testify against) the pedophile.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, David, but by confessing their pedophilia to another priest, that priest cannot discuss (never mind testify against) the pedophile.

No; that's not how the clergy-penitent privilege works. The only thing the priest can't testify to is what was told to him in confidence for spiritual purposes. He can still be forced to testify against the person about anything not learned in the course of such communications. Just as with lawyers: if my client tells me that he molested someone, I can't repeat that — but if I, say, witnessed my client molesting the child, I not only can, but have to, testify about that.

[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.

[Commenter_XY]

You have not addressed why the reporting req is for priests/penitents, but not lawyers/clients. The law is targeted toward religious orgs. It will be shot down.

[not guilty]

XY, the Act is not targeted toward religious organizations. It is targeted to "any 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".

Read the damn bill.

[David Nieporent]

Read the damn bill.

With all due respect, you need to read the damn bill. You keep focusing on the wrong part of it.

There are two relevant aspects. The first creates a long list of mandatory reporters, and it includes clergy in that group. That is not the part we're discussing. Nobody here (AFAIK) is saying that clergy can't be designated as mandatory reporters. It's the second part that's problematic. This second part creates an exception to mandatory reporting for people who learn about the situation as the result of legally-confidential communications. But it carves out an exception to that exception only for clergy.

[not guilty]

David, correct me if I am wrong, but I think the distinction you are getting at is that clergy who have reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect, where such reasonable cause is based on a privileged communication, are required to report such incident, or cause a report to be made, to law enforcement or other state authorities, while other professionals who have reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect, where such reasonable cause is based on a privileged communication, are not so required.

I understand that. To say, however, (as folks such as Armchair and Commenter_XY bleat,) that the law is targeted toward religious organizations is a falsehood, which I have been diligent to correct.

The clergy privilege was not part of the common law. Most American courts and commentators have announced that the privilege, if it exists, must rest on statute. As the Supreme Court of New Hampshire has observed, "Because the religious privilege did not exist at common law, the protections conferred by the privilege are therefore based upon the statute and the rule of evidence adopting it." State v. Willis, 165 N.H. 206, 211, 75 A.3d 1068 (2013).

The instant clergy-penitent privilege is accordingly distinct from privileges which the common law did recognize, and the Washington legislature's latitude to recognize or withhold recognition thereof is greater -- statutory privileges in derogation of the common law would be subject to the canon of strict construction which is inapplicable here.

As with all privileges, the burden of showing the existence thereof rests upon the proponent who seeks to invoke it. That is a fact specific inquiry, and a trial judge must decide any preliminary question about whether a privilege does or does not exist in a given situation per Fed.R.Evid 104 or a corresponding state rule of evidence. No preemptive, blanket rule of privilege can or should be applied.

[Josh R]

Most American courts and commentators have announced that the privilege, if it exists, must rest on statute.

The privilege is defined in Washington RCW 5.60.060.

the law is targeted toward religious organizations is a falsehood.

The law facially excludes the clergy privilege, previously defined by statute. Thus, there is no need to decide whether a religious organization is targeted. Strict scrutiny is triggered by a facial classification of religious conduct.

[not guilty]

Since the clergy-penitent privilege itself is a creature of statute, the legislature has wide latitude to modify or even repeal it.

[Josh R]

Sure, they can repeal it, but they didn't. They said it doesn't apply in this one application only. That triggers strict scrutiny.

[not guilty]

Then, Josh, offer a damned strict scrutiny analysis! Those buzzwords are not something you can wave the inquiry away like brandishing a cross at a vampire.

I have asked time and again whether you will concede that the State of Washington's interest in detecting and punishing child abuse or neglect is compelling. You have run away from that question like a scalded dog.

If you do agree that that is a compelling state interest, please describe what measure(s) less restrictive of religious freedom you contend would suffice to achieve the detection and punishment of Washington's child abusers and child neglecters. If no such measures will effect that interest, then the Act survives strict scrutiny.

Law is about more than throwing jargon, like pasta, against the wall to see what sticks.

[Josh R]

I already did. Repeating:

Per my quote in Lukumi, a law fails strict scrutiny even if we assume (for the sake of argument) the government's interest is compelling and there is no less restrictive means when the law is not narrowly tailored. And a law is not narrowly tailored if it is substantially underinclusive.

[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."

[Armchair]

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

Let's try a different example for you, to show the bigotry.

1. Everyone must follow the speed limit.
2. But, White people, Black people, and Hispanic people get an exception if they're in an emergency.
3. But Asians, they are specifically not exempted, even if they are in an emergency.

See the bigotry (technically racism here)? That's basically what ng is doing (although the "Catholic church is evil" comments add on). It's not bigoted to say people should follow the speed limit. It's the "selective" exemptions that suddenly reveal the bigotry/racism.

[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.

[Nelson]

“ "The Roman Catholic Church, however, is a profoundly evil institution."”

They consciously and intentionally ran an international pedophile ring for at least a century. That is pretty much the definition of an evil institution.

[Stephen Lathrop]

As I wrote earlier in the week, the fruits of the Catholic Church are Inquisition, corruption, misogyny and pederasty.

But not only those. Whether principally those depends on times, places, and sometimes even happenstance. Despite blather about divine guidance, the Catholic Church has committed misjudgements alike with other institutions, and suffered like consequences as a result.

The question for law is whether punishment for the consequences of misjudgment, after it has inflicted illegal damage, will be applied alike to the Catholic Church as to other institutions. To insist that it not be responsible is indeed evil, and has created a path toward making the Catholic Church evil.

[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.

[Nelson]

Episcopalians do.

[Riva]

It's my understanding that Anglicans have exceptions. Do you have a source that verifies an absolute, no exception seal to confessions in Episcopal congregations?

[Nelson]

https://www.episcopalchurch.org/glossary/confession-of-sin/

“The Reconciliation of a Penitent is one of the sacramental rites of the church (p. 861). The secrecy of the confession is morally absolute for those who hear a private confession.”

[Riva]

Not really convinced with that definition. Not exactly sure what "morally absolute for those who hear a private confession" actually means in practice. What I'm not reading is an unqualified "absolute": No disclosure under any circumstances, even in the case of a serious crime. Why the weaselly qualification? I suspect because maybe such disclosures are allowed, and maybe even required in some cases.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, literacy isn't your strong suit. There's no "weaselly qualification," and it explicitly says "absolute."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Living up to his name, our dear Crimea Riva...

"Seal of Confession
A penitent may seek a priest for listening to his or her confession of sins, declaring genuine sorrow and promising amendment of life together with restitution, where possible, to those wronged. The priest in turn gives counsel, penance, and absolution. It is understood by both that the confession is under the “seal.” Under no circumstances may the information given be revealed by the priest, unless the penitent gives permission. The penitent may rely on this implicitly. In some states, the priest may be asked by a court of law to divulge information but must refuse even though this may lead to imprisonment. It would be prudent for those hearing confessions to discover what provisions are legally in force for the protection of such privileged information."

https://www.episcopalchurch.org/glossary/seal-of-confession/

(The result of about 10 seconds of Google-wrestlin'.)

[Riva]

Impressive. And not in a good way. Impressively dishonest, with either a dash of lazy stupidity “wrestlin’.” You conduct a half-assed lazy google search and congratulate yourself for your non-thinking. An episcopal priest may be held accountable for misconduct violating the Constitution or Canons of the Church or of any Diocese. Do you know what that doesn’t say? It doesn’t say an episcopal priest may be held accountable for violating an online dictionary. Practices may vary because among different Anglicans congregations, who make up their own rules. The Church of England I believe now compels disclosure under some circumstances. I am not aware of any specific, absolute guarantee of inviolability for any particular American congregation. Nor have you cited any. The Catholic Church by comparison simply and unequivocally maintains absolute inviolability. No exceptions.

Since you lack the ability to think independently for yourself, may I suggest you use a better AI search tool?

[Nelson]

Both those links are from the Episcopal Church itself. They aren’t confusing or vague statements, nor are they a third party’s interpretation of the Episcopal Church’s position.

It’s literally the Episcopal Church stating its position.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Lol, I expected nothing less from him.

[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.

[Don Nico]

Sure, ng,
Just like the godless communists in Russia and China and Cambodia. It just shows how a Nobel prize in physics does not show that a person is wise or even rational in all things

[not guilty]

Riva, if you can't recognize priests buggering their parishioners' young children under the auspices of their church as being horrifically evil, you are a freaking moral idiot.

[Kazinski]

You can't recognize that it wasn't embracing their religion that caused the abuse, but exploiting it to enable the abuse?

But aren't you a fairly recent apostate? Are you working overtime now to make up for your previous embrace of "evil"?

[Riva]

Not Guilty, if you can't distinguish between the institution of the Church and the bad acts of certain individuals, then you're just a plain, run of the mill idiot, who is also an anti-catholic bigot.

[not guilty]

"Not Guilty, if you can't distinguish between the institution of the Church and the bad acts of certain individuals, then you're just a plain, run of the mill idiot, who is also an anti-catholic bigot."

So Jesus got it wrong when he declared "A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit," Riva? The worldwide pederasty scandal corrupted the Catholic Church -- wait for it -- topside to bottom.

[bernard11]

You can't recognize that it wasn't embracing their religion that caused the abuse, but exploiting it to enable the abuse?

Kazinski, I don't. think that's quite right.

As I understand it, many of the coverups were motivated by a desire not to bring scandal to the church, as that would undermine its teachings. Surely we have to consider that that behavior was a result of embracing and protecting their religion. And of course the coverups enabled further abuse.

So it may not have been the abusers whose embrace of their religion caused the abuse, but rather their superiors whose embrace encouraged it.

[Kazinski]

"As I understand it, many of the coverups were motivated by a desire not to bring scandal to the church"

As evil as the coverups are and were, surely you can see that even covering up a crime doesn't mean an endorsement or encouragement of the crime itself, even if it helped enable it.

When Loudan County Schools tried cover up the rape of a girl in the girls bathroom by a gender-fluid boy wearing a dress, I don't think they were endorsing the rape, even though it helped enable the next rape. Nor was it the mission of the school to encourage such rapes.

[Riva]

No point in trying to reason with vile bigots like NG because his bigotry is not based on reason. But, what the heck, one more time. And let's dumb it down so even a drooling bigot might be able to understand. Individual bad actors, and that includes any improper measures taken by church officials in response, has no impact on the foundations of the Church itself. The commission of sin is an individual act, it does not impact the doctrine of faith, it does not undermine the institution of the Church. To make a secular analogy, Biden's corrupt regime does not infect the constitutional office of the presidency. The Big Guy owns his own corruption.

[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.

[Nelson]

It’s Dr. Ed. You have to consider the source when you seek to cure someone’s ignorance. Dr. Ed is willfully and intentionally ignorant.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How about the Massachusetts Bar Assn?
Circa Spring 1986, Dukakis proposed requiring everyone with a law license to provide free counsel to the indigent.
MBA said no -- 13th Amd, and prevailed.

It was in the Mass Lawyers Weekly.

[David Nieporent]

Out of purely morbid curiosity, I tried to figure out what Dr. Ed was referring to. Unsurprisingly, I found no case holding that mandatory pro bono was a 13th amendment violation in Massachusetts or anywhere else.

[Nelson]

Imagine my shock that Dr. Ed is full of shit.

[ThePublius]

First, I don't think Ed was saying there was a "case," i.e., a lawsuit. He said the MBA rejected the idea, and prevailed in this.

If you do a simple google search you will find much discussion of this, and that MBA objecting to mandatory pro bono based on the the fifth, thirteenth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution.

So, misinterpreting Ed and finding nothing on your own that suits your premise doesn't make Ed full of shit, it makes you and Nelson full of shit.

[Nelson]

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

No one. But throwing them in prison because they failed to report pedophilia (like, for example, teachers have to)? That seems like a no-brainer to me.

[JohnSmith97]

But unlike a long list of others with "privileged communications", who still don't have to say anything. Have any defense of those?

[Nelson]

As I understand it, there are only three others: doctor/patient, attorney/client, and spousal privilege. That’s not “a long list”.

Obviously attorney/client makes perfect sense. Even doctor/patient, assuming the patient is seeking treatment. I can’t defend spousal because I don’t see marriage as something more important than any other similar relationship.

If there are any others, I’m not aware of them. Do you know of any others?

[David Nieporent]

Obviously attorney/client makes perfect sense. Even doctor/patient, assuming the patient is seeking treatment.

What you're saying here is that you think the clergy/penitent relationship is less important than the doctor/patient or attorney/client relationships. But that's the exact sort of notion that the Supreme Court, in Tandon, said was constitutionally problematic. Religion is entitled to MFN treatment; if you have secular exemptions, then the failure to provide for religious ones violates the 1A unless you can satisfy strict scrutiny.

[not guilty]

David, let's assume for purposes of discussion that strict scrutiny applies here. As I have asked other commenters (who have conspicuously refused to give any responsive answer), I will ask you.

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.

[David Nieporent]

Deleting the words "Except for members of the clergy" from Sec. 2 (1)(b) of the statute.

The issue here is not compelling interest; it's narrow tailoring.

"Instead, narrow tailoring requires the government to show that measures less restrictive of the First Amendment activity could not address its interest in reducing the spread of COVID. Where the government permits other activities to proceed with precautions, it must show that the religious exercise at issue is more dangerous than those activities even when the same precautions are applied. Otherwise, precautions that suffice for other activities suffice for religious exercise too." Tandon v. Newsom, 593 U.S. 61, 63 (2021)

In other words, once you say that the doctor-patient privilege trumps the government's interest in protecting children, you have to show why allowing the clergy-penitent privilege poses more of a danger.

[not guilty]

One more time. How would requiring non-clergy professionals who receive privileged communications to disclose misconduct be less restrictive of the practice of religion somehow "permit[] other activities to proceed with precautions"?

That would seem to evince broader tailoring, not narrower tailoring.

[Nelson]

“ What you're saying here is that you think the clergy/penitent relationship is less important than the doctor/patient or attorney/client relationships”

Correct. However, I acknowledge that it is a personal opinion, since I’m not a lawyer and I have no idea what the jurisprudence surrounding these exceptions are. However, I am of the opinion that the religious stretch the cover of the Free Exercise clause to indefensible limits, allowing them to project their religious beliefs onto others against their will.

“ if you have secular exemptions, then the failure to provide for religious ones violates the 1A unless you can satisfy strict scrutiny.”

Since I’m not a lawyer, I have a sincere question about incorporation and federalism. Is it possible for Washington State, based on its state Constitution, to nullify the clergy/penitent privilege? Also, are the four special privileges Constitutional or statutory?

[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?

[Brett Bellmore]

Whether the state has a compelling interest in doing something, though, misses the whole "most favored nation" status of religion. If the government hands out exceptions to pursuit of a compelling interest, religion is entitled to one of them.

[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."

[Stephen Lathrop]

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.

That puts focus on at least three logical flaws in strict scrutiny jurisprudence as Supreme Court decisions have created it.

First, it is a mistake to count as exceptions mere omissions, where a legislature has not acted explicitly and affirmatively to create an exception. What a legislature has omitted to do cannot reasonably enable inference into what a legislature intends, even with regard to compelling state interests.

To argue the contrary creates an absurdity. Tasks done are finite. Tasks undone are infinite. Thus, to insist every contradictory possibility left unaddressed shows legislative intent, permits inference of paradoxical legislative intents without limit.

It also implies a Court convinced it enjoys power to constrain the legislative power in prospect. The proper power of the Court is instead to hold the legislature to a standard of Constitutional compliance by review of laws after enactment, as each such law is presented in a case before the Court. .

Second, it is similarly absurd to insist that before a law to promote a compelling state interest can pass Constitutional muster, it must be broad enough to eradicate every similar instance of mischief from whatever cause. But that does seem to include the gist of strict scrutiny jurisprudence from today's Supreme Court.

That part makes no sense, and ought to be recognized in some future case as a mistaken presumption. If that does not happen, then the notion of, "most favored nation," will be left to expand without limit, to encompass every mischief imaginable, and thus become yet more a contradiction in terms than it already is. The sum of everything is the most-favored part of nothing.

Third, the levels of scrutiny doctrine has no explicit basis in the Constitution. It was made up by the Court. That can arguably contribute implicitly to the Court's capacity to perform its duty to say in ambiguous cases what the law is. Thus, it may make levels of scrutiny a useful doctrine, worthy of reliance to resolve such ambiguities.

What the Court cannot justify is to use its own made up doctrine to overturn as ambiguous a legislative act which is explicit. If multiple explicit laws are in tension, that does not create ambiguity in any of those laws, nor provide grounds for a Court to disregard any of them, let alone to overturn any. The Court is not charged to collate the laws for coherence. Tensions among differing laws merely present complicated context for the Court to sort through, on its way to decide the single case before the Court.

It is to avoid infringements on Congressional prerogative that ambiguities the Court is empowered to resolve must be limited to those contained in the text of each law considered on its own. Otherwise, the Congress is the branch empowered to decide at pleasure, and without the Court's constraint, whatever Constitutionally proper body of laws it wishes to enact.

The Congress is not under obligation to do so only in a way which creates a body of law the Court judges to be logically coherent, or free of contradictions when taken as a whole. Within proper Constitutional scope, the Congress enjoys power to create one law which operates according to Principle A, and another law on a different but perhaps related topic which operates on Principle Not-A. Whether to do that is up to the Congress, not up to the Court.

Still less is it justifiable for the Court to use strict scrutiny to define as outside Constitutional bounds some legislative act which the Constitution itself left within proper bounds. If the Court does that, the Court has ceased to say what the law is, and commenced instead to say what the law must be—or even more restrictively, to say what the entire body of laws must be, and how all its parts must fit together.

To decide such questions is the province of Congress, not of the Court. Whether the people of the United States at any particular moment prefer a tidy, well-ordered system of laws, or instead a system which encompasses disorder, contradiction, and narrowly tailored ad hoc solutions in tension with each other, is a problem for the Congress to solve. The Congress does that piece-by-piece, over time, informed by the people's guidance. Indeed, the Congress is properly understood to be charged to update that solution continuously, year-by-year, during terms of office deliberately kept short to reinforce the people's power to guide the Congress according to preference.

The Court—limited in scope to cases and controversies—lacks tools to undertake any task so broad as ordering the nation's entire system of laws. The Court—intentionally and wisely isolated from the will of the people by lifetime tenure—lacks input from the nation's people necessary to get that job done to their satisfaction. That is not a defect in American constitutionalism for the Court to correct. That is the way the system was designed to operate.

[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?

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Krayt. Do you regard the decisions I cited regarding bigamy and handling snakes in church to have been wrongly decided?

[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.

I do not support the MFN approach. OTOH, if religion is singled out, long precedent sets a red flag that has to be addressed.

[Josh R]

I agree this statute facially targets religion. I was just commenting on David's post that the statute was (in addition) not generally applicable because it had secular exceptions (MFN).

[not guilty]

"Strict scrutiny applies and the fact there are exceptions means the state doesn't meet it's [sic] burden."

No, Josh. Whether there are exceptions (and if so, the nature thereof) goes to whether the law is or is not of general applicability under Employment Division v. Smith.. If it is not, that triggers strict scrutiny analysis, which applies to laws that are not of general applicability. The mere existence of exceptions does not mean that the state doesn't meet its burden.

Since the rock hasn't yet sunk to the bottom of your well, I would reiterate 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).

You haven't yet answered the questions I posed to you upthread. 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]

As I posted elsewhere in this thread, from Lukumi:

even were the governmental interests compelling, the ordinances are not drawn in narrow terms to accomplish those interests. As we have discussed, see supra, at 538540, 543-546, all four ordinances are overbroad or underinclusive in substantial respects. The proffered objectives are not pursued with respect to analogous nonreligious conduct, and those interests could be achieved by narrower ordinances that burdened religion to a far lesser degree. The absence of narrow tailoring suffices to establish the invalidity of the ordinances.

[not guilty]

You are still tap dancing a mile a minute, Josh. Do you at least concede that the State of Washington's interest in detecting and punishing child abuse or neglect is compelling?

If so, please describe what less restrictive measure(s) you contend would suffice to achieve that interest.

If you are unable to do that, just man up and say so.

[Josh R]

Per my quote in Lukumi, a law fails strict scrutiny even if we assume (for the sake of argument) the government's interest is compelling and there is no less restrictive means when the law is not narrowly tailored. And a law is not narrowly tailored if it is substantially underinclusive.

[not guilty]

In Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), Justice Kennedy's opinion of the Court observed that the District Court had found four governmental interests to be compelling. First, the court found that animal sacrifices present a substantial health risk, both to participants and the general public. According to the court, animals that are to be sacrificed are often kept in unsanitary conditions and are uninspected, and animal remains are found in public places. Second, the court found emotional injury to children who witness the sacrifice of animals. Third, the court found compelling the city's interest in protecting animals from cruel and unnecessary killing. The court determined that the method of killing used in Santeria sacrifice was unreliable and not humane, and that the animals, before being sacrificed, are often kept in conditions that produce a great deal of fear and stress in the animal. Fourth, the District Court found compelling the city's interest in restricting the slaughter or sacrifice of animals to areas zoned for slaughterhouse use. Id., at 529-530.

The Supreme Court identified specific, less restrictive measures whereby the city could have achieved these interests:

The legitimate governmental interests in protecting the public health and preventing cruelty to animals could be addressed by restrictions stopping far short of a flat prohibition of all Santeria sacrificial practice. If improper disposal, not the sacrifice itself, is the harm to be prevented, the city could have imposed a general regulation on the disposal of organic garbage. It did not do so. Indeed, counsel for the city conceded at oral argument that, under the ordinances, Santeria sacrifices would be illegal even if they occurred in licensed, inspected, and zoned slaughterhouses. . . . Thus, these broad ordinances prohibit Santeria sacrifice even when it does not threaten the city's interest in the public health. The District Court accepted the argument that narrower regulation would be unenforceable because of the secrecy in the Santeria rituals and the lack of any central religious authority to require compliance with secular disposal regulations. . . . It is difficult to understand, however, how a prohibition of the sacrifices themselves, which occur in private, is enforceable if a ban on improper disposal, which occurs in public, is not. The neutrality of a law is suspect if First Amendment freedoms are curtailed to prevent isolated collateral harms not themselves prohibited by direct regulation.

Under similar analysis, narrower regulation would achieve the city's interest in preventing cruelty to animals. With regard to the city's interest in ensuring the adequate care of animals, regulation of conditions and treatment, regardless of why an animal is kept, is the logical response to the city's concern, not a prohibition on possession for the purpose of sacrifice. The same is true for the city's interest in prohibiting cruel methods of killing. Under federal and Florida law and Ordinance 87-40, which incorporates Florida law in this regard, killing an animal by the "simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument" -- the method used in Kosher slaughter -- is approved as humane. . . . The District Court found that, though Santeria sacrifice also results in severance of the carotid arteries, the method used during sacrifice is less reliable, and therefore not humane. . . . If the city has a real concern that other methods are less humane, however, the subject of the regulation should be the method of slaughter itself, not a religious classification that is said to bear some general relation to it.

Id., at 539-539 (citations omitted).

The Court opined that "The absence of narrow tailoring suffices to establish the invalidity of the ordinances." Id., at 546.

That is an example of how to do an analysis of whether a challenged regulation is "narrowly tailored" to achieve the interests which the government identifies as being compelling.

[Josh R]

Sure, that analysis helps to establish why the underinclusive aspects of the ordinance were substantial and thus why it did not strict scrutiny. And to be sure if this law is challenged, the courts will have to undertake such an analysis. I don't know the outcome of it, but I believe the statute is on shaky ground.

[not guilty]

"And to be sure if this law is challenged, the courts will have to undertake such an analysis. I don't know the outcome of it, but I believe the statute is on shaky ground."

Thank you for admitting your inability to analyze less restrictive means.

Are you beginning to develop some candor?

[not guilty]

"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."

That the measure in question may arguably be underinclusive does not mean that the state's interest is not compelling.

[Josh R]

From Lukumi:

even were the governmental interests compelling, the ordinances are not drawn in narrow terms to accomplish those interests. As we have discussed, see supra, at 538540, 543-546, all four ordinances are overbroad or underinclusive in substantial respects. The proffered objectives are not pursued with respect to analogous nonreligious conduct, and those interests could be achieved by narrower ordinances that burdened religion to a far lesser degree. The absence of narrow tailoring suffices to establish the invalidity of the ordinances.

[bernard11]

It directly impacts the free exercise of religion in its core mission of saving souls.

Saving souls is not the core mission of "religion," only of some religions.

[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.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Don't forget his slightly less infamous anti-Episcopalian "Seal of Confession" animus!

You must have been ecstatic to finally discover an "appropriate" label for NG; now you don't have to listen to a word he says: La la la la la la...

[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.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If you want an analogy involving a more cool religion, what term would you use for punishing Rastafarians for using marijuana in their religious ceremonies?

[Sarcastr0]

I wouldn't call marijuana laws specifically targeted at Rastafarians.

I also wouldn't analogize reporting child abuse with using marijuana.

Religious accommodations are often good policy in America. But that doesn't mean failing to do so means you are oppressing said religion. That is, as I said, yearning for oppression.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

DeWitt Clinton was both smarter and wiser than you, and he felt free to use vivid language to defend the seal of the confessional in 1813. He said Catholics "are protected by the laws and Constitution of this country, in the full and free exercise of their religion, and this court can never countenance or authorize the application of insult to their faith, or of *torture* to their consciences." [emphasis added]

Clinton was a Protestant but seemed to care for the rights of religions not his own.

[Sarcastr0]

Yearning for oppression.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Repeating yourself and ignoring the arguments of an American statesman whose boots you are unworthy to polish...very persuasive.

[Sarcastr0]

Your quote is question begging regarding the discussion at hand.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Were you even aware that this case existed and that it actually is famous in con law circles?

This may be why you're unwilling to engage Clinton's position - or maybe you hope that you can hand-wave reality away.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you even know what question begging is? Or are you following some kind of script?

[Armchair]

As much fun as it is for ng to be in denial, let's touch on a different question for fun.

What if someone is both an attorney AND a member of the clergy? Do they need to report then? Or a member of the clergy and a domestic violence advocate?

There are a few ways this can happen. The easiest is if a member of the clergy is also an attorney. But if you want a fun counterpoint to that, you also have those individuals who may be attorneys but got licensed as a pastor "that one time" so they could do a marriage ceremony for a friend.

The law doesn't really make an exception for what purpose the individual is doing. It just says "Except for members of the clergy." So, if you got a pastor's license "That one time" 20 years ago, but haven't touched it since then, and then decide to represent an individual who is accused of the sexual assault of a minor....can the state make you testify against your client? Why or why not?

(Bonus question for ng...isn't it a "compelling interest" for the state to make them testify?".

[David Nieporent]

The test for privilege — the issue here — is not what your resume looks like, but the nature of the communication. A person who is both a lawyer and a member of the clergy would have to report if the statements were made to him for the purpose of religious counseling or absolution or the like, but would not have to report if the statements were made to him for the purpose of securing legal advice.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"would not have to report if the statements were made to him for the purpose of securing legal advice"

Why not? If we're violating what had been assumed to be protected secrets, why not force lawyers to reveal the crimes of their clients?

Why not force the clients themselves to reveal their crimes, never mind self-incrimination?

[David Nieporent]

Why not?

Because that's what the law here says.

[Armchair]

And if it was a test for privilege, you would have a point. But it doesn't specify the communication. The clergy provision in 5.60.060 reads as follows.

"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."

But here is how the law is written.

"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."

It doesn't say just the "confession or sacred confidence" but " privileged communication"...

It doesn't hinge on the nature of the communication, but on, as you say "the resume of the individual".

[David Nieporent]

It doesn't hinge on the nature of the communication,

It does in fact hinge on the nature of the communication: "a privileged communication as provided in RCW 5.60.060."

[not guilty]

The applicability or not of the attorney-client privilege to a communication is a fact specific inquiry. As the court opined in United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F.Supp. 357, 358-359 (D. Mass. 1950):

The privilege applies only if (1) the asserted holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client; (2) the person to whom the communication was made (a) is a member of the bar of a court, or his subordinate and (b) in connection with this communication is acting as a lawyer; (3) the communication relates to a fact of which the attorney was informed (a) by his client (b) without the presence of strangers (c) for the purpose of securing primarily either (i) an opinion on law or (ii) legal services or (iii) assistance in some legal proceeding, and not (d) for the purpose of committing a crime or tort; and (4) the privilege has been (a) claimed and (b) not waived by the client.

In the absence of this combination of elements, the communication is not privileged.

[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.

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : "And the half of the country that is Protestant, which includes Trump, would tell the Pope to Go Fuck Himself."

True enuff. Of course if Jesus returned tomorrow, that part of the country that is MAGA would tell Him to go fuck Himself the minute they heard him preach.

So there's that.....

[jb]

"Or maybe declare the Catholic Church to be a Terrorist Organization"

Calling organizations that you have a political disagreement with terrorists does seem like something this administration would do, yes.

[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?

[HazelMeade]

I don't think it's a coincidence, but not in the sense that Vance killed the Pope (unless maybe his policies were so abhorrent that the Pope had a stroke just thinking about them), but that the United States and whatever the US is going through right now, is on people's minds in the Vatican. I.e. They selected an American for Pope because they think perhaps that is a way of reaching out to Americans and potentially influencing American policy. And Vance's visit also made it clear that there is at least one practicing Catholic who is in high office , who might be influencable.

[Bob from Ohio]

"They selected an American for Pope because they think perhaps that is a way of reaching out to Americans and potentially influencing American policy."

Or they want to raise more money from the richest country on earth?

Neither of us have the foggiest idea why they picked him. I dare say you never heard of the guy before this week nor do you have any idea about internal curia politics. Really the same goes for everyone here.

What are his views about the Tridentine Mass versus Novus Ordo? IDK nor do you I bet but that is a hot topic in the church right now.

[Kazinski]

Well don't forget 6 of the 9 Supreme Court justices are Catholic.

Roberts, Thomas, Barrett, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Sotomayor.

If they start voting lockstep in a block then we will know what's happening.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This might become appropriate:
https://thomasnast.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/15TW-TheAmericanRiverGanges.jpg

[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.

[ThePublius]

Check this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN7BjeRad2I

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm impressed.

[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.

[Kazinski]

The Foreign Ministry of Oman said "ensuring freedom of navigation and the smooth flow of international commercial shipping,"

Rubio said: "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, And the job was to get that to stop."

[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).

[Riva]

Based on enforcement practices, it would seem Japan is actually more lenient on drunk drivers, at least if jail sentence are a measure. In the US, there's mandatory jail time in many states.

[A Japanese Student]

Just to clarify: while there is often no prison sentence, you will spend some time in pretrial detention.

[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.

[Noscitur a sociis]

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.

1. What is the difference between simple DUI and drunk driving?

2. What is the typical punishment for a first offender? Although the details vary of course, many U.S. jurisdictions have mandatory jail time, fines, license revocations, and so on, which escalate (including to the felony level) for repeat offenders.

[A Japanese Student]

Simple DUI (Road Traffic Act §117-2-2) is just having breath alcohol level above legal limit. (Japan uses breath, not blood.) For drunk driving (§117-2), the Government must show (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the driver was actually drunk and incapable of safely driving.

As noted, first-time offenders would usually face fine, plus license suspension (90 days for breath alcohol level of 0.15-25mg/L) or revocation (2-year ineligibility for breath alcohol level above 0.25mg/L). Of course, if you were caught by a patrol officer, you probably were doing all sorts of traffic violations - which increases the penalties. While prison time is rare for simple DUI, you will spend some time in pretrial detention.

And perhaps the most serious consequence - you will almost certainly lose your job.

[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?

[Noscitur a sociis]

What, pray tell, the fuck are you talking about?

[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.

[grb]

Bumble likes being fooled. It's a feature, not a bug.

[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?

[jb]

This has got to be one of the dumbest attempts of spin I've ever seen.

This fraud was discovered by the Amtrak Inspector General, so it demonstrates that Inspector Generals are useful at investigating fraud and abuse.

Trump has indeed been firing Inspectors General in many parts of the government, with the corollary that therefore they won't be investigating fraud and abuse.

Trump hasn't fired this particular Inspector General because Amtrak isn't a government agency. The government does appoint the board of directors (mostly on five year terms), but it's a for-profit corporation and the hiring and firing is done according to Amtrak's own procedures. Probably if he would have fired the AG he probably would have and then this fraud would have gone unaddressed.

[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.

[Kazinski]

In this case it was data.analysts that uncovered the fraud, although no indication it was DOGE data analysts.

"The OIG launched a probe when an agent noticed unusual billing patterns in reports by data analysts."

But you are right fraud is all too common at all levels of government, and always has been.

The most shocking thing is at least half the employees implicated are still working at Amtrak and weren't fired.
"More than half the employees implicated in the fraud scheme are still on the job, Amtrak's Office of Inspector General said"

https://www.foxnews.com/world/amtrak-bilked-12m-least-119-employees-doctors-fraud-scheme-many-still-job-report

[David Nieporent]

The most shocking thing is at least half the employees implicated are still working at Amtrak and weren't fired.

Not by itself shocking. "Implicated" doesn't necessarily mean "proven," and perhaps the process of firing them is ongoing. (Maybe the article explains more, but it's asking me to create an account to read the whole thing, and I don't want to create a foxnews account.)

[Kazinski]

That's strange because I don't have a Fox News account either and could read the whole thing, maybe you are just a frequent enough reader that you went over their article limit.

[Mr. Bumble]

Just followed the link and had access to the whole article (and I don't have an account).

[Commenter_XY]

How do you know that? = 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.

The DOGE team found their savings through computer searches.

[David Nieporent]

The DOGE team didn't find fraud; they just cancelled a few things that Trump's people don't like spending money on.

[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.

[Kazinski]

Kills viruses and bacteria in water too, as well as removes impurities so its used in municipal water treatment depending on the characteristics of their source water.

UV lights are also effective for killing viruses and bacteria in air and water, but not suitable for direct contact with people.

[David Nieporent]

UV lights are also effective for killing viruses and bacteria in air and water, but not suitable for direct contact with people.

Are you sure?

“Supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light,” Mr. Trump said. “And I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but we’re going to test it?” he added, turning to Mr. Bryan, who had returned to his seat. “And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, either through the skin or some other way.”

[Brett Bellmore]

Inactivating hepatitis C virus in donor lungs using light therapies during normothermic ex vivo lung perfusion

As I've remarked before, Trump's annoying blue skying was inappropriate, but if you were following the literature, it wasn't stupid.

[David Nieporent]

Once again, Brett, you're doing that thing where you want to defend the indefensible so you google to find something superficially related and don't actually read the thing you google. Do you see the phrase "ex vivo"? The link you posted is to the use of light therapy to disinfect lungs that have been removed from the body of an organ donor before transplanting them into a recipient. Not a way to treat a living patient.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not superficially related. Yes, I understand that it relates to using light to kill viruses in an isolated organ. But it is still the use of light to kill a virus in a human organ, which means it's pretty strongly related.

He was blue skying, and I don't know whether Presidents are supposed to engage in blue skying, but I'm quite certain they're not supposed to be doing it in public.

But it wasn't stupid blue skying.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — That was triple-gilt, museum-quality Trump stupidity, publicly on display.

Bystanders curious about why Bellmore would choose on purpose to repeat that are invited to deepen the mystery.

Bellmore has twice in the last two days insisted that President Trump's qualities of personal probity far surpass those of the coup-plotting, political opponent prosecuting, self-enriching, incessantly publicly lying, biggest grifter in office ever, President Kennedy.

I predict that following this comment, Bellmore might go for it again. But he might reflect on how often he wants to renew that foolishness.

[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.

[Brett Bellmore]

Pretty sure you can be mad at anybody you want, regardless of whether or not others' sins are being unfairly ignored.

[bernard11]

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

You're nuts. JFK at least paid his bills.

He did not have the record of financial misconduct tat Trump amassed in his business career, or the habit of constant, never-ending lying. Nor was he stupid and ignorant.

[Dr. Ed 2]

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

[grb]

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 said that? Sorry to have missed it! Any account of Trump's character must start by acknowledging he has none. No conscience. No ethics. No generosity. No respect for others. No empathic or understand concerning the world around him. Aside from his childlike resentments and insecurities, the man is an empty hollow shell. They say everybody has a soul, but I'm not sure where you'd find Trump's. Maybe in one part of one stray hair follicle before a trip to the barber? No matter which lurid stories you adopt on JFK, they'll never be an equivalence. This is a decent summary on DJT:

No books, No reading,
No friends, No music,
No curiosity, No patience,
No integrity, No compassion,
No empathy, No loyalty,
No conscience, No courage,
No manners, No respect,
No character, No morality, No honor,
Not even a dog.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've already noted that the left are caught up in a trash talk arms race when it comes to Trump, not much more to say.

[Sarcastr0]

You're the one trying to baseline Presidential moral character so you can say Trump isn't extraordinarily bad.

Whole thing smacks of a reflexive need to defend.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, yeah. "Extraordinarily bad" does kind of presuppose a baseline, doesn't it?

If you want to argue that on any absolute scale Trump is a bad man, I'm fine with that. He IS a bad man.

He's just not unprecedentedly bad for a high level politician.

[Brett Bellmore]

Just to be very clear about this:

If you want to say that Trump is a bad man on an absolute scale, I agree. Infidelity, sharp business practices, lending his name to conmen, a casual relationship to the truth... he's a bad, bad man.

If you want to say that Trump is a worse man than the average American, yeah, probably, though with lesser confidence, because the average American isn't subject to the same temptations.

I will only dispute that Trump is an extraordinarily bad man for a high level politician. Thinking he is depends on being very deep in denial about just how awful our political class really are.

[bernard11]

Which of grb's assertions is false?

[bernard11]

I will only dispute that Trump is an extraordinarily bad man for a high level politician. Thinking he is depends on being very deep in denial about just how awful our political class really are.

You're nuts, or else this is your standard CYA for all the ridiculous defenses of Trump you post.

I'm not claiming our political class is a bunch of saints, or that JFK was an angel, but your attempt to justify Trump's complete lack of morality by claiming all other high-level politicians are just as bad is nonsense.

Name five Senators whose records on these matters are as bad as Trump's, or five governors. And note, single incidents don't work.

Trump's entire life is stuffed with bad behavior of all sorts. It's hard to equal that.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Belllmore — Why not answer bernard11's question.

And while you are at it, compare Trump point-by-point with JFK on that list grb provided. Show your work. Here is mine:

Trump: No books, No reading, JFK: Many books; Excellent reader
Trump: No friends, No music, JFK: Highly social; Promoted music
Trump: No curiosity, No patience, JFK: Good; Excellent
Trump: No integrity, No compassion, JFK: Good; Good
Trump: No empathy, No loyalty, JFK: More than Trump; Excellent
Trump: No conscience, No courage, JFK: Don't know; Superb
Trump: No manners, No respect, JFK: Excellent; Excellent
Trump: No character, No morality, No honor, JFK: Good; Sketchy; Excellent
Trump: Not even a dog. JFK: Many dogs

[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?

[bernard11]

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

Standard Bellmore conspiracy mongering, and denial of the possibility of honest disagreement with Bellmore Theory.

[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.

[jb]

Probably vets shouldn't be giving medical advice to humans regardless of whether its homeopathic or turns out to be correct later. Just like software engineers shouldn't be designing bridges.

[Bob from Ohio]

She was talking about steps she was taking to mitigate risks at her practice and suggested the ozone thing would be good for the customers as well.

How is that medical advice?

[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.

[David Nieporent]

and so was not being a snake oil salesman in that realm (which does also have that problem!).

Does snake oil at least cure snakes?

[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.

[Sarcastr0]

You're playing games with the scope. You were talking about speech. Now you're specifically talking about medical advice?

Barring financial shenanigans, lawyers get disbarred for pushing nonsense in the legal/political realm and vets and doctors get license pulls over nonsense in the medical realm.

And researchers/institutions can be debarred for doing shitty research, as well.

[Life of Brian]

Ah, you're doing that thing you do again. Back on the high chair goes the rattle, one more time:

My very first post took issue with the fact that the act that earned her the suspension had nothing to do with animal care, the domain of her license.

That act was to send an email with the health advice I quoted above, which has no connection at all to animal care, the domain of her license.

I called you on throwing around "quack" to try to bandaid the disconnect, and all you did was reword it to "nonsense in the medical realm." That doesn't fix the problem.

If she was really practicing human medicine without a license, there's a mechanism to address that. She clearly wasn't, but the licensing board played the same game you're doing here and used her veterinary license as a pretext to punish her for it anyway. Once you strip away the "ooo, mediciney stuff" distraction, it's just as ridiculous as the lawyer scenario.

But you can't permit yourself to see that as the gross overreach that it is, because tribalism.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think it's a particularly strong argument that being a veterinarian is so attenuated from human medicine that it's OK to be a human medicine quack and still be a good vet.

I presume that's why you came in with a discussion about my personal inconsistencies about speech regulation in response to my post about medical quackery and licensure for medical things.

You changed the scope. Now you want to change it back. And you're being a dick about it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I don't think it's a particularly strong argument that being a veterinarian is so attenuated from human medicine that it's OK to be a human medicine quack and still be a good vet."

If your vet said something medicine-y, like you can't safely lose more than two pounds in a week, do you take that as professional medical advice, or just something that a non-expert said?

[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.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krayt — You are dishonest with yourself. Ds did not try to pack the Supreme Court. Rs did not seek, "balance," on the Court. They lunged for dominance and got it, without any concern for the norms they shattered repeatedly to make it happen.

Your other commentary is in the same self-deluding class. If the Trump administration has not been culpably lawless—and in a class by itself in this nation's legal history—then legal constraint of government is done with.

I assume you do not count yourself an advocate of lawless government, so where your advocacy comes from remains mysterious. It would make sense if you were an avowed Trump partisan, with terrible news reading skills, or maybe without access to news at all—which is what being an obligate Fox follower amounts to.

Otherwise, you must be lying, at least to yourself.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Manifest grounds for disqualification cannot be mitigated by ordinary evidence of qualifying experience."

Then why mention some of her background? Inclusion of the one implies exclusion of the other. Mentioning she was a Fox News host and a prosecutor implies she wasn't a judge or a DA. Why would you want to do that?

[David Nieporent]

Again, mentioning that she was a prosecutor implies — I mean, nearly explicitly states — that she was a DA.

[Riva]

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

[jb]

Indeed. Unlike Martin (or some of Trump's other appointees like Hegseth) she has a resume that would reasonably qualify her for the job.

I do think some of her statements are problematic, but that's basically expected for Trump nominees at this point.

[Stephen Lathrop]

To normalize the abnormal is unwise. Also, in this case, a grotesque stretch.

[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.

[grb]

In speaking of insane, you've buried the lede. Because naming a pretty boy talking head to run DOD seems, yes, insane. Naming a wack-job loon like RFK Jr to head HHS equally so. And how would you describe the choice of Patel? Here's a petty conman who sold fake pills to his dupe followers as a "COVID vaccine reversal drug". That sleazy grifter now heads the nation's premier law enforcement agency. How else would you describe that?

But of course it wasn't insanity per se. Instead, it was Trump treating some of the most important positions in the U.S. government as an opportunity for juvenile trolling. Each nomination was a middle finger to everyone and anybody.

Which includes you, Bumble. Whatever our disagreements, I bet you wouldn't treat the job of heading the Pentagon as a sniggering joke. You'd be more responsible than that. So that middle finger is directed at you as well. You might consider taking offense....

[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.

[Bob from Ohio]

"show courtesy"

When do you ever show courtesy?

[Riva]

Crazy Dave may not be a courteous troll. But if you're looking for crazy, well he could tell you some stories. Crazy, disturbed stories. If one is into that kind of thing.

[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.)

[Riva]

Doesn't sound like you're too happy there crazy Dave. Cheer up. Who knows, maybe the democrats can cheat their way back into power again and they can start those political prosecutions all over again. Wouldn't that may you a happy lunatic?

[jb]

I'm personally pretty unhappy with the overall direction Trump is trying to take the country. But I am a little bit happy that he's trying to do it in the most incompetent way possible so that it reduces the damage. Small victories, I guess.

[Stephen Lathrop]

You do not get to an existential Constitutional crisis via victories, small or otherwise. But you can certainly succumb to that crisis by complacency, cynicism, or neglect to attend carefully to what government does from day to day. Time to look around.

[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.

[David Nieporent]

It usually means an ADA, no?

I don't understand on what basis you think that. (I mean, virtually by definition there are more ADAs than DAs, since there's typically only one DA for a jurisdiction and s/he generally has multiple ADAs working under him/her. So I guess if you listed every state level prosecutor in the U.S., more of them would be ADAs than DAs.) What would you call a DA if not a prosecutor?

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"What would you call a DA if not a prosecutor?"

For the most part, a manager, though some do prosecute some cases. Is that wrong?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. She was an ADA, then she was elected Judge, then she was elected Westchester County DA.

If you think "a Fox News host and former state-level prosecutor" is not a misleading way to describe her qualifications, I guess you'll think that.

[bernard11]

If you think "a Fox News host and former state-level prosecutor" is not a misleading way to describe her qualifications, I guess you'll think that.

Actually I think that Trump considers her qualifications that way - as a Fox News host who just happens, conveniently, to be a former prosecutor. I bet the Fox News job had way more to do with getting nominated that her legal experience.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Vibes?

[bernard11]

My opinion.

[David Nieporent]

If you think "a Fox News host and former state-level prosecutor" is not a misleading way to describe her qualifications, I guess you'll think that.

I think it's misleading, in that it gives far more credit to her legal career than is warranted.

But it certainly doesn't understate her legal credentials, as you seem to think.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"...it gives far more credit to her legal career than is warranted."

OK, now you're just lying.

[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.

[Bob from Ohio]

Not just you.

[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

[Riva]

You're confusing the mindless lemmings that are democrat party adherents with supporters of President Trump's agenda. Since you don't think for yourself it would probably surprise you to know that many Trump supporters don't care much for Hannity. I certainly don't.

[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.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Indeed!

[Kazinski]

Maybe the strategy is to never get anyone confirmed.

Just have a series of 120 day guest prosecutors take a shot at leaning up Washington.

Next up Mark Levin, then Matt Gaetz, then Sydney Powell.

But in what way is Pirro not qualified? She was the Westchester County DA for almost 10 years and left to run against Andrew Cuomo for NY AG.

Westchester county actually has a larger population than DC does, so its not like she has never run a large office.

[David Nieporent]

She was the Westchester County DA for almost 10 years

She left that job decades ago, hasn't practiced law in any capacity since, and was most notable in that job for somehow failing to notice that her own husband was a crook.

Westchester county actually has a larger population than DC does, so its not like she has never run a large office.

I don't know how big her office was there, but the role of the USAO for DC is a bit more than that of a local prosecutor.

[Kazinski]

Ok, I guess this blog wasn't around back then, but I'll bet Janet Reno's ears were burning when you found out she had been nominated as Attorney General of the United States.

But I will admit Pirro lacks Reno's experience prosecuting family satanic children's daycare cults.

[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.

[Riva]

Hunting for fish fossils? There should be some sanity test before doling out hunting licenses. I wouldn't give you a license to hunt for squirrels unless you showed me some proof you were lawfully discharged from the state asylum.

[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.

[Nelson]

No, it can’t.

https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/understanding-difference-between-free-speech-and-material-support-terrorism

[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.

[Nelson]

“ I am no friend of pretending that citizens and aliens have the same rights, to be sure”

So you’re no friend of the Constitution? Sounds about right.

The Constitution doesn’t differentiate. Why is that wrong?

[Don Nico]

you just want to be blind.

[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.

[Sarcastr0]

You called for lynching a judge. A specific judge.
No ifs about it.

When you yell about those violent libs, I'll continue to drag you for it.

[David Nieporent]

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

…unless it's Donald Trump, in which case we have to pretend that he meant something very different than he said.

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

They didn't declare they wanted to destroy me. They declared that they wanted to destroy America and imperialism and capitalism. It is impossible to take that seriously, coming from a bunch of cosplaying revolutionary college students.

[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.

[David Nieporent]

"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."

I assume this is AI-generated slop.

[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]

[David Nieporent]

So, you support this person, and believe they should be allowed to remain in the United States?

Other than the first guy who spoke, who doesn't seem to be in the U.S. in the first place, why do you think anyone in the Zoom is not a native born American citizen?

[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.

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur, you're back.

[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.)

[Brett Bellmore]

I'll say this again: When somebody says they mean to destroy you, you should take them seriously.

These are people who have ALREADY taken substantive actions, which is why SJP got sanctioned at Temple. They're not just blowhards.

[Sarcastr0]

The worst libertarian.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Do you mean "these people" as in these individuals, or "these people" as in people like these, who are all basically as evil as each other anyway?

If there's any credible evidence that these individuals are engaging in some sort of criminal conspiracy (in public...) to commit terrorism against the United States, they should be arrested, indicted and prosecuted. Does that work for you?

(Just note that, no, the word "credible" doesn't automatically mean whatever you choose it to mean, such as "invasion" or "woman".)

[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.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Whew!

[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.

[grb]

bernard11 : "Wow. This must be on the list of top ten Bellmore BS conspiracy theories."

That list would be something to see! How would you chose from the several hundred choices? It would be worth setting to opera, like Madamina, il catalogo è questo from Don Giovanni.

[Kazinski]

School shootings are horrific events, and they deserve attention.

What really is objectionable is when they started calling 18-19 year old gangbangers "children" who were victims of gun violence. Even teens < 18 who are hardened criminals shouldn't be considered children, once your rap sheet gets a half dozen felonies its no longer just a youthful mistake.

[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]

"current President hates medical research"

Citation?

[bernard11]

His budget.

[David Nieporent]

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.

For every case of an illegal immigrant killing someone, there are about 10,000 cases of illegal immigrants working quietly and productively and improving the economy and the country.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, and if being an illegal alien were not, itself, an offense, I guess you might have some argument for leaving them alone.

[ducksalad]

To quote someone whose opinion you ought to respect:

"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."

[bernard11]

Somehow the phrase "Hoist on his own petard" comes to mind."

[Bob from Ohio]

"school shootings"

How about non-school shootings done by black teenagers?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The term you're looking for is "Whatabout".

[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?

[David Nieporent]

Operation Iraqi Freedom ended during the Obama administration.

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha, yea, but he got the prize before he ever did anything, and, of course, before OIF ended. It was speculative.

[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.

[Moderation4ever]

No, I think a bunch of non-Americans care about immigrants and refugees. You know, those living in poverty and being looked down on. The kind of people that guy Jesus looked after.

[Bob from Ohio]

Most of the cardinals care far more about theology and church practices than American political issues.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Not too surprising in some ways. Had a top position. Did work in Latin America, like the last pope. Seems to reflect Francis' overall values. The anti-Trump/Vance tweets are interesting.

[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.

[jb]

Are you under the impression that former Presidents of the US can't make a ton of money just by giving speeches if they want to? I actually remember Republicans being really mad when the Clintons were doing just that. But I guess it doesn't fit into the narrative about Biden so we're just going to ignore it.

But yes, it's totally unsurprising that Hunter Biden isn't capable of making as much money now that he can't trade off his father's name as well. Devon Archer's testimony seemed pretty credible about both how Hunter tried to use his connection to his father (a lot!), and what he was actually used that connection to do (nothing other than talking about the weather).

[Joe_dallas]

The clinton foundation money funding dried up when the clinton pay for play scheme ceased having a viable for play scheme.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

At least it didn't "dry up" for the same reason the Donald J. Trump Foundation did...

[Joe_dallas]

appears both the biden revenue stream and the clinton foundation revenue stream dried because there was no one available to provide the political favors.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Indeed. And, lest we forget, not because it had been "dissolved by court order in 2018 after various legal violations came to light."

[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?

[Joe_dallas]

Krayt 4 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Jesus said to help your neighbor, not to pull out a gun and demand your neighbor help your other neighbor."

You mean like progressives who demand the government use taxpayer money to help thy neigbor instead of directly helping their neighbor. In the mean time skimming some of the top in the process. Of course that might be why progressives are screaming all high and mightly about DOGE

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Is there another way to interpret it?

[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.

[grb]

LawTalkingGuy : ".... has a Michael Jordan jersey ...."

Wait a minute! Isn't that evidence Leo XIV is secretly a member of Tren de Aragua ?!? Will we see Trump photoshop gang insignia on his knuckles too ?!?

[Ridgeway]

I knew it!

[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.

[bernard11]

Given Trump's mental deficiencies it hardly behooves his supporters to be talking about Biden's.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

They most determinedly don't know what you're talking about.

[Brett Bellmore]

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

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Since the 1990s, when it came to justices, I don't think they lingered on after they were able to do their jobs. Ginsburg was able until the end, as was Rehnquist from what I can tell.

O'Connor retired at a good time, even if she did so to care for her husband (and it turned out to be too late). She had a few more years of public life in her (she started to weaken toward the end), and made use of it to promote civics and stuff.

Some judges and legislators do stay on too long. Biden ultimately chose not to stand for re-election. Trump was unfit in 2016.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Ginsburg was able until the end

I’ll count myself lucky if I do as well as she did as long as she did so I don’t mean this offensively, but that is not the case. Ginsburg was having problems keeping up with the job for years before her death.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

If so, I stand corrected, but I am not aware of the details.

Where was the reporting that "for years" she had problems?

She had some health problems, but she continued to generally show up (during COVID, near the end, she took part remotely once from a hospital room) and do her work.

Thurgood Marshall? There were reports he had problems. I did not see similar reports regarding Ginsburg.

If she struggled some, I did not see reports that it overall led to her not being able to do her job.

[Joe_dallas]

Kelo - Soutor agrees that taking private property for private use is not a violation of 5A

Then Souter wrote the opinion of a 4A case involving permission to perform a search of a residence of two co tenants when one of the co tenants agreed to the search. In his opinion, He relied heavily the applicable state law, yet got the state law wrong.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

You voted for Bush who used taxpayer funds and eminent domain to build an obsolete ballpark.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I am assuming you’re talking about Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006).

If so, you are mistaken. Souter’s opinion does not mention state law, much less rely on it: indeed, his primary point is that it’s societal expectations that should inform the fourth amendment analysis, not property law (although the latter may of course itself influence the former).

[Joe_dallas]

NS - Not hard to find the first discussion of state law

Since the co-tenant wishing to open the door to a third party has no recognized authority in law or social practice to prevail over a present and objecting co-tenant, his disputed invitation, without more, gives a police officer no better claim to reasonableness in entering than the officer would have in the absence of any consent at al

[Noscitur a sociis]

No? Why did you post an excerpt that doesn’t mention it, then?

[Joe_dallas]

The excerpt did mention it

[Joe_dallas]

NS - again not hard to find discussion of state law in the case

the “right” to admit the police to which Matlock refers is not an enduring and enforceable ownership right as understood by the private law of property,

[Noscitur a sociis]

That is not, in fact, a discussion of Georgia state law.

[David Nieporent]

Not only does a bookkeeper from Dallas fancy himself an expert on Georgia law — but he once again claims that a Supreme Court justice said something that the Supreme Court justice didn't say.

Note, too, that the Georgia Court of Appeals and the Georgia Supreme Court agreed with Souter; does bookkeeper_joe think he knows more about Georgia law than all of those judges/justices as well?
​
​
(Note: I happen to think the case was wrongly decided, but not because Souter "relied heavily [on] the applicable state law" at all; he did not in fact do any such thing. He relied instead on his own intuitions about social expectations.)

[David Nieporent]

Note: I could have saved myself some typing if I had refreshed and seen NaS's post first.

[Frank Drackman]

But you're an Idiot so there's that.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Pope isn’t a difficult job and neither is president or Supreme Court justice.

[Dr. Ed 2]

He's not my pope, my church doesn't worship him.

[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.

[grb]

Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2 : "I saw a stat....."

Where? It may well be possible, but it would be good to see the source. Do an internet search and the first thing you see is the stat is bogus (as quoted below). However, that is one of those AI summaries and is nowhere near trustworthy itself. Of course what you scrap off the bottom of your shoe after a long walk is more trustworthy than Magnus, so there's that.,.

Aside from the AI thing, you can waddle thru endless tweets but a large part of them are from racist trolls like Magnus. True or not, this factoid seems to have been glommed on by the same worthless types that insisted (insisted!) that the Baltimore bridge accident and DC plane-helicopter crash were each caused by Black people.

"The claim that 65% of Black women with a university degree are employed by the government is not supported by the provided search results. While the participation rate of African American women in the Federal sector is nearly double their representation in the civilian labor force, it is not 65%, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The report highlights that African American women account for 11.7% of the civilian Federal workforce."

[Brett Bellmore]

"While the participation rate of African American women in the Federal sector is nearly double their representation in the civilian labor force, it is not 65%, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. "

Typical AI result: If you can't answer the question that was asked, you answer a different question that kinda sounds the same.

Gemini admitted that it couldn't produce the relevant percentage, but went on to note that black women are dramatically over-represented in the federal workforce, about double their percentage of the population.

Gemini went on (With some prompting.) to estimate that about 4.4M black women have university degrees, while an estimated 264K black women are employed by the federal government.

It's not hard to observe that 264K is a lot less than 65% of 4.4M... So the claim is mathematically impossible even if you assume every single black women employed by the federal government has a university degree. In fact, for 65% of black women with university degrees to be employed by the federal government, basically every single federal employee would have to be one.

I'd find it much easier to believe that 65% of black women employed by the federal government have university degrees, though. Maybe that's how the factoid started out, before being passed around.

[grb]

Aside from being unable to safely credit AI, the major take here is never trust a statistic too good to be true (from the perspective of your own biases). And though I've caught many an argument foe doing so, I've also been careless/lazy myself.

They're such bright shinny toys, statistics....

[jb]

"I'd find it much easier to believe that 65% of black women employed by the federal government have university degrees, though. Maybe that's how the factoid started out, before being passed around."

That does seem exactly like the kind of thing that would be confusing to Magnus. If that were true, though, it would mean that black women are more likely to have college degrees than the average federal employee. About 54% of all federal employees have bachelor's degrees.

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

lol that doesn't even pass the sniff test.

come on.

[jb]

Some of us even include links to our sources in our posts!

[Frank Drackman]

Lot of Housekeepers in those Government buildings.

[Kazinski]

So what if its true?

Lots of sectors are dominated by some demographics, Vietnamese Nail Salons, Indian motels, Women teachers, White male CPA's, Cambodian Donut Shops.

NPR says that blacks are significantly over represented in government jobs so cutting government jobs has a disperate impact:

"The exact numbers and demographics of the workers affected by the ongoing federal job cuts are hard to come by. But the government's latest public data from September 2024 shows Black people make up 18.5% of the federal civilian workforce, while their share of the general U.S. population, according to the 2020 census, stands at 14.8%. At some agencies, including the Departments of Education, Treasury and Housing and Urban Development, Black employees make up about a third or more of the staff."

"Working for the U.S. government also came with the kinds of benefits and job stability that have attracted many Black federal employees for generations."

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/27/nx-s1-5349442/black-federal-employees-trump-cuts

Given that Blacks are significantly underrepresented in University degrees, and overrepresented in government jobs that require university degrees, I don't find that stat unbelievable, I just can't figure out why it matters when considering hiring or layoffs.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm not surprised...

[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...

[David Nieporent]

I don't think the provenance of the survey means as much as the fact that it's obviously a stupid question asking, "Do you dislike Elon Musk?" and not a serious legislative proposal.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm very bad at survey question design, much less evaluation.

To me, what was salient was that this was the weakest kind of methodology, done by one of the most nakedly 'I will push a narrative' polling firms.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm just disturbed that ANY methodology could find that high a percentage of the population favoring a bill of attainder. Frankly, I think the whole polling industry is in a state of methodological crisis, given single digit response rates. They are stuck assuming that the opinions of people who bother to respond are representative of people in general, and there's no good reason to make that assumption.

Given that surveys by multiple outlets have shown self-identified "liberals" to have really illiberal opinions once politics become salient, I don't think the result is facially crazy, though.

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

Polls aren't used to identify opinion but to set opinion.

[David Nieporent]

Maybe when Rasmussen conducts them, that's true.

[Frank Drackman]

Or the Idiots who said Cums-a-lot would carry Iowa by double digits.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm just disturbed that ANY methodology could find that high a percentage of the population favoring a bill of attainder

Good lord that's some vibes.
This is something only someone who is much more of a narrativist than a truth seeker would say.

that surveys by multiple outlets have shown self-identified "liberals" to have really illiberal opinions once politics become salient
'THIS survey may be crap, but what if I bundled a lot of crap surveys together...that sure did convince me!'

[bernard11]

I'm just disturbed that ANY methodology could find that high a percentage of the population favoring a bill of attainder.

It would hardly be disturbing if the methodology used was flawed so that the poll results did not, in fact, come close to being representative of the population. I saw nothing in the linked report explaining how exactly they got their sample, and especially their online respondents.

Frankly, I think the whole polling industry is in a state of methodological crisis, given single digit response rates. They are stuck assuming that the opinions of people who bother to respond are representative of people in general, and there's no good reason to make that assumption.

Interesting that, while touting the results, you nonetheless concede that there is a good chance they are meaningless.

[Don Nico]

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

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

This "great support", lol...

[ducksalad]

Note that 46% of Republicans are not opposed to imprisoning Musk via a bill of attainder.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

What percentage want Trump in prison?

Trump, after all, is an actual convicted felon who has likely committed many more crimes of which only his recent election to the Presidency has prevented him from being convicted.

No "Bill of Attainder" required!

[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".

[hobie]

Lawyers are paid to fight. When they won't even fight for themselves, then what is a potential client supposed to think? Yes, the capitulating firms' reputations are now in the toilet...irrevocably

[Commenter_XY]

One less K Street law firm. Oh well.

[Estragon]

So— not so savvy after all?

[Commenter_XY]

Remains to be seen.

[Bob from Ohio]

"the people that work there seem to disagree"

They don't work there anymore.

Looks like 10 left out of 400+. A handful of people leaving doesn't mean much either.

[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?

[Moderation4ever]

All those words and you could get anything correct. Try again.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Lou Prevost: MAGA?

Like many Floridians, Lou is a fan of Donald Trump who does not think very highly of the Democratic Party. “Obama and the Democrats. They suck. They’re one very small step away from being full blown communists,” reads one post. “Why aren’t these anti-American democrat communists arrested and tried for subversion and even treason against the U.S.A.?” begins another.

https://slate.com/life/2025/05/new-pope-leo-xiv-robert-prevost-chicago-florida.html

[Krayt]

How about that Kane, huh? And I don't mean Charles Foster.

Americans fought against Nazis. They are not your peeps, dear readers. And these were real Nazis, not hyperbolated idiots from sketchy web sites. They had real power, and real armies, real tanks rolling across free nations.

The opposite of Nazis is not Commies. The opposite of both are free men, who defeat both, for the same reason: they are both unfree dictators, "with different extra steps".

[David Nieporent]

A judge just ordered Rumeysa Ozturk released from detention. Contrary to the rantings of some bigots here, the government did not argue (unlike with some of the other college students seized) that she had done anything at all, other than co-author an op/ed in the student newspaper. There were no allegations she had attacked anyone, led antisemitic demonstrations, camped out on campus, or anything else. And yet, because Trump made up fake stories about dangerous immigrants during the campaign, they seized her to pretend that they were protecting people. I don't agree with Ms. Ozturk on the merits, but there is no moral or legal justification for seizing her.

[Zarniwoop]

Here's the docket for her case. More sparse than some, I'm afraid, and today's order hasn't propagated quite yet.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69845539/ozturk-v-hyde/

[Zarniwoop]

There it is:

MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge William K. Sessions III: Bail Hearing held on 5/9/2025. Adriana Lafaille, Jessie Rossman, Julian Bava, Lia Ernst, Monica Allard, Mudassar Toppa, Noor Zafar and Richael Davidson, Esqs. present for petitioner. Mahsa Khanbabai, Esq. present with petitioner remotely. Michael Drescher, AUSA present for respondents. Court inquires petitioner's waiver of personal appearance. The following witnesses examined for petitioner: Rumeysa Ozturk, Dr. McCannon, S. Johnson, and B. Pemberthy. Statements by counsel. Court makes findings. ORDERED: petitioner to be released immediately on PR w/conditions; gov't is to notify the court when she is released; gov't to submit proposed order as to conditions of release after conferring with ICE. (Court Reporter: Johanna Masse) (law) (Entered: 05/09/2025)

[Glaucomatose]

I wonder what the plan is for getting her back to Somerville from Bumblefeaux, LA. Hope the ACLU is there to give her a ride.

[Bob from Ohio]

ICE moved her to Vermont already.

Free travel, what a benevolent government we have.

[Zarniwoop]

Bob, check your sources (if something other than your posterior):

Ozturk, 30, attended the hearing remotely, appearing via video call in an orange prison smock from a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in Louisiana. She appeared to tear up as the judge concluded his ruling and embraced her lawyer at the end of the hearing.

[Bob from Ohio]

I saw she was at the hearing and there was an earlier order to send he to Vermont so I made a wrong conclusion. Homer nods.

I'm sure the Hamas Fifth Column will get her to NY or Philly or wherever.

[bernard11]

Homer nods.

Bob, you're no Homer.

[Zarniwoop]

And for those in need of a refresher, the Second Circuit bench slapping the Gov't:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.865604ca-5eca-4bd8-87cc-5845c86cf2e2/gov.uscourts.ca2.865604ca-5eca-4bd8-87cc-5845c86cf2e2.71.0.pdf

[Commenter_XY]

She'll want to leave when the process is done. Good riddance.

[Bob from Ohio]

Z thinks the government will care about some harsh words from dumb judges.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

This government doesn't care about harsh words from any judges. It is above all that.

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

I was thinking about taking a pimp cruise tomorrow in my Tesla Swastikar with its swastikas and all and blaring Kaynes slappin' new hit single.

Have yall heard it? It's sticky. I can't stop singing the chorus.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"It is a bad thing that there is a clergy/penitent privilege. It’s a relic of the past when religions were assumed to be moral. History has exposed that falsity."

Privileges exist even when it is acknowledged that the institutions are flawed. People at best assumed certain religions were moral. Led to many establishments.

I won't say "religions" as a whole are not "moral" since they come in all shapes in sizes. The privilege is in place as a matter of religious liberty and privacy. Like all things, arguing absolutism in this context is a bad idea won't be too hard.

Regarding the law debate, I might have missed it. Did the legislative supporters explain why an exception was made as to religious privileges? Re-listening to the oral argument in the Santeria case, the defender of the law on some level sounded reasonable.

[ducksalad]

The best reason for the exception is the same reason we have a free exercise clause. It's not that the authors thought all the religions were equally true, or equally untrue, or necessarily improved people's morals, or they had some belief that freedom of conscience should trump civil law. The main reason was practical and empirical: recent experience had shown that forcing a group of people to violate their religious beliefs often led to rebellion and bloodshed rather than compliance.

US Catholics are tamer now so it's probably not a concern anymore. But back in 1790 ordering priests to report what they heard in confession would have been perceived in the same way as laws requiring people to deny transubstantiation.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

My specific concern is a thread about a specific law. I wanted to know how the legislators of that state explained making an exception for religious privileges in this context.

The Free Exercise Clause did partially arise from the belief that a person's duty to their creator was a natural right that the government had no business denying. Madison was appalled, e.g., that unlicensed Baptist preachers were arrested.

There was an overall freedom of conscience and the mind, also connected to freedom of speech. Likewise, the state had no business playing favorites by establishing certain religions. The thread above refers to the clergy/penitent privilege not being consistently in place, though.

This specific privilege partially grew out of historical privileges that the Catholic and Anglican Churches had. It was later applied on an equal basis to other religions, this being a diverse nation.

The Free Exercise Clause generally did not involve acts that would threaten the public peace (Jefferson's reference to believing in none or twenty gods not picking his pocket, or whatever). Many modern disputes involving exemptions are just that, modern disputes that arise in the modern administrative state.

A minister not testifying when they have evidence that a child was molested would be more like picking Jefferson's pockets. There is a general freedom over church affairs. This affects third parties.

The "rebellions and bloodshed" arising from choices over prayer, religious beliefs, and ceremonies, etc., do explain the value of religious liberty overall, including not establishing religion.

But, the natural right to worship god in the diverse ways present in a cosmolitian nation was a major factor too. History showed that a laissez faire policy worked fairly well.

[Krayt]

"It is a bad thing that there is a clergy/penitent privilege. It’s a relic of the past when religions were assumed to be moral. History has exposed that falsity."

Wait'll you hear about these things called "governments"!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Mentioning this here only because the discussion above is too big, but why is this topic suddenly so important now? Yeah, there's a new law in Washington State, but it's not a "new law" for the USA.

Many other US states have had similar laws for decades. Here's a 2015-era document (which DOGE has thus far failed to memory hole): https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2018-07/Clergy%20as%20Mandated%20Reporters%20of%20Child%20Abuse%20and%20Neglect.pdf

[ducksalad]

President Trump believes Mattel is a country.

https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/cn4q950zxgqo

The overly generous BBC says he "misspeaks", but the clip shows that he really is confused. He specifically talks about slapping them with tariffs.

[Frank Drackman]

Thrilling, last I heard he won the erection

[grb]

ducksalad : "President Trump believes Mattel is a country"

To be fair, Mattel would be a formidable nation if it achieved statehood. They'd be able to field a well-equipped army, albeit with hollow plastic weaponry. Maybe that's what confused the Dotard-in-Chief (along with the fact his brain has rotted down to the consistency of worm-ridden mush).

[Mr. Bumble]

https://nypost.com/2025/05/09/us-news/newark-mayor-ras-baraka-arrested-while-protesting-ice-detention-facility/

[TwelveInchPianist]

So now I guess we'll see the left arguing that Mayors are above the law.

[Riva]

Maybe, but looks the majority of lazy trolls here haven’t received their talking points so they don’t know exactly what to parrot yet.

[Kenneth Almquist]

You don’t seem to be good at guessing what the left will do.

Baraka has been charged with trespassing. I don’t know whether he will be convicted. According to the complaint, the facility “is accessible only through granted access.” That suggests that Baraka was granted access. The complaint asserts that the facility “displays No Trespassing signage,” but does otherwise contend that Baraka was told he could not enter or that he was directed to leave. (Baraka was arrested some time after he left the facility, when he was protesting outside.)

If Baraka did break the law, he should pay the penalty, which I assume will be a small fine.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70242142/united-states-v-baraka/

[Brett Bellmore]

" That suggests that Baraka was granted access."

The account I've seen says that he waited until the gate opened for a vehicle, and then rushed in before it could close. I don't think that qualifies as being granted access.

[Estragon]

I was reminded of something today, maybe the Trumpists can help:

Where are those Epstein files?

[SRG2]

"The dog ate my pdfs"

[Mr. Bumble]

Why didn't the Biden administration release them?
Asking for a friend.

[grb]

Mr. Bumble : "Asking for a friend."

Get with your friend and tackle these questions (tho the answers are provided w/ the questions) :

1. Did the Biden Administration ever make a massive buffoonish carnival freak-show ado about releasing them? (No)

2. After a massive buffoonish carnival freak-show ado about releasing them, did the Trump Administration make a hash of it for reasons of incompetence, coverup, or both? (Yes)

[Mr. Bumble]

"More than two months after she promised to release the Jeffrey Epstein files, Attorney General Pam Bondi explained this week that the sheer volume of pornographic material being reviewed is delaying the process.

“There are tens of thousands of videos of Epstein with children or child porn and there are hundreds of victims,” Bondi told reporters at the White House on Wednesday. “And no one victim [child’s identity] will ever get released,” she added. “It’s just the volume and that’s what they’re going through right now. The FBI is diligently going through that.”
https://amgreatness.com/2025/05/09/ag-bondi-says-fbi-is-reviewing-tens-of-thousands-of-epstein-videos-with-hundreds-of-child-victims/

If true, is this a good reason for not having released them yet?

[Estragon]

Thank you for a sensible answer. I guess we’re still waiting

[Estragon]

“There will be no cover-ups, no missing documents, and no stone left unturned — and anyone from the prior or current Bureau who undermines this will be swiftly pursued. If there are gaps, we will find them. If records have been hidden, we will uncover them. And we will bring everything we find to the DOJ to be fully assessed and transparently disseminated to the American people as it should be.”

It couldn’t possibly be you were gullible… could it?

[David Nieporent]

Because there's nothing to release. The notion that there's an Epstein client list is conspiracy theory nonsense.

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

Why isn't everyone asking this?

We all know why the government won't release them, because Epstein was an MOSSAD honeypot and there's one thing Washington won't do. Name the Jew.

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

Wow there are videos floating around of an insurrection being lead today by Democrat congresspeople at the front lines trying to forcibly overrun an ICE facility to free illegals.

They're violently assaulting the facility and the attacking workers who are only there protecting our sacred democracy. There's a video on the front page of reddit of an angry militant mob of Democrats assaulting government officials who were detaining an illegal.

Think about how fucking sick Democrats are. The FBI was raiding and assaulting parents who are just speaking up at parent-teacher conferences to protect their children from disgusting grooming and the Democrats didn't do shit. They didn't do shit.

But take away their illegal housemaid or gardener, and they start getting violent and insurrecting against our democracy.

[David Nieporent]

Wow there are videos floating around of an insurrection being lead today by Democrat congresspeople at the front lines trying to forcibly overrun an ICE facility to free illegals.

So I guess Trump's going to pardon them ASAP then.

[tylertusta]

If the DOJ charged them with trumped up charges while federal judges deviated upwards for sentencing while also giving a wink and a nod to the bullshit interpretation of the statute used to elevate the conduct into a felony, I would want Trump to pardon them, too.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

But you wouldn't expect Trump to do it, would you?

[tylertusta]

If Trump's DOJ pursues trumped-up charges, I wouldn't expect Trump to then go against his own subordinates by issuing pardons.

Thanks, Trump haters. You poisoned the well.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Only one "lol" required here.

[grb]

The latest news for those keeping track of this lawless presidency:

Stephen Miller says the Trump administration is “actively looking at” suspending habeas corpus—the right to challenge government detention in court.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wh-trump-suspending-habeas-corpus/story?id=121653587

[Glaucomatose]

Oh good. I'm sure they'll stop with immigrants.

Hey, how much for that bridge?

[SRG2]

The cultists will approve, and accept Trump's/Miller's argument that there's a national emergency or some such bullshit, decision not reviewable by the courts because Dear Leader wills it.

[bernard11]

Trump is proposing to cut the NSF budget by 55%.

Meanwhile his funding games are severely damaging medical research.

Utterly destructive bastard.

[grb]

bernard11 : "Utterly destructive bastard."

Trump's lickspittles here seem to forget history will soon be written and all of Trump's corruption, lawlessness, and incompetence outed in stomach-churning detail. The Cult seems to believe each day's entertainment from our reality-TV-show president is the be-all and end-all.

And here's one particularly damning thing certain to emerge: Much of the damage Trump does to this country isn't even for any political purpose or to achieve a policy aim. It's just trolling malicious spite from a small brat child who hates everybody and wants to break as much as possible. Just to break something someone else holds dear. From pure spite alone.

Trump doesn't care about medical research one way or another. But someone does, and that's reason enough to destroy. People have worked in their fields with dedication, discipline, and a devotion to higher knowledge. And for Trump, that's reason enough to destroy.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

History will demand a reason.

Will we agree on narcissistic personality disorder, or are we going to go with the less clinical, "Trump derangement syndrome"?

[Sarcastr0]

The budget I have some hope that Congress will push back.

The obliteration of the division structure and the RIF are the real damage.

I'd also pay close attention to news about grants.gov, and associated impacts on America's scientific integrity.

Best case, we're going to be a decade behind where we could be. That has implications for the world, and for America's place in it.

[ThePublius]

"Meanwhile his funding games are severely damaging medical research."

Citation?

I mean, can you report on a measurable impact the very recent funding cuts have had? I think not. Too soon to tell. You are making this up.

[hobie]

Reading the years-ago comments for the movie Brokeback Mountain on youtube, I see a lot of parents talking about their dead sons...pouring their hearts out.

Typically, the dead sons were victimized by people like you hayseeds. Spoken to in the manner you speak about them here. I believe today Frankie said happily that I should be Matthew Shepparded . So you idiots wonder what animates the libs

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I believe today Frankie said happily that I should be Matthew Shepparded."

Why? Did he see this?

[ThePublius]

"Democrat Senator Chris Murphy admits the quiet part out loud on MSNBC:

"The people we care about most, the undocumented."

He also admits that their strategy for 30 years has been to make them U.S. citizens."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Do you ever wonder why the people who feed this to you don't tell you arguably relevant information, such as that it refers to a conversation which occurred in February 2024?

Why do you think they do that?