Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Politics
Eugene Volokh | 8.13.2025 2:52 PM
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.
NEXT: First Amendment Claim Over Firing of Firefighter for Supposedly Racially Offensive Anti-Abortion Post Can Go Forward
Hide Comments (903)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
For a topic unrelated to law and/or politics, I recently ran across a study indicating that women in heterosexual relationships tend to have comparatively fewer orgasms than men do, as well as fewer orgasms than their lesbian counterparts. https://academic.oup.com/smoa/article/12/3/qfae042/7702123
This suggests to me that women do a better job of satisfying their sexual partners, whether those partners are male or female.
Thank you Lavender Jane.
Well, duh: Given the way the human reproductive system works, men HAVE to orgasm in order to reproduce, while for women it's just an encouragement to have sex. So of course orgasming is easy for men.
To repurpose a popular legal term of recent, men's orgasms are self-executing.
Are you under the impression that people mostly have sex to reproduce?
No, I'm under the impression that reproduction is very important from an evolutionary standpoint.
He is just expressing a biological fact
Unrelated to the previous conversation?
i^i = e^((-pi/2)+2n(pi))
martin - you cant even follow your own commentary. Both Brett & I were correcting your erroneous statement, which you obviously did not understand
Which statement did I make that was erroneous?
To be fair, "This suggests to me that women do a better job of satisfying their sexual partners, whether those partners are male or female." is perfectly capable of being, at the same time, a correct statement, and a statement of a baseless conclusion.
It is, after all, a statement concerning your own mental processes, and if data is suggesting baseless conclusions to you, it's not erroneous to say so.
It is also, however, not something I said.
Martin - again demonstrating he doesnt understand his own commentary, third time you failed to respond coherently to brett's original comment
Those who didn't -- didn't...
Mrs Drackman has Orgasms most of the time, thats what her boyfriends say anyway
The key part you're leaving out is this. Perhaps men are just easier to get to orgasm, no matter their sexual orientation.
I have to agree here. The fact is that men can and do organism to some as simple as pictures in a magazine.
No hand required?
Not if you're a teen just going through puberty.
If memory serves, no pictures required either. Just the ones in your head to wake up with wet sheets.
August 13: National TMI Day
Point taken.
Women used to beg me to "Stop" all the time Then they would call the Police, (Rimshot)
Frank
That doesn’t explain the lesbian higher rate does it? Seems like lesbian partners are more willing to “do the work.”
Actually the studies show that lesbians have sexual relations much less often.
The question asked in the survey was about the rate of having orgasms as part of sexual intercourse. So it can be true both that lesbians have sex less often then heterosexual women but also that lesbians have a higher rate of orgasm when they have sex.
Yes, but it casts doubt on the inference that lesbians are more willing to do the work.
They do, however, have high domestic violence rates. Over 43%. Quite a bit higher than heterosexual relations.
...of course, women also attack men in hetero couples FAR more than vice versa. Men just do more damage when provoked to hit back.
Exactly!
I suppose under-reporting might be lower, since you don't have a guy involved who's ashamed to admit his wife is beating him.
They should know the neighborhood anyway, Now for one of my Made-Up Med Screw-el Stories that you won't see on "Scrubs" or "The Intern" So it's 1983, we're starting the Pelvic Region in Gross Anatomy, our Cadaver was an old woman ("Jane" every Med Student group gives their Cadaver a name) so everything was sort of shriveled up, but Jane did have a single large Condyloma. "What's that??" said our 1 female student in our group (they (Female Students, and Condylomas weren't as ubiquitous in 1983 as today) She was sort of just pointing in the general direction of Jane's Vagina, and one of the other students (Imagine said with a Bill Clinton accent)answered "That's the Pussy!!" and she laughed (the Student, not Jane, Jane didn't laugh at much of anything) I laughed, we all laughed Today it'd end up a case on this Blog,
"Participants reported their average rate of orgasm during sexual intercourse, from 0% to 100%."
They might be comparing apples to oranges.
A lesbian probably won't add an unreciprocated pie-eating session to the denominator, while a straight woman would add PIV activity done primarily to satisfy the man.
Here's the question that was asked: "When having sexual intercourse in general, what percentage of the time do you usually orgasm?" Men reported a higher orgasm rate than women, but lesbian women reported a higher orgasm rate than heterosexual women. I think the real issue here is how we think of sexual intercourse. When there is a man involved, sexual intercourse almost always involves the man having an orgasm. That is what makes it sexual intercourse. The man's orgasm is often the conclusion of the operation. The woman may or may not have an orgasm. When there is no man involved, then women's orgasms are more significant. This does indeed circle back to the idea that in sex men are primarily orgasm-havers and women are primarily orgasm-providers.
Certainly true. You're not going to have a lesbian goes to muff-dive her partner, orgasms after 30 seconds, the partner says, "Oh come on! Already!?!, and the first partner mumbles an apology and goes to sleep.
Also even if it does work that way, the ladies are still getting an aggregate 50 percent female orgasm rate. Whereas in the equivalent heterosexual scenario where the man pounds away until he is satisfied and then drifts off to sleep, the female orgasm rate is 0 percent.
Good point.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/12/opinion/why-women-had-better-sex-under-socialism.html
This is a long thread of men pretending to know things about women's sexual experiences.
My take on Not Guilty's comment is that women know what women want better than men do which would explain why lesbian couples experience orgasm at higher rates. But from a man's perspective, I think men in heterosexual couples have more orgasms than their partners because the men are bad at sex.
Perhaps, but in fairness all a woman has to do to be good at sex is show up.
Women and sex with men is perhaps the one area where a participation trophy is warranted.
"Perhaps, but in fairness all a woman has to do to be good at sex is show up."
Really? You don't know the difference between a woman engaging enthusiastically and another woman just perfunctorially going through the motions, TwelveInch?
I pity you for what you have missed out on.
Lol. Kinda lazy.
Neither one of those is bad.
What does it say about a sexual partner that they cannot be bothered to try? What does it say about their relationship? It's barely more than masturbation.
Is this common for heterosexual sex?
It never hurts to tell a woman, honey, I'm just glad you're here.
Being "Kinda lazy" at pleasing a woman is nothing to brag about.
But I am unsurprised.
Your responses are kina lazy.
Indeed. Is it the voice of a lover, or NG trying to do his I-big-you-small thing with TIP?
Thump, thump. Chest thump, thump.
CPI came out Tuesday morning, and it was less than expected, Once again the tariffying Trump-flation failed to materialize.
"The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) increased 0.2 percent on a seasonally adjusted basis in July, after rising 0.3 percent in June, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Over the last 12 months, the all items index increased 2.7 percent before seasonal adjustment.
The index for shelter rose 0.2 percent in July and was the primary factor in the all items monthly increase. The food index was unchanged over the month as the food away from home index rose 0.3 percent while the food at home index fell 0.1 percent. In contrast, the index for energy fell 1.1 percent in July as the index for gasoline decreased 2.2 percent over the month.
The index for all items less food and energy rose 0.3 percent in July, following a 0.2-percent increase in June.Indexes that increased over the month include medical care, airline fares, recreation, household furnishings and operations, and used cars and trucks. The indexes for lodging away from home and communication were among the few major indexes that decreased in July.
The all items index rose 2.7 percent for the 12 months ending July, after rising 2.7 percent over the 12 months ending June. The all items less food and energy index rose 3.1 percent over the last 12 months. The energy index decreased 1.6 percent for the 12 months ending July. The food index increased 2.9 percent over the last year."
Here are the major categories for 22 months, and the last 6 months Annualized (Feb -Jul).
Notice the items the ones that would be most likely to be affected by tariffs, New Cars and Apparel, actually declined over the last 6 months, wierd. Commodities were slightly up, but less than the overall rate of inflation.
Category 12 Mon CPI__Feb-Jul Annualized All items 2.7 2.41 Food 2.9 3.01 Electricity 5.5 9.37
Core 3.1 2.41 Commodities 1.2 1.40 New vehicles 0.4 -1.19 Apparel -0.2 -1.22 Medical care commodities(1) 0.1 2.58 Shelter 3.7 3.42
Notice core inflation jumped to a 3.1 Y/Y, but that is due to a rough fall last year as shown by the 2.41 Annualized rate over the last 6 months.
All the data is from Table A here: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm
I calculated the Feb-Jul number from the detail in the table
Kaz, stop confusing us with the facts. Please! 😉
I don't think it is time to adjust rates, but we are getting close. Sustained inflation <2.5% is needed. We don't want a repeat of the 70's, where interest rates went up and down like a yo-yo.
Those of us with bond holdings don't mind the 1% real return.
This is a funny take from Monday before the numbers were released:
July Inflation Report: Why CPI Could Be Bad News No Matter What
"Investors are worried about too-hot inflation, which could take a rate cut off the table for September. On the other hand, a sharp drop in inflation could stoke concerns about an imminent slowdown. A key inflation report is looming, but it's possible that the July data paints a dismal picture of the economy whether it shows prices rose or fell."
The markets didn't see it that way, as you probably noticed. Up over 1% because It pretty much cinches the rate cut in September, and mortgage rates have started to fall already, the FHA rate is below 6%, and conforming private mortgages have dropped below 7%.
I generally avoid the financial porn = July Inflation Report: Why CPI Could Be Bad News No Matter What
The equity market (as generally understood), is a random walk; the bond market, less so. Markets want certainty, and OBBB went a long way toward providing that. Consequently, not surprising equity markets are up strongly. Little evidence of wild over-valuation (aka: bubble) like we had in 1999. This year looks a lot like 2017, with the exception of the April swoop.
Aug-Oct is a stormy and turbulent time; hurricanes, and stock market gyrations. 😉
In terms of valuation, it looks much more like 1999. Look at the Schiller P/E ratio, as an example.
Too bad Shiller PE is not at all predictive of short term performance; long term predictions are spotty as well. I've never been sold on it; it is 'fitted' data.
CAPE7 is more predictive.
The CAPE is just as high, only slightly below 1999.
Look, am I saying the bubble can't grow bigger? Of course not. Look at the Nikkei in the late 90s. But there is no way to claim that these current valuations are not very rich. Microsoft at nearly 15 times sales? Nvidia ta 30 times sales?
Sigh. Have you factored in accounting standards changes (post 1999) into your erroneous statement that today's cape10 is like 1999? Clearly not.
1999 CAPE10: 44 Today: 39
If you're going to make the bubble argument, make a coherent argument.
Uhh, you just proved my point. 39 is a little below 44.
There was nothing in that CPI report that justifies a rate cut. Services inflation is stubbornly stuck at close to 35. The 10 year treasury has been hovering between 4.2 and 4.5% for a while now. If the bond market was as convinced that there is no problem with inflation, it would be dropping too.
I also want to note that the equity markets follow the financial media (CNBC, WSJ, Bloomberg, and some others), and they have been cheerleading for stocks and rate cuts for years. Remember, they "projected" cuts as far back as late 2022. They have been wrong on inflation for years. Their sole goal is to maintain high asset prices (stocks, housing, bitcoin) because they are the mouthpiece of the rich who benefits disproportionately.
If the Fed cuts rates prematurely, like they did last year, watch long-term yields go up again. That'll be really embarrassing for them.
Crashing the economy without imposing tariffs = lower inflation Crashing the economy while imposing tariffs = higher inflation
This is not difficult.
eurotrash, maybe you'd like to define 'crashing the economy' for the uninitiated.
Perhaps Martinned has a point, you can't crash an economy that can't get off the ground:
"The Euro area's GDP grew by 0.1% in the second quarter of 2025 compared to the previous quarter, according to Eurostat. The EU as a whole saw a slightly higher growth rate of 0.2%. These are preliminary flash estimates."
So I am assuming this is not an annualized rate so it would be a 0.4% annual rate and 1.5% y/y, compared to US 2nd qtr GDP of 3%.
It is a lot easier to control inflation when you don't have any growth. That's why they just accept Trump's rather one-sided tariff agreement, they can't generate any growth of their own so they need the US market for any prospect of growth.
And its been that way at least since 2012.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:G7_Countries_GDP_Per_Capita_(1990-2029).png
I must say, my intl holdings have had a spectacular YTD run. My small caps (<13B mkt cap) aren't doing much YTD yet.
I am looking for the crashed American economy that eurotrash wrote about.
Commenter XY notices their *international* stock portfolio doing well and thinks this is somehow a statement about how great the US economy is.
Just beyond the obvious dumbness of that take, a big part of the reason your international stock portfolio is up is because the stocks are priced in foreign currencies and the dollar is way down this year.
That's also why the Mag7 are up. Foreign investors can buy more with their own currencies.
Your ignorance is only outweighed by your arrogance.
The stock market isn't a very good proxy for how good the economy is doing anyway. Even ignoring meme stocks, it's a proxy for the NPV of free cash flows, which is something completely different.
I agree with that, especially when so much of the stock market is concentrated in the Mag7, that use their quasi-monopoly power to extract more and more of the "pie."
The stock market would be a better proxy for the economy as a whole if the S&P 500 was not cap weighted. In any case, right now it's not even a proxy for the NPV of free cash flows, unless you assume perpetual ZIRP.
The stock market would be a better proxy for the economy as a whole if the S&P 500 was not cap weighted.
Why is that? The statement seems wrong to me. The Dow is not cap weighted, and hence presents a distorted picture.
right now it's not even a proxy for the NPV of free cash flows, unless you assume perpetual ZIRP.
It's not a proxy for free cash flows at all, but a measure of the PV of expected future dividends. As such, it takes interest rate expectations into account, so the ZIRP assumption is unnecessary.
Always eager to learn more! Even if I'm too dumb, maybe you should try to explain to everyone else where my analysis went wrong.
Why ignorant?
Do you think the decline in the dollar doesn't boost the dollar value of foreign stocks?
On Dec. 31, 2024 the dollar was worth 9.61 euros. Today it's 8.56.
So if you invested $1000 to buy 961 European shares at 1 Euro, that holding would be worth $1123 today if the Euro price was unchanged.
.961 and .856, of course.
Inflation is in services, and has been for years. Not in goods. And services inflation shows no signs of relenting.
Baumol's cost disease is a bitch.
Indeed it is. That was the first lesson I had in college, on the first day of Econ 101.
"In economics, the Baumol effect, also known as Baumol's cost disease, first described by William J. Baumol and William G. Bowen in the 1960s, is the tendency for wages in jobs that have experienced little or no increase in labor productivity to rise in response to rising wages in other jobs that did experience high productivity growth. In turn, these sectors of the economy become more expensive over time, because the input costs increase while productivity does not. Typically, this affects services more than manufactured goods, and in particular health, education, arts and culture."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect
Things are not as rosy as Kaz tries to wish them to be. Remember this week when Trump threw a hissy fit because Goldman Sachs and others pointed out that the cost of tariffs would likely shift from companies to consumers in the fall??
Since we're on a supposedly libertarian-leaning blog, worth noting that the Cato Institute agrees, and also that the upwards pressure on prices means that the Fed still won't be able to cut rates: https://investorsobserver.com/news/stock-update/goldman-u-s-companies-absorb-64-of-trump-tariff-costs/
It's still too early to judge (C_XY has said we will not know until then end of 1Q2026 - sounds right to me), but steady inflation at 2.7% is not a good thing relative the Fed's target of 2%. Assuming that's the new steady-state, tariffs might be the reason.
I see you neglected to post the Monthly Treasury Statement for July.
The deficit was $291B compared to $244B for July of 2024, even though tariff revenues rose to $28B (highest so far). Overall revenue dropped from $526B to $338B. I had mentioned that revenue spiked in June without any clear reason why. Perhaps that should inform us not to focus on any single month in isolation.
They just released it yesterday afternoon after the market closed. It's just 9:30 out here on the West Coast and I haven't had my coffee yet.
Here are the highlights, July had a deficit 47 billion higher than July FY24, and the cumulative deficit for the first 10 months of FY25 is 111 billion higher than same period FY24. 307 billion of that increase was the first 4 months of FY25 when the Biden administration was frantically trying to spend as much as they could on their way out the door. During the first 6 months of Trump2, Feb-Jul the deficit is 195 billion lower than it was same period FY24. (307b + -195b = 112b but I am truncating millions not rounding so its close enough)
What frantic spending did Biden engage in?
res ipsa loquitur
FY2023 the deficit was 6.1% of GDP, FY2024 the deficit was 6.4% of GDP even though the economy grew 2.8% so the deficit grew even faster at 8.1% or 138 billion.
But on just 4 months of Fiscal year 2025 he increased the deficit an additional 304 billion over the already bloated FY2024, obviously that isn't sustainable but it would have increased the deficit 50%, almost a trillion, if he could have kept on the full year at that pace.
I think it was intentional, frantically intentional, but if you want to argue incompetence, I won't quibble.
I am not arguing incompetence nor intent. I am arguing it was baked in by the law. The three largest contributors to the 4-month year-over-year the increase were Medicare, Social Security and Veterans benefits (all automatic).
Sorry, your theory is all wet. Fiscal 2025 belongs to Biden except for the changes made by Trump (tariffs, DOGE), which you can't quantify. The deficit did not go down magically starting on Jan 20 because of Trump.
I do think this is a fair claim by Kaz. There was a lot of spending authorized by Congress that the administration had been slow to execute on (e.g., from the Infrastructure and Jobs Act) that the Biden administration tried to speed up before Trump took over. Unlike Trump's decision to just stop spending money on a bunch of stuff, though, what the Biden administration did was actually legal.
Its not something I am claiming, the numbers are saying it in black and white.
And I didn't say anything about it being illegal, irresponsible sure.
Citations that quantify the sped up outlays?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/11/22/biden-pushes-spending-before-white-house-departure/
(And to Kaz, above: I know you're not claiming Biden's spending is illegal. I'm claiming that it is illegal for Trump to just decide he doesn't want to spend money that Congress has appropriated.)
The article says that amounts to $46B max. As Kaz correctly noted, the first 4 months of fiscal 2025 saw outlays over $300B more than the same time period in 2024.
So is your theory that July was just an outlier for some reason?
We won't know until next month, it could be some of the ICE and defense spending in the OBBB.
The June anomaly turned out to be because June 1 was on a weekend so a lot of June spending was moved up to May, which still had a lower deficit than May FY24.
as with the CPI, stop looking at each month. You need to analyze over extended periods. And as explained above, Trump's numbers have to wait until fiscal 2026.
If you actually read what I wrote, I'm not looking at every month in isolation, I'm looking at all the months in the fiscal year compared to the same months the previous FY.
There is 2 months left in the fiscal year, surely you can see the utility of gauging where we are 5/6ths of the way through the year.
After all Social Security COLA is calculated on the same FY calendar as the deficit and the news is full of updates on what the 2026 Social Security is projected to be two months before it will be finalized (5/6s of the way through the year). I count 5 articles within 24 hours of the CPI release when I do a search.
And yes I do know Trump will 100% own the budget come October, but he is in charge now too, and you can tell there has been a change in management.
Sorry, the comparison remains Biden v. Biden (mostly), unless you can quantify otherwise.
Then why didn't Jill do that when she was in the Whitehouse?
"Once again the tariffying Trump-flation failed to materialize."
Grocery inflation slowed, .2 from .3 and gasoline prices dropped. Those are what matter politically.
Look a little closer Bob. Groceries (Food at Home) declined -0.1% in July, you are looking at Food, which is showing restaurant inflation, not groceries.
Even better.
Checked the PPI today (Thursday)?
Baker versus Carr said "one man, one vote" -- that each vote has to have equal weight. Assume for the sake of argument that there is no one under age 18, or that the children are equally distributed.
If Randy Rural lives in a district of 1,000,000 citizens, his vote is one millionth of the potential vote. If Charlie City lives in a district of 1,000,000 PEOPLE, 500,000 of whom are citizens and 500,000 of whom are not and can't vote, his vote is one half millionth of the potential vote -- his vote has TWICE the weight.
That is exactly what Baker v. Carr ruled unconstitutional.
Hence while "persons" may be the standard for determining the entire population of the state and the total number of Congresscritters the state gets, the districts have to be apportioned on the basis of an equal number of persons eligible to vote, regardless of if they are registered or not.
MAGA is fighting on the total number of Congresscritters in each state, but most states are islands of blue in a sea of red -- moving the state's congressional districts into the rural areas would get more Republicans elected.
Someone want to tell me how I am misinterpreting the "one man, one vote" rule of Baker v. Carr?
Great idea Ed, but the constitution is pretty clear you can't do that.
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons"
It looks like deporting illegals is still the only option.
But according to the center for Immigration studies we are making good progress on that:
"Our preliminary estimate is that the number of illegal immigrants declined 1.6 million, from 15.8 million in January of this year to 14.2 million in the July. This reverses the dramatic increase in the illegal immigrant population we have reported from January 2021 to January 2025."
To put that 1.6 million in context that is about 2 2/3 Congressional districts.
"Someone want to tell me how I am misinterpreting the "one man, one vote" rule of Baker v. Carr?"
Yes, I would be glad to.
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), did not involve citizenship or eligibility to vote at all. Neither did it involve apportionment of Congressional districts. The Baker case merely decided that a state legislature's reapportionment determinations could raise a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection issue which is justiciable in federal courts. SCOTUS remanded the matter to the District Court in Nashville for further proceedings.
The phrase "one man, one vote" appears nowhere in Baker v. Carr. The phrase "one person, one vote" first appeared in Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 381 (1963). It was reiterated in Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 18 (1964), which did involve apportionment of House of Representatives districts, and in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 558 (1964).
I know Dr. Ed 2 is a fish. I know he is in a barrel.
Does that mean I shouldn't shoot him?
No.
It may not tell you what to do. It does instruct that shooting in that situation is unsporting, a waste of ammunition, and maybe a hazard to a good barrel.
And how much of the fish would be left to clean?
While your citations are correct, your answer is actually non-responsive, in that the question is whether the Constitution precludes redistricting on the basis of actual eligible voters per district. My view is that it does not. Apportionment is something else.
"[T]he question is whether the Constitution precludes redistricting on the basis of actual eligible voters per district. My view is that it does not."
William of Brooklyn, your view is lacking two important factors: (1) nomination by the President, and (2) confirmation by the Senate. It accordingly means diddly squat.
NG - While I appreciate the wit, I don't think it takes me and four others sitting on the Supreme Court. I think it takes just one State to actually do it. Who would have standing to challenge a one man-one vote scheme where every eligible voter in that State had the same power? What is the concrete and particularized harm? And what in the world would redressability look like?
A person not eligible to register and vote would have standing:
As the Framers of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment comprehended, representatives serve all residents, not just those eligible or registered to vote. . . . Nonvoters have an important stake in many policy debates—children, their parents, even their grandparents, for example, have a stake in a strong public-education system—and in receiving constituent services, such as help navigating public-benefits bureaucracies. By ensuring that each representative is subject to requests and suggestions from the same number of constituents, total-population apportionment promotes equitable and effective representation. See McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257, 272 (1991) ("Serving constituents and supporting legislation that will benefit the district and individuals and groups therein is the everyday business of a legislator.").
Evenwel v. Abbott, 578 U.S. 54, 74 (2016) (footnote omitted).
NG -- That's a creative response, but the responsibility to serve the people in one's district is not at all the same as actually representing them. If it were, there would be no need for the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments, because the much smaller electorate that existed before their passage had all their interests covered. One could make the same argument about majority-minority districts. Indeed, the mere numerical equality of persons within a district is not dispositive of quality of services, or else we would all have standing to sue because the Congress remains at 435 while the population balloons, and districts in places like Wyoming have far fewer people than the average district across the US. So, to return to your hypothetical, if I *were* on the Court, I'd have to toss your suit.
I was responding to your question about who would have standing. If you don't like my response, dig up Justice Ginsburg (who wrote for the Court in Evenwel) and take it up with her.
See Evenwel v. Abbott, 578 U.S. 54 (2016).
And now do voting for senators
before or after the 17th A
Baker versus Carr said "one man, one vote" -
It did not when you said this last week, and — surprisingly — its text has not changed since then.
“ If Randy Rural lives in a district of 1,000,000 citizens, his vote is one millionth of the potential vote. If Charlie City lives in a district of 1,000,000 PEOPLE, 500,000 of whom are citizens and 500,000 of whom are not and can't vote, his vote is one half millionth of the potential vote -- his vote has TWICE the weight”
So if you set up a scenario to give you the result you want, it gives you the result you want? Shocking.
In your world, rural districts are all citizens and urban districts are where all the non-citizens are? Apparently you don’t understand who the vast majority of agriculture workers are.
Harvard has bruited capitulation to the Trump Administration, to the tune of a half-billion dollar extortion payment. That would be a pathetic and astonishingly irresponsible response, by one of the most powerful civil institutions the the world.
What should happen instead? Defiance. Organized defiance, with Harvard leading the way to confederate its interests with those of America's other elite universities, to defeat Trump utterly.
How to do that? Simply recognize a few points which ought to be obvious:
1. Capitulation will not work. Kipling has his uses. Once you have given the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.
2. Trump, and MAGA, are incipient political perils, not quite yet dominant ones. And they will struggle to complete destruction of American constitutionalism on a schedule likely too short to prove successful—especially if they are opposed by determined, organized, widespread resistance from America's most influential civic leaders.
3. America's most influential civic leaders are the collective alumni of America's most prestigious universities, including the Ivy League, and probably about 50 others. With an announced intention to organize to defy Trump/MAGA, those alumni can exert the collective power of civil control of most of America's most influential power centers.
4. Trump/MAGA, with its clown-car style political "leadership," controls very little except the ranker precincts of the internet, a few renegade billionaires, and the hydrocarbon industry.
Against that tawdry assemblage, the alumni Harvard and other universities could call to the nation's defense control at least America's legal institutions; its financial institutions; most of its corporate economic power; and its professional resources, encompassing at least: medicine, accounting, hard science, public health, military leadership, education, environmental science, and a considerable fraction of religious leadership.
5. To succeed, Trump/MAGA must somehow accomplish constitutional overthrow in no more than the 2 years remaining before lame duck inevitability undercuts its already internally fractious antics. The most threatening happenstance available would probably be early disappearance of Trump himself from the political stage, creating an opportunity for MAGA reboot led by Vance. That seems a less imposing threat, not a greater one.
By contrast, the time-frame for civil influence of the collective alumni-led private institutions will prove as enduring as the institutions themselves, unless they foolishly choose to capitulate.
At this moment, Harvard must not waver. Open defiance is the only defensible response.
Lets make a neutrality pact: the federal government won't make Harvard pay anything for past transgressions, and won't provide any further funding to Harvard from this moment forward.
And they should extend the deal to any other university that wants it.
And to put that half billion settlement in context that is about 1% of Harvard's endowments, so I think they will be able to not only get by but flourish in their new found independence.
Kazinski — Why demand that government deprive itself of its best sources of specialized expertise? Government does not give money to universities as gifts; it gives money to pay for research to advance the public welfare. I thought right-wingers liked out-sourcing; here you are opposing it.
Of course I get that what you actually oppose is any role for government to advance the public welfare, however that activity might be organized. Why you oppose that remains mysterious.
Does examining the role of transgender women in Zambia advance the public welfare?
If the government doesn't want that research done it should not fund that research.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.
The point he is making is that research grants are not carte blanche for whatever project appeals to a university administrator.
They are for specific research efforts, described by the applicant and approved by the relevant agency. And the vast majority, including many that don't get funded, are worthwhile.
This notion that the Treasury is just sending hundreds of billions for Harvard to use at it wishes, mostly to support left-wing causes, is idiotic. Those promoting it are engaging in destructive demagoguery.
The fact is that under Trump we are rapidly losing our leadership in scientific research. I actually know people involved, one way or or another, in university research, and the story is uniform. Lost grants, projects defunded, promising students avoiding coming to the US, scientific careers stunted, etc.
It's one of worst, but least publicized, results of having anti-intellectual morons running the government.
I'm perfectly happy to lose our leadership in numerous fields such as transgender studies. But you might consider that US Universities abandoning meritocracy in favor of identity politics was bound to hurt us even if nobody had gotten around to pushing back against it.
You might consider that, if you knew jack shit about the grants solicitation and selection process but were willing to make things up.
But hey the administration is all gung ho to add political minders to solve this problem you made up.
Congrats, the executive is wrecking independent research in the US based on the same vibes you are.
Sarcastr0, you’re nothing if not predictably and stridently wrong here (like on so many other topics). Took just a couple minutes to find examples:
“This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) solicits R01 grant applications that propose independent research projects that are within the scientific mission areas of the participating NIH Institutes or Centers. This program is intended to support New Investigators and At-Risk Investigators from diverse backgrounds, including those from groups underrepresented in the health-related sciences.”
“The overarching goal of this program is to enhance the diversity of New Investigators and At-Risk Investigators conducting research within the mission of the participating NIH Institutes and Centers. Fostering diversity by addressing underrepresentation in the scientific research workforce is a key component of the NIH strategy to identify, develop, support, and maintain the quality of our scientific human capital.”
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-22-181.html
And for conferences: “Conference grant applicants (R13/U13) must include plans to enhance diversity during the selection of organizing committees, speakers, other invited participants, such as session chairs and panel discussants, and attendees. Plans to enhance diversity will be assessed during the scientific and technical merit review of the application. Though the proposed plans will not be scored individually, they will be considered in the overall impact score.
Conference grant awardees will be required to report on the effectiveness of plans to enhance diversity of underrepresented groups in annual Research Performance Progress Reports (RPPR) and the Final-RPPR.“
https://web.archive.org/web/20240926185321/https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-21-053.html
I profoundly disagree with you that retaining 'New Investigators and At-Risk Investigators' isn't a legitimate activity. Talent attraction and retention is a vital part of any broad research enterprise.
But you're also not responsive to Brett's thesis. This one program is not evidence of: "US Universities abandoning meritocracy in favor of identity politics."
I do grants for my work. Maximizing scientific outcomes is hard work. And you finding some random expired grants program you have an issue with doesn't mean grants selections are broadly based on identity over merit.
I have plenty of process improvement ideas for merit review of technical proposals, but Brett's claim is utterly bullshit to anyone who cares to know anything about the US research funding enterprise.
Which Brett does not care to understand; he just wants to be mad about things he's made up.
You just seem an anklebiter who doesn't even understand the thesis you're supporting.
The grants and statements have been revoked due to Trump’s EO and an effort to shift away from identity to merit.
Your pablum aside, the Biden administration attempted to insert identity into grant criteria. As I quoted, the criteria says as much.
And you shouldn’t assume everyone else here knows nothing about grant processes, especially when the NIH tells us differently.
Your selection criteria comes from a specific program: "'New Investigators and At-Risk Investigators" That's a specific program. The critera you found will not be generalizable across all grants programs in the NIH, much less to other agencies.
Nor is it traceable back to the Biden administration - talent retention has been a thing for a long time.
So you're wrong at least twice over already. I don't know that everyone is ignorant of grants processes, but Brett and you have both demonstrated such for you two specifically.
Just stop lying man, it’s getting really old.
You can see the linked policies and language apply much more broadly than one specific grant. Also, goalposts: you claimed it didn’t happen; I showed it did and now your claim is “that’s just one grant.” That’s demonstrably false too.
And, I specifically selected a grant and policies issued during the Biden administration.
Program and grant are not the same thing. A program uses grants, one or many, for a particular purpose. NIH has a lot of programs.
And I never said such things never happened. In fact, I acknowledged it did: ('I profoundly disagree with you that retaining 'New Investigators and At-Risk Investigators' isn't a legitimate activity.')
What do you think the ratio of money spent on transgender studies to the money spent on medical research?
And what do you think it is when you take only federal grants into account?
The right has erected a straw man and is using it to eviscerate American research. Because it believes a lot of idiots.
Looks like at least $145MM in federal money in 2025 for just children’s hospitals and universities (does not include grants targeting adults). And that’s only parsing grants were published in USASpending.gov with the assumption each entry had accurate descriptions. So that should be taken as the absolute minimum amount.
Some examples: - $158,705 grant to the University of Wisconsin funded a study to determine how social media influencers can encourage kids to explore their gender identity without their parents’ knowledge - $439,999 to the University of Nebraska to create an experimental “online mentoring program” in which transgender children could be paired up with a transgender “adult mentor” to discuss, among other things, “self-harm, alcohol and drug-use, [and] sexual risk-taking” - $3.3 million to the Boston Children’s Hospital to commission an “interactive educational digital platform” designed for transgender children to explore
https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2025/02/Transgender-Specific-Funding-Review-2025.xlsx
You didn't bother with a ratio, which is a pretty fundamental part of bernard's question.
Oh, I don’t care much about the ratio. Even $1 misappropriated is way too much given our budget situation. That it’s misappropriated in service of ideological medical malpractice committed against children is even worse.
And >$145MM is still a boatload of taxpayer money.
So you jumped in to defend Brett's thesis but you actually had a very different thesis and didn't want to defend Brett's at all?
There is no point in engaging with your personal ideological policing of grants. Because it's your personal hot take, even if outsourced to some right-wing outrage-farm.
It’s pretty revealing you consider evidence-based medicine (and science) to be “right-wing outrage-farm.”
Yet, you give ideologically driven federal funding for harmful experimentation on children a pass.
You want to take https://www.influencewatch.org as gospel, go ahead; everyone already knows your deal.
None of the 3 studies you listed are anything near "harmful experimentation on children." I also don't trust the write-ups, given the ideological bent of the linked group.
Please point out any issues with the sources and I’ll be happy to find something else.
Otherwise, it’s just you plugging your ears and stomping your feet.
Lazy. You linked to a table that seems to have been a search on USASpending for the word "transgender." This means I can't find the grants as described by you in the 167 entries; your link is not supportive of your narratives. So I went to USASpending and from the amounts and school found your descriptions.
Everything you put is a lie, you lazy asshole.
"The overarching goal of this proposal is to understand the nature of transgender and gender diverse influencer social media content and to obtain specific feedback from transgender and gender diverse youth and their parents regarding this content. This knowledge would improve the ability of health care providers and other professionals who work with youth to provide anticipatory guidance and education to youth and parents regarding social media and gender identity."
"This project aims to complete feasibility and pilot testing of a synchronous, group-delivered eHealth mentoring and skill-building program (i.e., Teen Connection Project) for TGMY ages 14 to 17 that focuses on evidence-based skill-building components (e.g., social-emotional skills) designed to reduce psychosocial and behavioral health problems in this population."
Your source was wrong. Whatever other source you didn't post was full of lies. You posted bad and you should feel bad.
Please stop being dishonest. It only counts grants specific to transgender issues and filters out those not relevant.
An unparsed search for “transgender” turns up, I believe, $1.9B total due to diversity statements.
I understand that the grants are often marked for certain things. But don't pretend that Congress is the one signing off on each. There are many layers of useless bureaucrats who make those decisions, even if they are counter to what Congress or the people would have wanted. That's what Trump is reining it.
Harvard must stand for itself and renounce all federal funding !
Harvard should be bulldozed flat and redeveloped for low income housing.
What, no nuke?
Nah, the 400 year old buildings are historic. It should be seized and used as a headquarters for conservative organizations.
"3America's most influential civic leaders are the collective alumni of America's most prestigious universities, including the Ivy League, and probably about 50 others. With an announced intention to organize to defy Trump/MAGA, those alumni can exert the collective power of civil control of most of America's most influential power centers."
Chicago '68. Or better, the American Revolution.
They may CURRENTLY be the most influential, but they wouldn't remain that for long.
Against that tawdry assemblage, the alumni Harvard and other universities could call to the nation's defense control at least America's legal institutions; its financial institutions; most of its corporate economic power; and its professional resources, encompassing at least: medicine, accounting, hard science, public health, military leadership, education; environmental science, and a considerable fraction of religious leadership
And they would be shown to be the paper tigers they are. Are you familiar with the Suez Crisis?
And you are forgetting what I am sure academia is not -- Fall 2026 is when the demographic bottom falls out.
This has been building for 30 years -- Trump's just surfing the wave, he is not the wave itself.
re: 5...lathrop, just win elections. That is your constitutional overthrow, lol.
HU is being smart: settle. Columbia was first to settle, and got the best deal. The longer this drags out, the worse for HU.
Everybody knows that appeasing a bully is the best strategy!
No eurotrash, any student from an American school had civics, and knows that elections are how we 'constitutionally overthrow' the government. Federal Elections happen every two years (House, part of Senate).
Go win elections. It wasn't that long ago we had a Cauliflower running the US govt. We survived.
Did those people who had civics also learn about civil liberties? And about how those exactly *don't* depend on who won the last election?
And did they learn about how important it is to keep having free and fair elections? And how letting the president crush all dissent isn't exactly a great way to do that?
Virulent antisemitism, both historical AND current, is now "civil rights"? Intriguing take.
Did Trump reclassify docs and then send the FBI to go in Biden or Obama's house to seize them?
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/
Those of us that had civics, which is a dwindling number of US-educated persons since most of those courses were cut to save money, also know about gerrymandering and how it undermines elections. One might say that gerrymanders are how we "overthrow" fair elections.
The Republicans' Project 2025 author had a different idea. He says we're in the midst of a "second American Revolution" which will remain "bloodless if the Left allows it to be." This sounds like one of those Second Amendment solution threats and certainly doesn't sound like elections are what he had in mind.
You do understand, I hope, that Democrats are at least as guilty of gerrymandering as Republicans, right? In fact, they're running into a problem right now with their threats to respond to Texas with gerrymandering in states they control: Most of those states are already gerrymandered to the hilt, so the threat is rather hollow!
I think a few years ago we had a real shot at getting the Supreme court to declare gerrymandering unconstitutional, and we blew it. Democrats were insisting on fake 'metrics' for gerrymandering that were nothing of the sort, and could easily be seen as an effort to immunize their own gerrymandering against being recognized as such.
And, of course, there was the issue of racially gerrymandered 'minority-majority' districts being mandated under the judiciary's reading of the VRA. Hard for the Court to declare that gerrymandering was both legally mandated AND unconstitutional, depending on who benefited.
Now, of course, the same Democrats who claim to find gerrymandering objectionable are worried that the Supreme court will put an end to that court ordered racial gerrymandering.
If you look at currently gerrymandered states, only one of them is majority Democrat. The rest are all Republican.
You do understand (I jest) that California has a law mandating non-partisan drawing of political boundaries? And that the only reason the state is threatening to undo that is to neutralize Texas's eagerness to bend over for Trump and "find him" more "votes."
"If you look at currently gerrymandered states, only one of them is majority Democrat. The rest are all Republican."
That is complete bullshit, and you know it!
Elections should not decode control of universities. The idea that they should is one of the many terrible ideas you promote.
Elections shouldn't decide control of private sector universities. Ultimately, elections have to decide control of everything in the government sector, or what's the point of holding them?
No, dude.
Elections should not decide control of universities, period.
Academic freedom is also freedom.
It's not clear whether the government has the authority it's currently using, but even if it does that doesn't mean it should use it to it's fullest extent.
The worst libertarian.
I think it’s quaint (naive?) that you believe universities have actually exhibited academic freedom even pre-Trump.
When departments are comprised of an almost exclusively left wing to far-left wing faculty and an even farther left-wing administration, academics are far from “free.”
As the recent survey on performative virtue signaling, FIRE investigations, surveys, voting records, and so forth show, academe is seriously constrained. Some of the abuses appear to be right wing, but majority is leftist.
Tons of vibesing here without support.
Left or far-left is not supported.
You assume a causal connection between personal politics and academic freedom that is not supported.
You seem to think this study proves a lack of academic freedom. Beyond the able disputes below, I don't think that's right on what academic freedom means. Academic freedom is at the institutional level; it is not about students' conversations feeling too woke.
Voting for one party or another has no relation to whether you're against academic freedom. Yes, GOP included. People are individuals first, not party-based idealogues first.
FIRE does good work, but they're also pushing an ideology. That's fine; but you need that context; they're an advocacy group not an analysis center.
I visit campuses as part of my work. I talk to students. STEM students. Some social science, more hard science. Mostly grad students but some undergrad. And university life is about like they were in the 2000s when I was there. There has been no big change in campus life ideological or otherwise.
“I visit campuses as part of my work. I talk to students. STEM students. Some social science, more hard science. Mostly grad students but some undergrad. And university life is about like they were in the 2000s when I was there. There has been no big change in campus life ideological or otherwise.”
Sounds pretty vibe-sy, but I get it if you’re immersed in academia you probably lose sight of the big picture. Universities have become a monoculture where, unfortunately, students don’t feel comfortable expressing themselves and go out of the way to avoid controversial topics.
Since Harvard has been in the news, I’ll focus there. Aside from FIRE’s report, you can easily find overall academia surveys that roughly track with Harvard’s situation.
From FIRE’s 2025 College Free Speech rankings (Harvard ranks dead last): * 70% of students say shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus is at least rarely acceptable * 23% of students say using violence to stop someone from speaking on campus is at least rarely acceptable * For every one conservative student, there are roughly four liberal students. * 53% of students say they have self-censored on campus at least once or twice a month. https://rankings.thefire.org/rank/school/harvard-university
“The report concluded that some undergraduates avoid politically fraught conversations, opting instead to socialize and take courses with like-minded peers and instructors. Only 33 percent of graduating College students feel free to express their views on controversial issues, according to a 2024 survey of graduating seniors cited in the report.” https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/2/3/fas-study-student-class-prioritize/
77.1% of Harvard faculty identify as liberal or very liberal. Conversely, only 2.9% of Harvard faculty identify as conservative or very conservative. 20% identifies as moderate. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/5/22/faculty-survey-2023-politics/
I see that George Washington is next on the extortion block. Newspapers said because Jewish students had felt uncomfortable during Gaza war protests. Welcome to the world of black and gay students
Those stupid Jews. They have never faced hardship, right?
hobie --- supports SOME civil rights.
It's easy to say others should be "defiant". (Defiant in what exactly? The right to discriminate against Jews?)
It's not your head on the fiscal chopping block.
LOL! You're looking for heroes among administrative types? Especially elite institution administrative types? "All they have to do is...". Fold. That's all they were ever going to do. And that's all they'll ever do. They didn't get there because of their bold leadership and vision. They got there because they are specifically not boat-rockers. The system guarantees mediocrity and mediocrity is what they get. Well-educated, well-credentialed, well-certified mediocrity. "The spice must flow". They're just smart enough to realize that.
Quite so. All of that.
It controls a little thing called the executive branch of the federal government. Also the legislative. And much of the judiciary.
Of course. But my comment was about civil society, and the agency available among civic leaders to force government to become responsive to it, or at least to thwart deliberately non-responsive government activity.
How do you square that with majority support for Roe-style abortion limits in states where the legislature votes in much stricter limits or all-out bans? Government is being responsive to someone, but it isn't their constituents any longer in many of the red states.
the agency available among civic leaders to force government to become responsive to it,
None whatsoever.
None while civil society remains unorganized. Organized and properly led, a force with potential to thwart MAGA authoritarianism.
Mark Halperin points out how Right Wing media competes unfairly with progressive media, and he is absolutely right:
“The right makes a fortune off of liberal media. They make a fortune off of it by mocking it and using it as content. And they make a fortune off of it because the left has opened the door to market share going to the right that they're not even competing for.”
Its morally repugnant, its like making fun of a retarded kid for profit, well and a lot of entertainment.
https://x.com/NextUpHalperin/status/1955419026005393901?t=Oy-zPNW5dMLxN8iYgSf2yg&s=19
Yep, don't make fun of the retarded, just speak truth to them and all others less able to reason clearly.
We really don't make fun of THEM, only their ideas.
For example, Trump could have truly humiliated Biden during the debate, instead he said "I can't understand what you are saying, and don't think you can either."
and don't think you can either.
great grammar
The same Trump who regularly spouts gibberish?
The only thing that made Biden harder to understand was his weak voice. But he was still far more coherent than Trump.
Explains Trump doing constant press conferences for hours at a time while Biden had to have all questions written out in advance.
Biden was scripted and STILL sounded like a moron.
Good point! And, he had picture books made up of the reporters who would ask him the pre-submitted questions.
Because people expected Biden to make sense and freaked out when he didn't.
No one has expected Trump to be coherent since 2016 which is why it doesn't even make the news when he starts spouting gibberish.
Anyone can speak for hours and still spout gibberish, as Trump has shown.
We really don't make fun of THEM, only their ideas.Um,
Um, "them" is a third-party pronoun. He said the retarded; you should've used a first-party pronoun.
Has Kazinski ever heard of "fair use"?
And abortion wasn't used to get Lefties elected in 2022? There are now more abortions than before Dobbs -- what kind of ban are people talking about?
See "The Sydney Sweeney Saga Shows Why Republicans Keep Winning" by Rob Flaherty in Politico.
You might be wondering why anybody cares about this. But here’s the thing: The fact that this moment became a thing at all — that a stupid pun could metastasize into a full-blown political moment — says something real about the media ecosystem we’re all trapped in. And it says even more about why Democrats keep losing the culture war, and with it, the narrative war that inevitably shapes who wins elections.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/08/08/sydney-sweeney-republicans-win-media-ecosystem-00497761
Why is Politico repeating discredited RW talking points:
"that a stupid pun could metastasize into a full-blown political moment "
Sarcastro said it never happened.
It didn't. Three idiots on the internet said something stupid, and the right-wing media got two weeks (and counting) of non-Epstein news out of it. It's great business, if you can get it, but it has nothing to do with the "progressive media".
I am glad you corrected that, somehow I thought Politico, owned by a German company was part of the progressive media.
They must have gotten a right winger to write the piece for them, but he seems to be hiding it well:
"Rob Flaherty is the co-founder of Channel Zero Ventures. Previously, he served as a deputy campaign manager on Kamala Harris’ 2024 presidential campaign and served as assistant to the president and director of digital strategy in the Biden White House."
The Politico opinion piece, which you imply that you have read, is not about the Sydney Sweeney "controversy" itself. Try again?
Politico is owned by famous German right-wing publishing company Axel Springer, which is run by this swell guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_D%C3%B6pfner
But yes, they let all sorts of people write opinion pieces.
The NYT is one of those three idiots?
You can try and gaslight, but it works better if you allow SOME time to lapse before trying.
Link to the NYT piece you're referring to? The two I've managed to find is (1) a story about how three idiots said something and then the right wing made a big deal about it, and (2) an opinion piece that says the three idiots are wrong.
Kaz with the intentional misreading of the article, which makes the case that this was a fringe view on the left that right wing media managed to turn into a thing:
The actress Sydney Sweeney was the face of a new ad for American Eagle where they say she has “good jeans.” This is obviously a play on “good genes,” which to most people was a reference to how she is good looking, and to a small cadre of extremely online lefty posters and SEO-chasing online media outlets was a reference to Nazism and eugenics. The right made a whole thing about it, accusing Democrats of being out-of-touch scolds, and somehow Democrats have found themselves on the defensive.
For the right, the media-to-politics pipeline is pretty clear. In this instance, it started with a few random right-wing social media posters spotting the conversation about the American Eagle ad happening among a few hyper-online lefty TikTokers and started talking about it themselves. Seeing that it was getting traction, right-wing media figures like Megyn Kelly started talking about it, too. Right-wing media talking about it made it spread to non-political creators and more mainstream media like the Washington Post and New York Magazine. Right-wing politicians — including President Donald Trump — saw it was breaking through, and jumped on it themselves in a bid to criticize Democrats. A circle of gripes, with Republicans seeming to score easy points against Democrats even though no elected Democrat had gone anywhere near embracing this in the first place, and wouldn’t (and shouldn’t).
So, in fact, the article makes exactly the same point as Sarcastr0 and Kaz chooses to try to twist an out-of-context sentence to say the opposite. This turns out to be the best summary of the right-wing media at this point: try to score political points regardless of whether or not there's any truth behind the claim.
He had a funny way to make that point, here is the WaPo article he cited criticizing the ad
https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/2025/07/28/sydney-sweeney-american-eagle-ad/
And NY Magazine
https://www.vulture.com/article/sydney-sweeney-jeans-controversy-explained.html
And least you think they are talking about how the RW is trying to manufacture a controversy, here is the first paragraph:
"On paper, Sydney Sweeney is an ideal spokesperson for American Eagle — what’s more classic than an all-American blonde who looks like she plays volleyball modeling for one of the foremost preppy-young-adult clothing stores? With Abercrombie pivoting to become a brand of which your friend is like, “You know who actually makes normal clothes now is Abercrombie,” and Euphoria only just kicking off its third season, a girl’s gotta work. Unfortunately, Sweeney’s new denim-centric ad campaign sparked a wave of controversy with people threatening to boycott American Eagle, Sweeney, or both. “Eugenics messaging in mainstream advertising in 2025 is insane,” wrote one user on Sweeney’s Instagram. On August 1, American Eagle issued a statement but did not apologize for the campaign. Over the weekend, Trump got himself involved, because of course he did. Below, how a throwback campaign and the current political moment became a match made in hell."
They go on: "Viewers are interpreting Sweeney’s ad as promoting a white-supremacist or even Nazi message that the most desirable traits for a brand so iconically American are blue eyes and blonde hair. During a time when DEI is under attack and there are mass deportations occurring daily, an ad campaign centered on how awesome it is to be white and blonde-haired and blue-eyed reads as rather tone-deaf."
That's talking about the ad, not the RW manufacturing a controversy.
Sweet fucking Jesus we're still on the 'I insist libs were super mad about the jeans add' shit?
No, they weren't. Even if one user on Sweeney’s Instagram was legit mad.
Good lord this is some weird desperate shit. Like MAGA is worried they're coming off as the crazy ones and is straining as hard as they can to gin something up.
Stop trying to make this happen, Kaz.
I didn't make anything happen, I was just a bystander.
And it's over, we are just waiting for the next liberal media train wreck to make fun of.
Well now I have to admit I was wrong, its not over yet. There are dozens of new articles just in the last 24 hours.
Axios came out with a poll on the subject.
"There’s a stark partisan divide in how young people are reacting to American Eagle’s viral jeans ad featuring actress Sydney Sweeney."
Forbes has an article: Why American Eagle Should Reconsider Its Sydney Sweeney Campaign https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardkestenbaum/2025/08/13/american-eagle-needs-to-end-its-sydney-sweeney-campaign/
https://www.axios.com/2025/08/13/american-eagle-sydney-sweeney-men-women-democrats-republicans
People magazine notes Sydney is back up on Instagram!!!!
Sheesh, are you just hoping literally no one actually clicks on your links? From the Vulture piece:
So is this some kind of racist dog whistle?
Probably not — the notion of “good genes” as a compliment given to hot people goes way, way back, and American Eagle is probably not the first denim manufacturer to make note of the fact that “jeans” and “genes” can maybe be used interchangeably. If anything, this ad campaign seems to be directly referencing a Brooke Shields Calvin Klein campaign from the 1980s, all the way down to how Sweeney and Shields put their jeans on lying down. “Genes are fundamental in determining the characteristics of an individual,” Shields explains in a line that feels almost exactly like the starting point for the Sweeney ad. That doesn’t mean the American Eagle campaign doesn’t come off as tasteless during an otherwise fraught time. But this feels far more like an untimely coincidence or dated reference than a political statement.
...and by doing so, Kaz mimics the timeline of the Sweeney story himself.
That is indeed the relevant question here.
In contrast, the RW Dylan Mulvaney freakout was real.
"freakout was real"
Yes, ask Anheuser-Busch InBev.
Yes, that was my point. Unlike the imaginary backlash against American Eagle, the anti-Budweiser backlash existed and was huge.
Don't confuse the Left's inability to make a cogent argument with not trying to do one.
The Right is winning. Try and do better. Non-stop bubbles are not a great idea.
Just watched the ShoeOnHead podcast about how some libs are saying Sydney Sweeney is a NAZI because of her blonde hair and blue eyes and is also a clandestine SS member due to the initials of her first and last name.
" some libs "
How many, exactly, and who are they?
"Morning Schmoe"'s funnier than any current sit com
So far over the top that it is hilarious: https://twitter.com/i/status/1955000014893355389
Now firing a gun in a small confined space like that would blow out at least one window, and what people don't mention is that the dog she shot was eating a neighbor's chickens, so she kinda had to shoot it, but still...
The guy who shot up the CDC broke 150 "blast resistant" windows.
Well, that IS kind of the difference between "resistant" and "proof", isn't it?
Rubber bullets and such used to be called "non-lethal." After Boston police killed a girl with a pepper ball people switched to "less lethal."
When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
They are -- they didn't shatter. Look at the pictures taken from the inside and you can see that they are laminate like your car windshield -- a layer of stretchy plastic inside the two panes of glass.
And it worked EXACTLY as intended -- it kept the larger window intact. It stretched, but it wasn't going to stop a bullet, and you can see some of it stretched out the hole.
They were worried about carbombs. It likely would have worked.
“what people don't mention is that the dog she shot was eating a neighbor's chickens”
why do people always leave out the goat?
“I hated that dog… [it was] untrainable”
That sounds like a Kristi problem, not a Cricket problem.
Maybe if the dog was eating the neighbor's children, sure. If it was eating chickens it was time to rehome it where it could live a happy, chicken-free life with someone prepared for the responsibility of owning a dog. Noam and her family clearly weren't good at training and caring for their pet, which is plainly easy for anyone to see given that their solution to the problem was a bullet.
That's life on the farm. You guys say you want diversity. This is what diversity looks like.
You get the heroes you deserve
And yet you’d be fine if she killed her unborn baby
The Washington Post reports that a Texas woman is suing a major supplier of abortion pills by mail and a former sexual partner, who she alleges terminated her pregnancy by lacing her drink with medication he obtained from the group. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/08/12/texas-woman-abortion-pill-lawsuit/
I haven't yet read the complaint. The culpability of the sex partner is not difficult to see, but I am puzzled as to what is the theory of liability as to the manufacturer of the medications. There is no privity of contract. As to any tort liability, there is a major problem of foreseeability. The drug(s) worked in the intended manner, so I don't see any viable products liability theory.
The Washington Post article references the Comstock Act, but I am unable to see how 18 U.S.C. § 1461 -- a federal criminal statute -- gives rise to any private right of action.
The engineer of this train is Jonathan Mitchell, the former Solicitor General of the State of Texas.* The Apostle Peter cautioned Christians in the first century, "But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters." (I Peter 4:15 KJV.) If I were pleading at the bar of eternal justice, I would not want the busybody Mr. Mitchell as a client. _______________________ As General Philip Sheridan memorably said, "If I owned Texas and Hell, I would rent Texas and live in Hell."
It is a combination of two things -- first the obligation to medically screen the woman before giving her the pill, and the related fact that a MAN buying it clearly wasn't taking it himself. NO MD, NP, or Pharmicist screened him -- the purported patient.
Uh, Aid Access did not give the woman the pill. (And as noted above, I don't dispute the man's potential tort liability.)
What is your theory of tort liability on the part of Aid Access, Dr. Ed 2?
Who did Aid Access prescribe the pill to?
Did they prescribe it to the Texas woman, without even a consultation with her?
Did they prescribe it to the defendant? Why would they prescribe mifepristone to a male? Prescribing mifepristone to a male doesn't have a good medical reason. It's like writing opioid prescriptions to anyone who wants one, regardless of medical need.
Nothing in the complaint indicates that the foreign defendants knew what "Chris Cooprider" intended to do with the pills. The complaint alleges that it wasn't even until weeks later that Cooprider decided to administer the drugs to Davis without her knowledge. Presumably, up to that point, his intention had been to convince her to take them voluntarily.
The actual prescription was issued to "Chris Cooprider", which could have been the name of a pregnant woman (at least to the knowledge of the foreign defendants, depending on what they were told by Cooprider when he ordered the drugs).
"The actual prescription was issued to "Chris Cooprider", which could have been the name of a pregnant woman (at least to the knowledge of the foreign defendants, depending on what they were told by Cooprider when he ordered the drugs)."
You see nothing wrong with prescribing medicine based on a possibly unisex name? Seems reckless.
The prescriber hasn't been sued here.
So? It was an Aid Access agent or employee.
Possibly the prescriber is like an Uber driver, proclaimed by the company to be an independent contractor even though she smells like an employee.
So far the doctor is known by initials only. Discovery might reveal the identity of the prescribing doctor and the legal relationship between doctor and Aid Access.
"So? It was an Aid Access agent or employee."
What is your factual basis for that assertion?
Still waiting, Bob.
Just admit you got your information from Otto Yourazz.
From the story and website information, it appears that Aid Access is acting as the prescribing organization, and has prescribers (doctors or others with the ability to prescribe medication) on staff or contract.
Much like a hospital. Both the hospital (the prescribing organization) and the doctors at the hospital, both can be sued.
As a libertarian, my views about prescription drugs are probably different than the views of a jack-boot conservative, Bob, but your question is still irrelevant.
The website (and all other websites I checked) asks about the purchaser's sex during the ordering process. Cooprider may have chosen to lie, of course. I would argue that the likelihood of someone obtaining "M&Ms" under false pretenses in order to harm another person (and their "unborn child") is very remote.
Indeed, even the complaint in this case claims that Cooprider did not purchase the drugs with the intent of slipping them to Davis surreptitiously--the complaint alleges that he made that decision only after trying (unsuccessfully) to persuade Davis to take them for several weeks.
Reckless?
Maybe he identified as a pregnant female?
That terrific quote from Sheridan needs exact presentation for best effect: "I would rent out Texas and live in Hell."
"but I am puzzled as to what is the theory of liability as to the manufacturer of the medications."
Just think in terms of lawsuits against gun manufacturers, and all will be clear.
Has any of those lawsuits been successful?
Brett, as the Sesame Street jingle goes, one of these things is not like the other.
It is entirely foreseeable to gun manufacturers and distributors that some purchasers of firearms -- indeed, a significant number -- will use them to inflict grievous injury on other persons. It was by no means foreseeable to this seller that this purchaser of an abortion inducing drug would use it in the manner that he did.
The fallacy of equivocation. You switched in mid argument from gun manufacturers having a general knowledge that SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE is going to misuse a gun, to demanding that the seller know THIS purchaser WOULD misuse it.
In fact, gun sellers ARE liable if they have particularized reason to believe a given purchaser is buying the gun for illegal purposes. They just have no general liability due to knowing that some non-zero percentage of their customers will.
Now, there ARE some material differences.
1. Gun ownership, and thus a market in guns, is constitutionally protected. Contraceptives, not so much. 2. The seller, if not the manufacturer, DID have particularized knowledge of impending wrongful use, though not specifically WHAT the wrongful use would be, because their mailing the product into Texas was itself a crime. And once you're committing a crime to begin with, standards of liability change.
That last is pretty darned important. Aid Access is a criminal conspiracy, their PURPOSE is to violate laws like that of Texas. That means, pretty much, they're operating in a strict liability regime, like a bank robber who's guilty of murder if anybody dies during the robbery, even if they didn't intend them to die, or personally do the deed.
Indeed. The key area are the prescription laws around mifepristone. There needs to be a prescription for it. The question is, who did they write the prescription to, and what due dilligence was done?
If a 10-year old buys a gun online, the gun seller doesn't check the age, ships the gun to them, and the 10-year old uses it to kill another person...you bet the gun seller will have a lawsuit against them.
Likewise, if a doctor prescribes a medicine to someone who has no medical need for it...ie, chemotherapy drugs to a healthy individual or abortion meds to a male...and they go on to use those drugs to deliberately hurt someone else. Then a lawsuit is likely.
You could argue that the seller couldn't know that the purchaser wasn't just a women with a masculine sounding name, but that just underscores the lack of due diligence that's supposed to accompany prescribing a drug.
I wish there was some consistency here, one way or the other. There are several prescription only drugs that I'd really like to get my hands on to replicate some really promising anti-aging protocols I've been reading about, but since they don't induce abortions, I'm out of luck.
"You could argue that the seller couldn't know that the purchaser wasn't just a women with a masculine sounding name, but that just underscores the lack of due diligence that's supposed to accompany prescribing a drug."
Then it's negligence. Full stop. Prescribing a medicine requires a medical need. If the prescriber didn't even verify the patient's sex before prescribing a drug (meant for abortions), it's a stunning lack of diligence, and opens up the doctor to lawsuits.
I don't know what it said at the relevant time, but the online form currently requires the purchaser's sex to be declared.
Stunning?
It's already a Felony to sell a gun to a minor, of course Murder's a Felony too and hasn't seemed to affect the Murder rate.
Now, you don't know that; Hasn't driven it down to zero, of course, but we have no idea what it would be if murder were legal. Presumably at least somewhat higher, for a while anyway.
Brett, you are the one who brought up the analogy of lawsuits against gun manufacturers. When it comes to foreseeability -- which is critical in the tort context -- it is a hell of a lot more likely that a purchaser will employ a tool that is designed to be used as a deadly weapon to inflict grievous injury than it is that mifepristone or misoprostol will be used to induce an abortion against a pregnant female's will.
And where do you get the idea that contraceptives are not constitutionally protected? Surely not from Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), or Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972). Like it or not, these constitutional law decisions remain in full force and effect.
When you're selling a drug whose purpose is the commission of a crime, (Sold in Texas in order to facilitate illegal abortions.) you can be pretty sure you're facilitating a crime, though you might be surprised as in this case, by a different crime being committed.
When it comes to guns, statistically the most common uses of a gun are, collecting dust, punching holes in paper, and killing game animals. Causing grievous injury to humans is way, way down the list.
Hell, the ones SOLD by gun manufacturers are seldom used in crimes. STOLEN guns, however, are used in said crimes. You can no more hold a gun company liable for the actions of a criminal who stole their product than one could sue a car company if somebody stole one of their cars and ran over a dozen people.
The New York Court of Appeals has been asked to decide whether Hyundai owes a duty to municipalities to make cars difficult to steal. Allegedly low end Hyundai models could be stolen the old-fashioned way without requiring modern electronic tools. The cities want compensation for "significant resources responding to veicle theft, related crimes, and accidents."
City of Buffalo v. Hyundai case 24-2350 (9th Cir. 2025)
Litigation with private plaintiffs has already been settled.
In my opinion the cities' claim is preempted by federal law. There is a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard on theft prevention.
"...will use them to inflict grievous injury on other persons. It was by no means foreseeable to this seller that this purchaser of an abortion inducing drug would use it in the manner that he did." Tell that to the fetus.
The claim is wrongful death, governed by statute in Texas, which requires a “wrongful act, neglect, carelessness, unskillfulness, or default.” The Comstock Act of 1873, among other things, makes it a felony to mail an item designed to induce abortion. I'm not a tort lawyer, but it seems to me, that felony would constitute a "wrongful act". It also violates Texas law to mail abortion drugs. The pills were actually prescribed to the man in this case, which, at the very least, seems grossly negligent. Is there even any communication with a medical professional necessary to obtain these drugs, or is it, as I suspect, about as difficult as ordering something from Amazon?
Men can get boner pills by filling out a form online without even a video chat with a doctor. Possibly not available in all states, depending on telemedicine laws. Enough states to support a thriving industry.
Well, the truth is that they're pretty darned safe, and may even have positive side effects, so aside from Puritanism, you'd logically expect them to be regulated about as heavily as OTC pain relievers.
"Abortion pills", OTOH, are rather medically fraught, take them at the wrong point in a pregnancy and you've got a date with the emergency room. Anti-Puritanism aside, you'd expect them to be pretty heavily regulated.
OK, yes I’m “old” (when JFK was my age he’d been dead 17 years) but still regularly wake up with “Morning Wood”. I think it’s my 30 pack years of Marlboros (much better now!)
Isn’t the guy sneaking the pill unwanted into her drink a break in the chain of causation?
Logically, yes, legally, maybe not.
If you and your pal break into my house, and your pal dies due to me defending my house, guess who gets charged with murder? You, not me.
Logically, the causation chain ends with me. Legally, the fact that you were committing a crime at the time changes that.
Aid Access is deliberately helping people circumvent the laws of many states in procuring illegal abortions. I think that may just leave them liable if the pills they ship get used for a different illegal purpose.
I think you’re talking about the felony murder law where the men’s rea is assumed if a felony was being committed and the death happened during or because of the felony being committed, the felony here is the mailing of the pill, does that apply here?
Yes, that was my thought: That they're deliberately breaking the law, and so end up with strict liability for any deaths that occur as a result.
Does that apply here? It’s tort not criminal and the reasonably foreseeable question applies even in felony murder.
The Comstock act is criminal. And under Texas law, this WAS felony murder on the part of the guy.
I'd say it's not a slam dunk, but the Aid Access should be sweating blood at this point.
It was probably just murder on the part of the guy.
I’m not sure you’re understanding my question about Aid Access. It’s about proximate cause, even in a felony murder type situation (this is not criminal from what I’ve read) that has to be established.
Does violation of federal criminal law give rise to liability under Texas tort law?
"The claim is wrongful death, governed by statute in Texas, which requires a “wrongful act, neglect, carelessness, unskillfulness, or default.” The Comstock Act of 1873, among other things, makes it a felony to mail an item designed to induce abortion. I'm not a tort lawyer, but it seems to me, that felony would constitute a 'wrongful act'. It also violates Texas law to mail abortion drugs."
That characterization sounds a lot like a negligence per se claim. “Negligence per se is a common-law doctrine that allows courts to rely on a penal statute to define a reasonably prudent person’s standard of care.” Reeder v. Daniel, 61 S.W.3d 359, 361-62 (Tex. 2001). In other words, negligence per se is generally “a species of negligence, in which the breach of duty element is established by showing the violation of a statute or regulation.” City of Houston v. Manning, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. 2025), Texas Supreme Court No. 24-0428 https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=1dae478b-00df-4150-a78e-c5dbd113bb42&coa=cossup&DT=OPINION&MediaID=8e8c96a1-9d68-408b-bba8-533ff70088cc
A negligence per se theory does not abrogate the plaintiff's burden to prove a breach of duty owed by a particular defendant to a particular plaintiff, nor does it relieve the plaintiff of proving proximate cause. As the Supreme Court of Texas has recently opined:
A negligent actor incurs liability only for damages proximately caused by his negligence. Proximate cause is not established merely by proof that the injury would not have happened if not for the defendant’s negligence. Instead, proximate cause requires, among other things, proof that the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the injury.The substantial-factor requirement incorporates “the idea of responsibility” into the question of causation. Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Perez, 819 S.W.2d 470, 472 (Tex. 1991) (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 431 cmt. a (AM. L. INST. 1965)). Thus, even if the defendant’s negligence is part of the causal chain of events that led to the injury, the defendant is not liable if his involvement was a mere “happenstance of place and time.” Id. Instead, the substantial-factor requirement means that liability falls only on a party whose substantial role in bringing about the injury is such that he is “actually responsible for the ultimate harm.” Transcon. Ins. Co. v. Crump, 330 S.W.3d 211, 224 (Tex. 2010). Liability does not fall on other participants in the causal chain whose actions merely “created the condition which made the injury possible.” IHS Cedars Treatment Ctr. of DeSoto, Tex., Inc. v. Mason, 143 S.W.3d 794, 803 (Tex. 2004).
Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Blake, ___ S.W.3d ___, (Tex. 2025), Texas Supreme Court No. 23-0493 http://docs.texasappellate.com/scotx/op/23-0493/2025-06-27.blacklock.pdf
In the case of the impregnator Mr. Cooprider, proximate causation is clear. In the case of Aid Access, Mr. Cooprider's surreptitiously slipping the abortion drugs into the plaintiff's hot chocolate was a completely unforeseeable, intervening cause of the plaintiff's injuries. As a matter of common experience, a purchaser of abortion inducing medication is a consumer who desires to abort her embryo or fetus.
Moreover, the complaint does not unequivocally aver that Aid Access violated the Comstock Act by using the mail to deliver the drugs to Mr. Cooprider. Paragraph 79 of the complaint states: "Defendants Cooprider, Aid Access, and Rebecca Gomperts violated these federal criminal laws by using the mails, an express company, a common carrier, or an interactive computer service to mail, carry or deliver abortion-inducing drugs."
It may be difficult to prove that Aid Access (which according to the complaint is based in Austria) and/or its employee Rebecca Gomperts (a citizen of the Netherlands) "knowingly" used the United States mails to deliver the medication. Absent that culpable mental state, there was no Comstock Act violation. The recipient of the meds, Mr. Cooprider, is alleged to be a domiciliary and citizen of Arizona. Abortion prior to fetal viability is protected by the Arizona State Constitution.
I do not hazard a guess as to whether the claim will succeed or not, though I imagine there is no shortage of relevant caselaw. However, John Mitchell has a "superlawyer" reputation as a litigator in Texas. You mentioned the Comstock Act in your OP. And as for the status of abortion in Arizona, I can't imagine that has any relevance, as the plaintiff lives in Texas, and the pills were mailed to Cooprider in Texas, where he was stationed.
There is a shortage of relevant case law. Decades ago you couldn't go online and order abortion pills (almost) no questions asked. When the abortion pills were first approved a woman had to see a doctor in person. When the FDA relaxed rules the pills were still legal in Texas and could be obtained through conventional channels.
F.D. Wolf, how do you claim to know that the pills were mailed? Even the tort complaint equivocates on that point.
I suspect that Jonathan Mitchell is more familiar with the facts than you, and he hedged his averments on that point.
The Comstock Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1461, does not by its express terms operate extraterritorily, and even if it did, Access Aid and/of Rebecca Gomperts did not violate the Comstock Act unless they acted knowingly. How are they chargeable with knowledge of whether someone downstream would use the U. S. Mail or not?
"The Court has personal jurisdiction over Aid Access and Rebecca Gomperts because they purposefully and knowingly mailed abortion-inducing drugs into Texas in violation of state and federal law" seems pretty darned unequivocal to me.
Do you really think they would have personally carried a packet of pills into Texas? Used a teleporter, perhaps?
Life of Brian, where did you get the notion that I was talking about personal jurisdiction?
I'm talking about the difficulty of proving a culpable mental state under the Comstock Act.
Paragraph 79 of the complaint states: "Defendants Cooprider, Aid Access, and Rebecca Gomperts violated these federal criminal laws by using the mails, an express company, a common carrier, or an interactive computer service to mail, carry or deliver abortion-inducing drugs."
At the pleading stage, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) states "Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind may be alleged generally." If the case gets past discovery defendants can move for summary judgment on whether there is sufficient evidence of a Comstock Act violation. Aid Access defendants do not want discovery. Discovery may reveal the secret network of doctors who thought themselves protected by abortion shield laws.
I think discovery would be a disaster for Aid Access, and something they work to avoid at all costs.
One of the major issues is that they do not appear to have been doing the bare minimum in terms of their ethical obligations in regards to prescribing medicines. Most notably the prescriber agreement form. Among other options, below.
https://www.earlyoptionpill.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Prescriber-Agreement-Form-March2016-2.pdf
It requires the prescriber have the "Ability to assess the duration of pregnancy accurately." Given the information provided, and the fact that people who are not pregnant (or completely lack the ability to get pregnant) are easily able to obtain prescriptions for the medication...it appears they are in utter violation of this requirement.
Thus, individuals like the person in question...a man who sought to acquire mifepristone in order to dose his girlfriend...being able easily access the medication. Other stories have been mothers who get the medication, to force their teenage daughters to take it. The worst case scenario is that sex traffickers have been using Aid Access to acquire mifepristone to give to their underage sex workers who get pregnant.
This goes beyond the shield laws, because this type of utter avoidance of medical ethical responsibility is also against the laws of many states with the shield laws. Indeed, the prosecutors may go after the manufacturers and pharmacies next...pointing out this evidence that mifepristone is being diverted for ethically illegal actions, and demand they stop providing it...or else face lawsuits themselves.
The complaint alleges that Cooprider obtained the M&Ms in order to persuade her to take them, not to "dose her".
Sure, the law could prohibit third parties from obtaining such drugs for someone else's use, but the risk of misuse is arguably minuscule.
(Interesting that you've found a use for all those stale gun control arguments, though.)
Rule 9(b) doesn't save this complaint in regard to the Comstock Act. Use of the mail -- as well as having done so knowingly -- are essential factual elements which must be pleaded and proven. Legal conclusions as to personal jurisdiction are inadequate, even when dressed up as factual assertions.
It is implausible that Aid Access used the U.S. Mail in Austria or that Rebecca Gomperts used the U.S. Mail in the Netherlands.
Moreover, the complaint lacks plausible factual averments that either of these defendants knew that the defendant Christopher Cooprider would put these medications to unlawful use.
The website's current language:
"Your pills will be shipped to you. A U.S. licensed pharmacy will mail you the pills."
(I should also point out that foreign national postal services routinely, if not invariably, utilize the services of destination-country national postal services to deliver international mail. Should the foreign defendant have known that? Is it relevant?)
Yes, in utterly conventional practice they repeated the statutory language contained in the cause of action, which breaks out different methods of the mailing they unequivocally pled was the basis for PJ. No need for the feigned confusion.
That doesn't fly in federal court, LoB. A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.” Ibid., quoting Twombly at 557. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id., at 678. A court is "not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Ibid.
The allegations regarding personal jurisdiction here are merely conclusory. The complaint here is bereft of well pleaded facts imputing guilty knowledge under the Comstock Act to the Defendants Aid Access and/or Gomperts.
LOL for 1) grinding out a full paragraph on Twombly/Iqbal like it's some revolutionary notion, and 2) thinking this complaint doesn't satisfy it.
The precise method of mailing likely isn't and of course needn't be known right now, but will come out in discovery soon enough.
I'd politely suggest you don't stay up too late waiting for a dismissal order based on your latest silly idea.
Use of the U.S. Mail is an essential element of the Comstock Act -- which doesn't create a private right of action to begin with. Shipment by a courier such as FedEx or UPS is simply not criminalized there.
My discussion of Twombly and Iqbal was directed at showing that a conclusory, boilerplate allegation in reference to personal jurisdiction that the Defendants "knowingly mailed abortion-inducing drugs into Texas" is inadequate -- a legal conclusion dressed up as a factual allegation which a court is not obliged to regard as true -- especially in context with the equivocal allegations of ¶79. The U.S. Mail doesn't service Austria or the Netherlands.
No well pleaded facts impute guilty knowledge as to use of the mail under the Comstock Act to the Defendants Aid Access and/or Gomperts. Legal conclusions don't feed the bulldog.
Here is the case: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71078991/davis-v-cooprider/
Thank you for the link.
The case I found did not seek to impose liability on the manufacturer, only on the distributor. The complaint begins:
Christopher Cooprider murdered Liana Davis’s unborn child by secretly dissolving abortion pills into a hot beverage that he had prepared and tricking Davis into drinking it. Cooprider obtained these drugs from Aid Access, a criminal organization that illegally ships abortion pills into Texas and other jurisdictions where abortion has been outlawed. Ms. Davis sues to recover damages from Cooprider and Aid Access for the wrongful death of her unborn child. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 71.001 et seq.
I don't think the manufacturer would be liable under Texas law. Texas recognizes the "learned intermediary" (aka "sophisticated intermediary") defense to manufacturer liability in the context of drugs. A manufacturer's duty to warn can be satisfied by reselling through intermediaries who will provide appropriate warnings. Doctors and pharmacies are supposed to tell patients that taking an abortion pill may cause miscarraige.
Causing a miscarriage is actually the point of them, isn't it? There's very little "may" about it.
Miscarriage is not inevitable. Some doctors sued the FDA because they didn't want to be at risk of treating women who took an abortion pill and didn't lose the baby.
Abortions have similar issues. Babies do survive them on occasion.
Something INTENDING to do something and failing does not remove the intention.
If I were pleading at the bar of eternal justice, I would not want the busybody Mr. Mitchell as a client.
I would not want to be on the other side arguing against Jonathan Mitchell, NG. He has a formidable record, and is an accomplished litigator.
Generally, liability can attach for the foreseeable misuse of a product by a third party. Although as pointed out above there may be over sources of liability in Texas. And one can’t get a more unsympathetic defendant than a vile seller of abortion products. I wish the plaintiff great success.
Is it foreseeable that a guy would slip this into his other’s drink?
I think they make a good case that Texas and federal law was violated in the sale and shipping of the abortion pills into Texas. Sounds like whether the plaintiff was a foreseeable victim is a matter for the jury in this case. And I think Texas, or the feds, should explore criminal liability for the repugnant seller.
Riva, "foreseeable" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
It is foreseeable to a seller of abortion medication that a woman who desires to abort her embryo or fetus will ingest the medicine. It is not foreseeable that a purchaser of the medication will surreptitiously slip it into a pregnant woman's hot chocolate.
Tell me NG.
Who did AID access issue the prescription for mifepristone to?
You’re going to say that because it was the guy that it was foreseeable he was going to sneak it into her drink?
No, I'm going to say there was no valid medical reason to prescribe mifepristone to a male. Such gross negligence in prescribing medicines opens up the organization who provided them to lawsuits. Like when opioids are erroneously prescribed.
If a prescriber of opioids wrongly prescribed to X who then slipped them into Z’s drink is the prescriber liable?
Forget about Z. If they wrongly prescribe to X, and X dies...
The doctor is liable. Multiple years in prison can result. As linked below.
Forget about Z? This case is totally about Z. It wasn’t X (the person prescribed) who was harmed, it was Z (because of X’s actions).
"I'm going to say there was no valid medical reason to prescribe mifepristone to a male."
The prescriber has not been sued here. Nor is there any averment that Access Aid and/or Rebecca Gomperts knew whom the prescriptions had been issued to, let alone that they knew whether "Chris Cooprider" referred to someone named Christopher or someone named Christine.
Perhaps they SHOULD have known. They were violating Texas law, so they had felony issues from the get-go. If you're sending drugs, you'd best know who the hell you're sending them to.
"Who did AID access issue the prescription for mifepristone to?"
I don't claim to know, but it is not apparent from reading the complaint that Aid Access (a distributor) issued any prescription at all. The complaint avers (¶¶22 and 23) only that the labels on the medication packages were prescribed to “Chris Cooprider” by someone described as “L.M. MD”. I therefore decline to speculate.
Under Texas law parties other than the formerly pregnant woman can sue. There is a legal doctrine where inherently dangerous goods are subject to stricter liability rules. I think the trial judge should ask the Supreme Court of Texas to state what duty is owed to the plaintiff by the foreign defendants.
The foreign defendants, i.e., persons not within the jurisdiction of the State of Texas?
You raise an interesting question, though, about how much foreign persons are supposed to know about the internal laws of every country in which their customers live. It is generally the customer which is best placed to know the particular laws applicable in his or her state of residence. Of course, in a civil suit, any allegation is good enough for a complaint...
"foreign defendants, i.e., persons not within the jurisdiction of the State of Texas?"
"Long-arm jurisdiction is the ability of local courts to exercise jurisdiction over foreign ("foreign" meaning out of jurisdiction, whether a state, province, or nation) defendants, whether on a statutory basis or through a court's inherent jurisdiction (depending on the jurisdiction). This jurisdiction permits a court to hear a case against a defendant and enter a binding judgment against a defendant residing outside the jurisdiction concerned. " wikipedia
Not even within the United States. Aid Access is a European company.
The prescribing doctor, who has not been sued, is most likely in a blue state.
Or the prescriber may be a citizen of Texas, which would destroy federal diversity jurisdiction if he were sued.
One of the defendants is the Texas resident murderer, so no diversity already.
From the complaint: "Defendant Christopher Cooprider is a Marine pilot in training who is temporarily stationed in Corpus Christi. Cooprider remains a domiciliary and citizen of Arizona."
Texas resident sues Arizona resident who is found in Texas.
Exactly.
Read the fricking complaint, Bob.
NG, your understanding of foreseeable is limited. It was clearly illegal to sell this product in Texas to the individual defendant and clearly illegal under federal law to ship it. The misuse was clearly foreseeable under the facts alleged in this case.
Have you read the complaint, Riva?
And it is not "clearly illegal under federal law to ship" Mifepristone or Misoprostol. Under some circumstances, it is unlawful to "knowingly use[] the mails for the mailing, carriage in the mails, or delivery" of unmailable matter, per 18 U.S.C. § 1461. Shipment by FedEx, UPS, Greyhound or similar transport services is not implicated.
The culpable mental state requirement is crucial. Section 1461 of title 18 of the U.S. Code does not prohibit the mailing of certain drugs that can be used to perform abortions where the sender lacks the intent that the recipient of the drugs will use them unlawfully. Because there are manifold ways in which recipients in every state may lawfully use such drugs, including to produce an abortion, the mere mailing of such drugs to a particular jurisdiction is an insufficient basis for concluding that the sender intends them to be used unlawfully. https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/file/1560596/dl
Defendants acted knowingly under the facts alleged in the complaint. To the extent you misunderstood my comment, I never meant to suggest otherwise. (That was my intent) Now go away.
Riva, which paragraph(s) of the complaint impute knowledge to the Defendants Access Aid and/or Rebecca Gomperts as to whom the prescriptions had been issued to?
Which paragraph(s) of the complaint impute knowledge to the Defendants Access Aid and/or Rebecca Gomperts as to what the eventual purchaser intended to do with the medications?
Running away like a scalded dog once more, Riva? You are truly pathetic.
He's just tired of your crap.
Mitchell is trying to establish law, you act like he has no chance. Of course you thought that in Trump v. Anderson
WTF? Did you read the complaint? Can you read? Did the hospital cut off your online privileges before you could get to it?
"The Court has personal jurisdiction over Aid Access and Rebecca Gomperts because they purposefully and knowingly mailed abortion-inducing drugs into Texas in violation of state and federal law, and the plaintiff’s claims arise out of those minimum contacts with the forum state." "Defendants Aid Access and Rebecca Gomperts are criminally responsible for Cooprider’s violations of section 171.0631 because they knowingly aided his provision of abortion-inducing drugs to a pregnant woman. See Tex. Penal Code § 7.02." "Defendants Aid Access and Rebecca Gomperts violated section 171.063(a)(2) by knowingly sending abortion-inducing drugs into Texas, which they knew would be provided to a pregnant woman for the purpose of inducing an abortion." "Defendants Aid Access and Rebecca Gomperts also violated section 171.003 by knowingly aiding an illegal self-managed abortion in Texas. See Tex. Penal Code § 7.02."
As I wrote in response to Life of Brian, a pleading that merely offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.” Ibid., quoting Twombly at 557. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id., at 678. A court is "not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Ibid.
The complaint contains allegations that must be proved. It may surprise you but that pretty much happens in every case. That’s why God invented juries. In the meantime, may I suggest you read the complaint, it would take up a lot of space for me to cut and paste everything in a comment.
1. "I am puzzled as to what is the theory of liability as to the manufacturer of the medications"
Point 1. Distributor, not manufacturer Point 2. These medications require a prescription/consultation Point 3: "He obtained." While there may be reasons to prescribe such a medicine to a female, I can think of no legitimate reasons to be prescribing such a medicine to a male.
On a larger note, there have been a number of civil and criminal lawsuits about organizations mis-prescribing medicines across the country. Medicines which have value, but can be abused, in one way or another. Often opioids, but sometimes others. And if the end user of that medicine uses it in a way that causes harm, it opens up the organization that provided it to lawsuits.
In a like manner, this opens up the lawsuit possibility to organization that provided the abortion pills to a man. There was no legitimate reason to prescribe it to him, but the potential for misuse and harm was clear.
“I can think of no legitimate reasons to be prescribing such a medicine to a male.”
I thought you guys wanted the man to be more involved in these decisions?
If an opioid distributor Z sent some to X and X snuck it into Y’s drink causing Y’s death do you think Z is the proximate cause of the death?
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/federal-court-permanently-prohibits-ohio-physician-prescribing-opioids-and-imposes-47m
Ok, so this says the defendant was liable for his wrongful prescriptions and the death of a person he proscribed them too, but we’re talking about an intervening third party wrongful act. Got anything fitting that?
It does not matter. The facts are simple.
1. A wrongful prescription 2. A harm resulting from it.
If the doctor's "patients" are simply diverting the opioids to others who are harmed, the doctor is still liable.
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3056&context=facpubs
You’ve not heard of superceding causes in proximate cause?
https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2024/01/22/nassau-doctor-sentenced-15-years-prison-for-overprescription-opioids-led
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/oakton-doctor-sentenced-13-years-prison-running-urgent-care-center-opioid-pill-mill
The defendant company's website states that the medication will be mailed by a "U.S. licensed pharmacy", which is not mentioned or included in the lawsuit. If there was one, this seems to be an odd omission?
"What to expect:
We will ask you some questions about you, your pregnancy and your health. The pregnant person must answer the questions themselves. Your information is private and will not be shared. We will do a medical review. A medical professional will look at your information. We will let you know if we have questions for you. We will send you an email with payment information. The total cost is $150. If you are not able to pay, we can help with the cost. Your pills will be shipped to you. A U.S. licensed pharmacy will mail you the pills. You will also get detailed instructions on how to use them. The pills are safe and work 96-99% of the time The pills will arrive in 1-5 days in all 50 U.S. states. Still have questions? Email us: info@aidaccess.org."
"I am unable to see how 18 U.S.C. § 1461 -- a federal criminal statute -- gives rise to any private right of action."
Technically speaking, the Comstock Act is a predicate under the RICO Act, which means it can be enforced through civil lawsuit under 18 U.S.C. §1964. See §1961(1) (defining "racketeering activity" to include "any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code... sections 1461–1465 (relating to obscene matter)"); also see Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, 604 U.S. __ (2025) (allowing RICO suit for wire fraud (falsely labeling medicine as THC-free) to move forward, because losing job from personal injury (unknowingly consuming THC) is a injury in "business or property", §1964(c))
Per the December 23, 2022 opinion of the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel, Section 1461 of title 18 of the U.S. Code does not prohibit the mailing of certain drugs that can be used to perform abortions where the sender lacks the intent that the recipient of the drugs will use them unlawfully. Because there are manifold ways in which recipients in every state may lawfully use such drugs, including to produce an abortion, the mere mailing of such drugs to a particular jurisdiction is an insufficient basis for concluding that the sender intends them to be used unlawfully. https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/file/1560596/dl
And a civil suit under 18 U.S.C. § 1964 is a complete nonstarter here. First of all, the plaintiff is not person injured in her business or property by reason of a violation of § 1962. Her injuries are to her person, not to her business or property. There is no RICO enterprise. There is no pattern of racketeering activity. Per § 1961(a), a violation of sections 1461–1465 as a predicate act must relate to obscene matter, which prescription medications are not.
The OLC opinion could be rescinded at any moment (not that I'd support that move - its legal analysis does sound correct). Now, whether the plaintiff was injured in her business or property is probably a matter of pleading - though the current allegations are definitely insufficient.
Should section 1461 violation be found, I don't see why there wouldn't be a RICO enterprise. Any association, criminal or legitimate, can become a RICO enterprise. Same for "pattern of racketeering activity".
"sections 1461–1465 as a predicate act must relate to obscene matter" is, in my view, both correct and incorrect. "Obscene" in §1961 is likely not the constitutional definition of "obscene", but encompasses every matter declared non-mailable in §1461. And in any event, the part in parenthesis is probably non-binding.
Actually the federal courts construe "enterprise" and "pattern of racketeering activity" quite strictly. See e.g., Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009); United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981). Donald Trump and Alina Habba got sanctioned almost $1 million for playing fast and loose with pleading those terms. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-flo/1911835.html
And any civil RICO claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1964 would be completely inapposite to the facts alleged in the Davis v. Cooprider complaint. Ms. Davis is not a "person injured in [her] business or property by reason of a violation of [18 U.S.C. §] 1962" within the meaning of § 1964(c). Since her injuries are exclusively to her person, she lacks statutory standing.
A new article in JAMA reports on the defendant:
Despite the wave of state-level abortion bans following the overturn of Roe v Wade, recent data suggest that abortion rates have remained steady or even increased. One plausible contributor is the rise of online asynchronous telemedicine abortion services—particularly those operating under shield laws, which allow US-licensed clinicians to provide abortion medications to patients in ban states with protection from legal liability. To better understand usage of this care model, we analyzed 15 months of data from Aid Access, a nonprofit asynchronous telemedicine service that provides abortion medications to patients in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Aid Access leverages shield laws to mail abortion medications to residents in 24 states with near-total or telemedicine bans, operating without the need for such protections in states where telemedicine abortion is legally accessible.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2837546 I have no doubt that Aid Access and many of its employees and doctors have criminal intent. It's not a surprise or accident that their pills are being used for illegal abortions.
As already discussed, criminal responsibility does not resolve the question of civil liability to a woman drugged against her will.
The calliope is already starting to crash to the ground, and it isn't even all Donald Trump's doing. Duke is having major budget cuts, some state university systems are as well.
It's all gonna implode....
There's a bad moon rising
Is Donnie going after red state universities now?
The head of the DC Police Union has spoken out about Trump's taken of the DC Police, snd deployment of the DC National guard;
The head of the DC Police Union praised President Trump’s temporary takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and deployment of National Guard troops as a “critical stopgap” amid “out of control” crime in the nation’s capital on Monday.&ved=2ahUKEwjSiLynsIePAxUJmmoFHbBXKBwQFnoECEEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw27RS91LvWGv0J1-4daoz6K
“We stand with the President in recognizing that Washington, D.C., cannot continue on this trajectory,” union Chair Gregg Pemberton said in a statement. “Crime is out of control, and our officers are stretched beyond their limits.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5446705-dc-police-union-praises-trump
This part is a little amusing: "Critics of Trump’s move have pointed to falling crime rates in the District to knock the president’s sweeping moves to bolster local crime-fighting efforts. "
Here is some context: "A D.C. police commander is under investigation for allegedly making changes to crime statistics in his district.
The Metropolitan Police Department confirmed Michael Pulliam was placed on paid administrative leave in mid-May. That happened just a week after Pulliam filed an equal employment opportunity complaint against an assistant chief and the police union accused the department of deliberately falsifying crime data, according to three law enforcement sources familiar with the complaint."
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/dc-police-commander-suspended-crime-statistics/3959566/
So is that a MAGA point to say that disciplinary action against cooking the books on crime statistics is somehow evidence of an administration bent on making up favorable statistics?
It came out as a internal complaint against an Assistant Chief, it was not an Assistant Chief or the chief discovering skulduggery in the ranks.
If it was an order from an assistant Chief to subordinates then you could call that Semi-official policy, even if he wouldn't put it in a memo.
So you’re now an advocate for crime? How dare President Trump make DC safer. Yeah, you run with that.
This is as dumb as people saying “you’re against gun control, so now you’re an advocate for crime?”
Arresting criminals is not the equivalent of gun control you cretin.
The union has said that many of their members have said what that particular commander did is being demanded by superiors to ALL commanders. This commander filed an EEOC complaint and that is why they were suspended.
Weird how violent crime is "down", but homicide (one of the few crimes you really cannot manipulate) really is not.
damikesc posts (as of 2:44) (not an exhaustive list; there are more below.)
28 minutes ago 22 minutes ago 21 minutes ago 19 minutes ago 18 minutes ago 17 minutes ago 13 minutes ago 11 minutes ago 7 minutes ago 3 minutes ago
This is quite the shitposting spree. It is efficient, if your goal is to shit up a thread.
But perhaps consider putting a bit more time and thought into your posts.
I know, shitting up the the thread is your job.
damikesc 26 occurances Sarcastr0 55 occurances
And yeah, I know: Kazinski 31 occurances.
Homicide is down.
Not really.
Feelz up?
The story is very interestingly worded: it doesn't say that the police union's claim relates to the Commander's leave, nor does it indicate in which direction the Commander was alleged to have skewed the statistics.
Leaving the reader to imagine that the Commander is being disciplined for either "cooking the statistics", or for refusing to "cook the statistics", depending on the reader's own bias.
None of this is relevant, of course, to Trump's DC-takeover "justification" statistics, which were simply made up to suit the day's purpose.
The police union pres also further said that it would be helpful if Trump could do things to incentivise the recruitment of more police men, as manpower shortage is the major reason they can't do a great job.
"Congress Set to Force $1 Billion in Spending Cuts for DC" https://www.dcfpi.org/all/congress-set-to-force-1-billion-in-spending-cuts-for-dc/
Classic Trump playbook. You rape the girl, then blame the girl for being raped
What happens if Donald Trump makes DC a safe city?
He's got the right US attorney for it...
That would be excellent news for Trump. The way he's going, he should be pleased if Hell freezes over.
Maybe not the right one to make it safe from speeding/reckless driving…But I wish her luck in getting felons off the street in DC, I’ve got a hot tip about one living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW…
Where was Trump's concern when his own militia was attacking the Capitol? Lotta white people committing crime in DC that day.
I dunno. Maybe his hearing was still messed up from lefties bombing the Capitol in 1983.
But that was not "violent". According to Democrats.
So you like to indict a whole political party when an ideologically adjacent extremist blows up a federal building, eh?
You have been trying to do so for years. Spare me your caterwauling now.
He's got a drunk TV commenter as a US attorney.
If Erin stays north of the Virgin Islands and west of Bermuda, it could be a threat to New England as we approach Labor Day weekend.
Not going to happen. She’s heading N then NE, the blocking high is gonna break into 2 and she’ll slide right thru the gap. And I’m sure Trump will nuke it if it gets anywhere close to Bedminster.
If you’re on social media check out “mikes weather page”
And I’m sure Trump will nuke it if it gets anywhere close to Bedminster.
Don't be stupid. He'll just re-route it with a Sharpie®.
Best site for storm stuff is run by my homie Levi
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/
Grad of FSU School of Metrology and both smart and friendly.
Just a random thought. I am opposed to any notion that government is empowered to enforce legally any standard of meritocracy. I will not repeat now the many arguments against permitting that.
But I am likewise a fan of the notion that private activities can be advanced by use of meritocratic standards. It is the absence of legal compulsion which makes the difference to me.
So it just dawned on me that there is a hybrid situation with regard to meritocracy on the public/private interface. Government outsources activities like R&D, or medical research, or even prison management. To do that rationally seems to create a role for government judgment of which among competing providers offer the most meritorious proposals and credentials.
That seems to make outsourcing a way to smuggle meritocracy into the legal framework of government operations. Is that a big plus for outsourcing? Is that a downside for small "d" democracy? How should questions like those sort out?
Laura Loomer and MTG are feudng on X, its pretty entertaining, here is a sample, but not even the worst of it:
“MTG isn’t a Christian. How do you call yourself a Christian when you’re wearing a cross while getting bent over backwards inside the gym by every man who isn’t your husband?” Loomer wrote on X. “She’s on her knees all right. And it’s not for praying.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/laura-loomer-erupts-after-blocking-marjorie-taylor-greene-loud-mouthed-b
I briefly unmuted them on X to check out the back and forth, Maybe Grok can turn it into an AI miniseries.
Women have the nastiest fights.
Yes. It's crazy that you guys allow them to vote.
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2025-08-08/hegseth-reposts-video-on-social-media-featuring-pastors-saying-women-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-vote
I would only apply that exclusion to you.
Switzerland was the last bastion of sanity, they didn't give women the vote until 1971.
Its a small minority of women office holders, but there is a cadre on both sides of the aisle (MTG, Boebert, AOC, Jasmine Crockett come to mind) that seem to treat their offices as adjuncts to enhance their social media profiles, instead of using their social media profiles to enhance their political goals.
Don't worry, XY. Grok will give you a sanitized, white supremacist version of the feud which your brain will accept and a calm will wash over you as you will be unaware of the manipulation
They do, isn't it great??
I didn't realise until that tweet that MAGA Saw was Jewish. Can't she use our space lasers on MTG?
The British Minister of Homelessness has resigned after being caught raising rent in a manner Labour wants to outlaw. She evicted tenants in order to sell the property, didn't sell the property, and listed the property with a higher rent. Labour proposes to ban fixed term leases and allow eviction only for cause. If a lease is terminated to sell the property rent can not be increased for six months. I don't know if the law caps rent increases in general.
The homelessness minister owns at least two rental properties, one of them worth a million dollars.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyd3l2x2n8o
In the USA, rent control may be on the ballot in Massachusetts. Voters abolished rent control in the 1990s when it was only in three cities. Now an initiative petition seeks to impose rent control statewide. There will be at least two winners in this fight: lobbyists and paid signature gatherers.
...and just what is the purpose of a Minister of Homelessness?
...reducing homelessness? Isn't that pretty obvious?
Well, something to do with homelessness, anyway. Maybe not reducing it, though; Does he want to be out of a job?
You have no evidence; this says a lot more about you than anyone else.
Doesn't anybody read? "The British Minister of Homelessness has resigned after being caught raising rent in a manner Labour wants to outlaw." Also to Brett: "She ..."
You demand that I have evidence in order to even ask a question you don't like? Questions are supposed to guide the search for evidence, didn't you know that?
Well, you're silly that way, it's why nobody here takes you seriously.
Is he arguing that government funding something to the tune of millions does not lead to a strong interest group keeping it going?
There's a reason why blue city/states homelessness problem never gets rectified.
It's tongue in cheek, Sarcastr0; lighten up!
It's like you've never read a Brett Bellmore comment before in your life.
'Liberals are actually doing some secret thing different than the good thing that seems to be true' is his favorite song.
Given that he got caught raising rent, and kicking people out of the homes, maybe you ought to reassess exactly what seems to have been true in this case?
Your response was not to the OP, it was to the subthread that starts: "...and just what is the purpose of a Minister of Homelessness?"
That's a more general discussion. But it didn't stop you from asserting some secret agenda. Because liberals doing good sounding things can't ever be real.
If you didn't even bother to read the original comment enough to know that:
a) The erstwhile minister is a woman; and b) The erstwhile minister is in fact erstwhile,
then maybe you're not in a position to tell other people to reassess.
"...reducing homelessness? "
And cause her budget to be lowered? Doubtful.
Someone should watch Yes Minister again.
"There will be at least two winners in this fight: lobbyists and paid signature gatherers."
I count three. Lawyers will make much more than the first two.
I am completely opposed to rent control. I saw how it ruined the Bronx in the late '60's and early '70's. And, despite a SCOTUS opinion to the contrary I judge it a taking.
If the government wants to subsidize housing, let them do so, not single out a class (landlords) to "self subsidize" it.
Further, it will likely result in less, and inferior housing. Fewer developers will be inclined to build into this environment, and landlords will be pinched to the point of reducing maintenance.
Now let's have property tax control.
Rent control is not a solution to a housing supply problem.
But from growing up in NYC in the late 80s and 90s, it did act as fuel for art and culture.
Properly limited, it could act as a way for a city to incubate subcultures they seek but which aren't favored by the market.
That doesn't seem like a great way to convince TP.
Oh dead.
Well, I think it's a good policy point even so.
So, fund it then rather than saddle property owners with the cost!
Tension between a landlord interest and a tenant interest is inherent. That tension defines two classes, not one. To regulate outcomes of tensions of that sort has since the founding been part of the normal business of government. See Federalist 10.
Rent control creates artificial shortages in housing, which increases rents overall. There are (not very difficult) means of phasing out rent control while protecting the most vulnerable populations.
It's unfair and corrupt, too. Mamdani is rich, yet lives in a rent stabilized apartment in NYC.
NY Times 2008: "While aggressive evictions are reducing the number of rent-stabilized apartments in New York, Representative Charles B. Rangel (now deceased) is enjoying four of them, including three adjacent units on the 16th floor overlooking Upper Manhattan in a building owned by one of New York’s premier real estate developers.
Mr. Rangel, the powerful Democrat who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, uses his fourth apartment, six floors below, as a campaign office, despite state and city regulations that require rent-stabilized apartments to be used as a primary residence.
Mr. Rangel, who has a net worth of $566,000 to $1.2 million, according to Congressional disclosure records, paid a total rent of $3,894 monthly in 2007 for the four apartments at Lenox Terrace, a 1,700-unit luxury development of six towers, with doormen, that is described in real estate publications as Harlem’s most prestigious address."
Once again, we see a quote without a link. Presumably so that people who are less familiar wouldn't realize that this is an almost twenty-year old story.
I said it was 2008, dummy! https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/nyregion/11rangel.html
You did. I missed that. Mea culpa.
Doesn't change the fact that you continually refuse to link to your sources and that you decided to reach back almost 2 decades to find an excuse to criticize a Democrat, though.
You can be quite a dick at times.
"...at times"?
Suppose a US Senator (party does not matter), in a fit of pique, decides s/he disagrees with an executive branch foreign policy. And decides to read classified reports from the IC on the Senate floor to support their alternative view of the policy. And then proceeds to read multiple IC reports right there on the floor, complete with names behind the HUMINT.
Does the speech and debate clause protect that activity?
If it does not, then what is the bright line that must be crossed to lose that protection?
Absolute immunity even if people die and dogs and cats cohabitate.
I am rather surprised something like that has not happened with greater frequency (meaning my example, not cohabiting cats and dogs, heh)..
Arkancide?
The more Congress leaks, the less the Executive will share.
Unless the dogs and cats get eaten by Haitians.
It protects him from the Executive and Judicial branches, provides no more protection against his own colleagues than they decide to extend him. "Shall not be questioned in any other place", after all.
If it ticks them off, they can hang him out to dry.
What is hang out to dry? Remove the protection?
They could even go so far as to expel him. Whether Congress can remove the protection from a specific legislator or topic is, I gather, an open question at this point. Textually I wouldn't think so.
In South America official immunity can be stripped by a vote of the legislature. The U.S. Constitution has no such process.
That's the rule in many places outside of South America as well.
Here is a judgment of the European Court of Justice from last year, about the dispute between former Catalan President Carles Puigdemont and the European Parliament, which lifted his immunity when the Spanish wanted to try him for treason.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62022CJ0600
I have a less obvious question: suppose a Representative organized a conspiracy from a subcommittee's offices to illegally disclose classified information with the intent of learning the executive branch, but the actual leaking is done by staffers outside of those offices. Who has immunity to prosecution (for leaking and/or conspiracy) under the Speech and Debate Clause, and is that immunity limited to what happened in certain locations? Does that change if key members of the conspiracy reiterate the plans for leaking outside of those offices, for example in a bar?
In my opinion, no immunity for anyone involved.
Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has (at least) one, they often stink, and neither one's opinion nor one's asshole should be offered casually.
Then why are you even here in these comments, Mr. Guilty?
Absolute immunity. How do you think MTG can revenge porn flash nude pictures of an American citizen and not get charged?
Like a certain Senator (D, MA) who left a young woman to asphyxiate??? (not drowned, there's a difference)
A whatabout that doesn't involve Biden? I'm impressed, Frankie.
He likes to remind us he’s not just a sad, stupid weirdo but an incredibly old one to boot.
63? That's "incredibly old"? I'm a whole year younger than Barry Hussein (who looks 73) Your side's the one who elected an Alzheimer's patient with terminal Cancer. Seriously, it's the Internets, so I can say I've got RFK Jr's Abs, Schwarzneger's Pecs, and Hillary Rodman's Gastrocnemi (you seen those Gams, NFL Lineman's aren't as thick) but peoples tell me all the time I have the body of a 17 yr old (then act offended when I say it's "in the trunk")
lol! The Fakeman character claims to be 63. Sure, that’s why he brings things up like Chappaquiddick so much, we all think so much about that kind of political event that happened when we were 7!
It’s all a performed persona. No wonder big Don fan.
Got something against being a student of history?
July 1969 I had just turned 7, remember watching the first Moon Landing on our 19" Zenith (it was a "Color" TV, 2 Colors, Black & White) and Teddy Kennedy's murder was big news, sorry if unlike Sleepy Joe, I can still remember things.
Like I said, it’s all fake, no one is so obsessed with that kind of political event from when they were 7.
David Notimportant is sick today, so the role of all knowing commentator is being played by Malika the Maiz (AKA Queenie).
Says Queenie, still dressed in her best "Juneteenth" Gown
Well, since he's happily grey-boxed, I wouldn't know how often he brings up that particular topic, but it was part of the Ted Kennedy legend all young conservatives were brought up on (me included).
But I can easily see why budding leftists would not have heard much about it.
If only Kennedy had trafficked the woman, he'd have been president
“David Notimportant is sick today, so the role of all knowing commentator is being played by Malika the Maiz (AKA Queenie).”
Is that who beat you around lately? It doesn’t take much so I wouldn’t assume it’s some sockpuppet.
No one murdered Teddy Kennedy, Frank.
Suppose a US Senator (party does not matter), in a fit of pique, decides s/he disagrees with an executive branch foreign policy. And decides to read classified reports from the IC on the Senate floor to support their alternative view of the policy. And then proceeds to read multiple IC reports right there on the floor, complete with names behind the HUMINT. Does the speech and debate clause protect that activity?
Yes, it does. Check out Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 616 (1972) ("We have no doubt that Senator Gravel may not be made to answer either in terms of questions or in terms of defending himself from prosecution -- for the events that occurred at the subcommittee meeting.")
Commenter XY -- NG is completely correct here; the immunity is absolute.
To answer your other question that our friend Mr. Guilty did not answer, the line between protected and unprotected can also be found in Gravel v United States: The clause only protects legislative activity, and while the term is interpreted broadly it's not unlimited immunity. Reading classified materials into the record is arguably legislative activity and thus protected.
In Gravel, the Supreme Court ruled that when Senator Gravel put the Pentagon Papers into the Senate's public record, it was protected by the Clause.
Unfortunately for Senator, the Court also ruled that private publication of classified materials in a newspaper was not protected. The Senator was accused of working with the Beacon Press to publish the Pentagon Papers and the Court said that he and his staffers could not claim immunity for this non-legislative act:
Here, private publication by Senator Gravel through the cooperation of Beacon Press was in no way essential to the deliberations of the Senate; nor does questioning as to private publication threaten the integrity or independence of the Senate by impermissibly exposing its deliberations to executive influence. The Senator had conducted his hearings; the record and any report that was forthcoming were available both to his committee and the Senate. Insofar as we are advised, neither Congress nor the full committee ordered or authorized the publications. We cannot but conclude that the Senator's arrangements with beacon Press were not part and parcel of the legislative process.
Uh, Commenter_XY asked a specific question. I answered in full according to what he asked.
XY's remaining question read "If it does not, then what is the bright line that must be crossed to lose that protection?" [Emphasis added.] Since the activity he asked about is protected by the Speech or Debate clause, the condition that he specified was not met, and the question about "what is the bright line" therefore became superfluous.
Understanding what was actually asked is an important component of emotional intelligence: the latter half of that sentence contradicted the meaning of the first, and it was obvious what he was asking.
Being literal to the point of absurdity is a hallmark of pedants and lawyers. You think you're being smart and witty, but you're just being an ass.
tylertusta, you suggested that I failed to answer Commenter_XY's question.
You lied.
I don't know how many witnesses and deponents I have prepared by saying, "If you are asked, 'Do you have the time?', answer yes or no. Don't say 'It's 2:30' unless you are asked, 'What time is it?'"
Says the guy who didn't answer the question.
Don't say 'It's 2:30' unless you are asked, 'What time is it?'"
Except we're not in trial. Do you treat family and friends this way too?
You lied again, even after being called out on it.
Commenter_XY asked a legal question, and I answered the question he asked.
I am puzzled as to why you continue to shoot blanks here.
For the first 100-odd years that art. 9 of the Bill of Rights existed, Parliament used to punish people for even *reporting* what was said in Parliament, never mind questioning it.
https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/browse?part=2&chapter=13§ions=4589
Yes. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.
However, Congress retains the power to sanction or expel members for anything it deems misconduct.
The dog days of summer are here, and the heat and humidity are formidable. My question: What do you do to beat the heat? That would include what you do when working outside in the heat.
Me: Carhartt long sleeve sun force defender shirt(s); Hot tea; ice pack on top of head under cap; crank up A/C
I generally sweat, and hydrate reasonably frequently, and that's it. I've never quite understood the big deal, that's what you have sweat glands for.
I think heat and humidity hit you harder if you usually avoid them. Don't avoid them, and your body adapts.
Well, Brett, I'm a bit impressed that you apply tough love to yourself as you do to others
I could call it stoicism, but I think that would be an unmerited claim of virtue: I do notice it's hot, or cold, or whatever, but it's just data, you know? It doesn't really carry any emotional significance. I gather this is actually pretty common in people 'on the spectrum', along with things like my hypermobility syndrome.
The whole problem with humidity is that it makes it so your sweat doesn't actually cool you down, though.
Well, until it hits 100%, it continues to cool you, the cooling power just declines. Mind, it does occasionally hit 100% humidity with temperatures in the 90's hereabouts, at which point doing more than just standing around is risking heat stroke. Happily that's pretty rare.
I’ve found Drip Drops, a hydrating powder you shake up in a bottle of water to be kind of nice. Not sure if it really increases hydration but it makes them water tasty which means I’m more likely to drink more of it.
I use a similar product made by Gatorade.
It doesn't increase hydration as such, but if you're sweating a lot you have to worry about electrolyte depletion, these sorts of mixes include electrolytes. In addition I take a potassium supplement during the summer months.
Eat more watermelon.
The dog days just ended, and the term refers to the rising of Sirius (the Star, not the failing Satellite Radio brand) with and after the rising Sun, the ancient Egyptians believed that the presence of Sirius in the daytime sky contributed to the hot humid conditions. Those ancient Egyptians were pretty smart (and aren't related at all to the current ones)
Frank, thx for the astrology explainer. You're a doc. What is the best way to beat the heat? I work outside a lot now, and also golf a couple of times weekly (walk 9, ride for 18).
Lets see, June 1991, Saudi Arabia, 120F in the shade, what did I do? Got on a Jet and flew back to Camp Lejeune(OK Queenie, it was to Cherry Point MCAS via Heathrow and JFK, then bus to Lejeune), the 90F/90% Humidity Carolina Summer days seemed like Fall in comparison.
Ask fake doc, get fake advice.
Take 2 38 Specials and don't call me in the morning
No one calls weirdo losers like you. I imagine that tracks with the sad internet busking you do here.
Queenie, you're like our Pomeranian chasing the dot from the Laser pointer, except Mitzi eventually gets tired and goes to sleep.
You concede you’re a laser pointer?
Pathetic.
Sit Queenie! now Fetch! Shake Hands! Eww, what's that crusty stuff??
I’m not chasing, I’m laughing at your emptiness.
I get you’re used to that.
FWIW I mentioned this in Monday's open thread (August 11). The dates of the Dog Days vary historically based on different calendars (Julian /Gregorian) and on geography. Also, it wasn't just the Egyptians but many ancient civilization. Being the brightest star it was know and thought to be significant.
I'm fairly heat-tolerant but would rather not bake. I rarely have to work outside, but occasionally have to train or compete on the track. and then except for the actual race I'll wear one of those fishing hats with a neck covering reminiscent of the French Foreign Legion kepis.
For hydration I generally use an electrolyte powder made by Key Nutrients, but sometimes I'll make a drink using bottled lime juice, sweetener (dissolves better than sugar) and salt. Back in England I'd drink Rose's lime juice (diluted to a squash) but not here - the version here has a much better flavour, the only example I know where the US version of a food or drink product tastes better than the foreign version, but is significantly more expensive. The version here is really intended to be added to vodka or gin, etc, not to be diluted and drunk as a squash.
The last two USATF national masters championships were in hot climes - Sacramento and Huntsville. They provide free Gatorade and Powerade to competitors as well as plenty of bottled water so there really was no reason for anyone to be dehydrated. FWIW Sacramento last year was so hot - 120F on the track itself - that on one day they poured water on the starting line before each heat so you wouldn't scorch your fingers at the start.
Sweating to the point of dripping or even splashing people around you is no big deal when working out in the yard or exercising.
The problem is jobs or business meetings where you're expected to show up looking reasonably clean and without odor, but it's so damn hot that you can't make it to the building without sweating through the shirt and glasses streaked with grease.
For the first, let it happen, and then use it as an excuse to overindulge in traditional summer mixed drinks when recovering back inside. For the second, extreme-cool the car to like 55F blasting direct onto the forehead on the way to work, that lets you cover an extra 100 yards of parking lot before the sweat starts.
Sure, if you can find your way when your glasses fog over the moment you step out of the car...
This is my first real summer in Arizona, Ideally I leave in may or April and return in October. Last week it hit 117, so you avoid going out in the daytime. Get you shopping done at night. I bought a treadmill so I could still get some exercise.
On the bright side, there isn't any humidity to complain about unless we get a thunderstorm, which seems to happen about once a month.
Bye, bye illegal aliens...
https://cis.org/Report/Overall-ForeignBorn-Population-Down-22-Million-January-July
YTD, 1.6MM illegals appear to have gone home, Jan - Jul. At that run rate (pun intended), we could have 10MM illegal aliens gone by 1/2029. Hopefully, these data are not 'revised' downward.
The Golden Visas will become far more valuable now. As an aside, Lutnick needs to sell about 7MM of them to retire the national debt (now at a record level).
Go long agricultural futures
LOL, good thought.
It's just going to result in the long delayed automation of farm labor, you know. Cheap readily abused labor is a nasty drug.
Eli Whitney beat you to it 200 years ago
Spoken like a good Confederate.
The Department of Homeland Security is holding up more than $100 million in preapproved funds intended to help hurricane-battered North Carolina clean up storm damage and fix infrastructure still in disrepair almost a year after Helene hit the region, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post and officials familiar with the process…
Historically, it can take years for FEMA to dole out all the necessary public assistance funding, especially for major infrastructure projects. Federal law enables the agency to reimburse states for at least 75 percent of what it costs states to do recovery work. And the process, as the Government Accountability Office has pointed out, is complex, cumbersome and confusing. There can also be holdups if the Office of Management and Budget wants to review allocations.
This administration, however, has been taking longer to approve disaster declarations and hazard mitigation grants, according to researcher Sarah Labowitz, who has been tracking the data.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/08/08/dhs-fema-north-carolina-helene-recovery-funds/
“Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, shortly after we all together win the presidency, we will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled. It will be settled. The war is going to be settled. I’ll get them both. I know Zelensky, I know Putin. It’ll be done within 24 hours, you watch.”
We're apparently supposed to take Trump seriously, not literally, but even by that measure he's been a complete failure. Tens of thousands of military and civilian personnel have died in Ukraine since he made his infamous remark.
Not to worry, the next fallback position is to say he was just being "sarcastic"...
it takes a while to un-fuck Sleepy Joe's fuck-ups
It does?
Trump's gullible voters would have been entitled to think he had at least already had the "concept of a plan" to achieve peace in Ukraine...
Nope.
Not foolishly pouring hundreds of Bullions (HT C. Sagan) of $$$$ to Zelensky was a start.
This is not just a sad weirdo but a true idiot. He doesn’t get it’s about the stupid claim.
Well, you blame people for failing to carry out promises that hinge entirely on their own decisions, but promises that hinge on others' decisions, too, are more aspirational in nature, so I cut a bit of slack for those.
It was a bit unrealistic of Trump to promise that, but politician making unrealistic promises, when does that ever happen? [/sarc]
A bit unrealistic? Distinctions, how do they work?
I did make a distinction above: Between promises that one is in a position to deliver on, and thus can properly be blamed for failure, and promises that somebody else has some say about, so the failure isn't necessarily ones own fault.
You might want to make a distinction between general political puffery and promising to end a years long war in 24 hours of being in office!
Why would I want to distinguish two things I think are the same? I should think it's pretty obvious that Trump didn't actually have the power to do that, and so it WAS just general political puffery.
You think national leaders generally promise to end complicated long wars in the first day of office?
I think candidates for office routinely promise to do things not in their power to do, and this falls into that category.
Queenie brings this promise up just about every open thread. Amusing that he apparently thinks Trump is the first politician to make impossible promises.
He's done, what, 6 of those so far this term?
He's the only President in my lifetime who seemed to actually seek peace.
A key measure of underlying inflation rose in July as businesses grappled with President Trump’s tariffs, although the overall increase was most likely not significant enough to deter the Federal Reserve from lowering interest rates at its next meeting.
The Consumer Price Index stayed steady at 2.7 percent compared with the same time last year. On a monthly basis, prices rose 0.2 percent from June. But an important gauge tracking consumer prices that strips out volatile food and energy prices accelerated more rapidly.
“Core” C.P.I., which is closely watched by the central bank, jumped 0.3 percent over the course of the month, or 3.1 percent year over year. That is one of the largest monthly increases so far this year and the fastest annual pace in five months. In June, core inflation rose 0.2 percent from the previous month, or 2.9 percent from June 2024.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/12/business/cpi-inflation-trump-tariffs.html
“Starting on day one, we will end inflation and make America affordable again, to bring down the prices of all goods.”
NBC Montana, Trump Rally in Bozeman, MT, YouTube (August 9, 2024).
Wow! 2.7%?? So lower than any of the (thankfully only) 4 years under Parkinsonian Joe, thanks Queenie! This may be the beginning of a beautiful (no Homo) friendship, next lets compare how many Amuricans were killed in Afghanistan since January 20,
Starting on day one..
Lotta things supposed to happen on day one
Promises made. Promises kept.
He doesn’t get it, notice how he didn’t get the same idea re the crazy Ukraine promise above.
I get it, it took Nixon a while to end LBJ's wah
Doubling Down on Dumb (translated into Fakeman).
OK George, I know you just think you pulled off a "Jerk Store" insult, go visit the LBJ Ranch sometime (during daylight of course), you can listen to a phone tape of LBJ complaining in 1972 that Nixon was losing his (LBJ's) Wah, if Humbert Humphrey had won in 68' we'd still be fighting there.
My school took that tour. As the little tour bus rambled down LBJ's country lane, ol' Baccarat's 'Rain Drops Keep Falling On My Head' played over the loudspeaker. The guide explained it was LBJ's favorite tune.
"As the little tour bus..." So, you rode the short bus.
It's still an active Cattle ranch, (LBJ fambily sold it years ago) which is why you don't want to be there when it's dark, and they have one of his daughter's 1967 Vette on display, as well as LBJ's Jetstar. I came out of there sort of liking the guy. (he supported Milhouse in 68' btw, oh sure, in pubic he had to pretend he wanted Humbert Horatio to win, even LBJ knew how bad "Triple H" would be.
Really, really old.
Barry Hussein? he cain't hep it! (HT Governor Ann "Ma" Richards, oh, that's an "old" reference to) it's Genetical, unlike your problems, which are Genital.
Most people learn in grade 3 to only capitalize proper nouns.
This person pretends to be a MD here.
The Fakeman character is many things: fake vet and doctor, sad illiterate, desperate weirdo, but also usually just wrong: it was lower in August, September and October of last year.
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/
Yes and JFK's Texas trip was an overwhelming success except for that left turn in Dealey Plaza. But I'll play, funny how the only 3 months you can pull out of your ummm "Hat" are precisely when Sleepy Joe became an actual Puppet instead of a virtual one.
“So lower than any of the (thankfully only) 4 years”
Add the definition of “any” to what he’s ignorant of along with basic English rules of capitalization, punctuation and such.
Queenie, if clever cutting retorts were selling Real Estate, you ain't winning the Steak Knives. (See, I ended the sentence with a "." the size of which symbolizes how little people care about your Robert's Rules of Participles.) Sleepy Joe has the Parkinson's, what's your excuse?
You’re the one who wrote “any” and then was shown to be wrong. Is that kind of stupid a Parkinson’s thing (we know you’re elderly)? Does Parkinson’s explain the below third grade writing skills (or, as you’d write, “Third grade Writing skills(“)?
But Malika as I point out above Trump can't do anything about inflation that happened August - January that is included in the Y/Y figure.
The annualized Core CPI Aug-Jan was 3.79, annualized Core inflation Feb-July is more than 1% lower at 2.41%, which of course averages out to 3.1% the Y/Y figure.
I know numbers can be hard but you can see a picture here: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/core-inflation-rate-mom
If it wasn't doing so much damage to the world economy, this kind of cringe would be hilarious.
Politics Trump tells Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon to replace bank’s economist over tariff predictions President Donald Trump on Tuesday said Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon should either replace the bank’s economist or “just focus on being a DJ,” days after Goldman’s chief economist warned that American consumers will pay for an increasing share of new tariffs. (...) Solomon and Goldman “refuse to give credit where credit is due,” Trump wrote, claiming they “made a bad prediction a long time ago on both the Market repercussion and the Tariffs.” “I think that David should go out and get himself a new Economist or, maybe, he ought to just focus on being a DJ, and not bother running a major Financial Institution,” the president wrote. Trump did not name the economist he wants Solomon to replace. But Jan Hatzius, the bank’s chief economist since 2011, warned in a research note Sunday that U.S. consumers will end up absorbing an increasing share of the cost of Trump’s tariffs.
Politics Trump tells Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon to replace bank’s economist over tariff predictions
President Donald Trump on Tuesday said Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon should either replace the bank’s economist or “just focus on being a DJ,” days after Goldman’s chief economist warned that American consumers will pay for an increasing share of new tariffs. (...) Solomon and Goldman “refuse to give credit where credit is due,” Trump wrote, claiming they “made a bad prediction a long time ago on both the Market repercussion and the Tariffs.”
“I think that David should go out and get himself a new Economist or, maybe, he ought to just focus on being a DJ, and not bother running a major Financial Institution,” the president wrote.
Trump did not name the economist he wants Solomon to replace.
But Jan Hatzius, the bank’s chief economist since 2011, warned in a research note Sunday that U.S. consumers will end up absorbing an increasing share of the cost of Trump’s tariffs.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/12/trump-solomon-goldman-sachs-economist-tariffs.html
I hope the felony charge here is only a starter, and that the state adds on manslaughter or a similar charge.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/01/us/alabama-boy-death-hot-car-arrest.html
Sadly, because the child's name is Ke’Torrius “K.J.” Starkes Jr. his killer is a Black woman, and it happened in Birmingham nobody (in the media) cares.
He says, responding to a comment with a NY Times link!
like I said, nobody cares, the NY Times? you'd get more readers on "Backdoor"
He was talking about Fox and Townhall, lol!
Nothing makes white hackles and confederate monuments re-arise faster than a little brown on white big balls action.
I would normally rate the selective prosecution of DC as just overt racism. But I think more is at play here. So let's take the full faith and credit of the word of a MAGA man that this is all just concern for the welfare of citizens
You have the cities in Tennessee, Missouri and Louisiana with crime rates two to three times higher than DC. The reason you insurrectionists don't bother there is that the cities are black as hell, so like Trump said about American Jews, them people don't count. Then you have the red state factor. Them rednecks don't cotton to having big government usurp...even involving usurping they own neegroes.
But I think the third factor little DC is getting finger raped is that Donnie only does things for two reasons: revenge or to enrich the Trump Clan. The police in DC tried to stop Trump's insurrection.
He’s more likely targeting DC because it’s federal.
But...but...Donnie already has placed federal troops on the streets of liberal cities (Bonus credit for anyone who can name the band that made "The Battle of Los Angeles")
Hobie the pig finds a Truffle, Yes, Memphis, TN, Atlanta GA, Birmingham AL, Chicago IL, Naw'lins, make D.C. look like friggin Salt Lake City. The difference is it's mostly Ja'mal on Ja'rule Crime, and if some White saps from Des Moines make the mistake of visiting the National Civil Rights Museum, or the King Center for Non Violent Social Change (Ironically in one of the most dangerous parts of town) here's your Darwin Award. In DC it's your lilly White Congressional staff, Burocrats and Tourists getting victimized, and been to SE lately? it's not Jews doing it.
Apparently, by this gauge, Salt Lake City has a crime problem too. https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ut/salt-lake-city/crime
I'll bet white-on-white crime in Utah is through the roof!
You'd be wrong, those NBA teams bring in all sorts of bad characters.
Remember all them blacks thumping heads on the steps of the Capitol, Frankie?
I know a movie depicting oversized chimps marauding the alleys of Century City has haunted the dreams of whitey for 50 years. And if you could just rid yourselves of the oversized chimps of today, the nightmares would stop. But this ain't Gaza, Frankie. Our chimps have that pesky humanity thingie going for them.
You've convinced me Hobie-Stank! Now I'm sort of glad Roe v Wade resulted in some 70-80 million fewer of them umm, "marauding"
He’ll pretend to cry over it soon enough, just like how he shifts from racial epithets to talking about the “DemoKKKrat” Party. A ton of MAGAns are as deranged as they are unserious.
Don't rattle Frankie too much, Malika. Eventually he has to put down his phone, thump the air bubble out the syringe, and eyeball the dosage as his brow crinkles with perplexity. In unrelated news, death by embolism in black patients has risen by 500% in one Atlanta free clinic.
Well thanks Hobie-stank, at least you're not accusing me of being 12 and an Old Fuck simultaneously, (don't bother explaining to Queenie, he thinks "Cognitive Dissonance" is a new S&M Club) and Air Bubbles are no joke, especially in kids (and as much as the Pediatricians say "Children aren't just little Adults" every other Specialty except Gas treats them like little Adults) Kids have larger tongues in proportion to their airway, making masking and intubation more "Challenging" (Anesthesia-speak for "hard"), also have a higher basal Oxygen Consumption, meaning they desaturate faster than Adults as you're trying to manage the "Challenging" Airway, in General Kids have more lean and less fat tissue than Adults (that ones going away), and their Cardiac Output is mostly based on heartrate, rather than contractility, and since their Vascular System is proportionally smaller than the Adult model, a 5cc air bubble causes way more problems than in an Adult. And air bubbles are "Venous Air Embolisms" you know, the Trope you've seen on a hundred "Quincy M.E." episodes, I think the ones you're referring to are Pulmonary Embolisms, which are even worse (for the Patient, although they give us "Providers" headaches also)
Parkinson’s indeed.
Occam's Razor, I think you're just stupid.
You forgot your act: I think You’re just Stupid.
What’s worse, writing like a third grader or consciously trying to do so?
Did you see how Frankie had to Grok (I assume MAGA uses the white supremacist AI) his response? Also, no one seems to notice my 'free clinic' crack. Great material gone to waste.
I noticed it, let it go by, like Judge taking a 0-2 "waste" pitch, yeah, I worked part time for awhile at a "Free" Clinic (I was the only one working for "Free" oh, and I had to pay for my own Malpractice Insurance for treating the Patients I wasn't getting paid to treat) because 1: I like "Practicing" Medicine, 2: "Playing it Forward" (Or is it "Paying it Forward"?) enjoyed giving the great unwashed (I get that they're poor, but why can't they wash?) the benefits of my skills, and only quit when they started scheduling me for days I hadn't agreed to work, like I was a friggin employee, not an unpaid Volunteer, and since I'm not an FP or Internist, (i.e. I have an actual useful Specialty) they wanted me to have some Jerkwad FP/Internist, Jug-Dish-Soleman-Ayatollah-Ramadan to review 10% of my charts weekly, like I was a friggin Nurse Practitioner, They're still trying to guilt me back into working, oops, I mean "volunteering" Do I sound like someone Guilt works on?
Anchorage has a considerably higher crime rate than DC and is predominantly white. But maybe Trump has his eye on selling Alaska back to Putin anyway, so isn't too worried about the crime rate there.
Rates are hard, got a particular story I can push?
Here's one:
https://alaskapublic.org/news/public-safety/2025-07-22/anchorage-bar-owner-says-security-guard-killed-shooter-who-fired-on-crowd
Sounds kind of Wild West-y. Criminals with masks. Hero ex-military security guard running to his car to get his rifle from the trunk. Also bar owner talking about how crime in Anchorage keeps getting worse!
Meanwhile, here's a story from DC:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/man-dc-shot-killed-hours-after-trump-federalizes-citys-police-department
Do you have any evidence that Anchorage has a higher (not even considerable...a higher one period) crime rate than DC? You're 0-for-2 so far.
And are you arguing that DC got violent the day Trump took over the MPD?
Do you have any evidence that Anchorage has a higher (not even considerable...a higher one period) crime rate than DC?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
Violent Crime Rate for Anchorage: 1244.57 / 100K Violent Crime Rate for DC: 977.12 / 100K
So about 25% higher, which I'd call considerable.
Nope, I'm pointing out that his "crackdown" didn't work (yet).
"his "crackdown" didn't work (yet)"
You got him, its a failure after 24 hours! He's gotta resign now.
I guess 58% White is "Predominantly" a little AI Birdie told me
White: 58.32% (approximately 168,578 residents) Black or African American: 5.29% American Indian and Alaska Native: 7.28% Asian: 9.81% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: 3.11% Some Other Race: 3.11% Multiracial: 13.08%. 2
2 Sources Diversity and Community Anchorage is noted for its diversity, with a diversity score of 99 out of 100, indicating a mixture of different races and ethnicities living in close proximity. The most diverse areas are typically found in the northeast of the city, while the northwest areas tend to be less diverse. BestNeighborhood.org Trends and Comparisons The population of Anchorage has become increasingly diverse over the years, reflecting broader demographic trends in the United States. The city is home to a significant number of Alaska Natives, as well as a growing Asian population, contributing to its multicultural environment. Statistical Atlas +1
This demographic information highlights Anchorage as a city with a rich tapestry of cultures and communities, making it a unique place within Alaska and the broader United States.
neilsberg.com Anchorage, AK Population by Race & Ethnicity - Neilsberg
censusdots.com Anchorage, AK Demographics - Map of Population by Race - Census Dots
DC should be the safest big city in the US, not bragging about how its only the 25th most dangerous out of the 100 largest US cities.
But look at it this way let Trump have a go at it, and even if he.manages to cut the crime rate 50% you will still be able to carp about the 50% he didn't fix.
And there is even a possibility the crime rate goes up when they start counting all the incidents they weren't responding to or swept under the rug.
Note: It's not a good idea to threaten law enforcement agents.
Lubbock Man Convicted of Threatening to Kill Secret Service Agents and Their Families
A federal jury in Lubbock convicted a Lubbock man for issuing online threats to kill United States Secret Service agents and their families, announced Acting United States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas Nancy E. Larson.
Tristan Rene Langston, 37, of Lubbock, Texas, was charged in March 2025 with the federal offenses of transmitting threats in interstate commerce and threatening a federal law enforcement officer, stemming from online threats Langston made in February 2025. On Thursday, August 7, 2025, after a four-day trial, a federal jury convicted Langston on both counts.
According to evidence presented during trial, on February 21, 2025, Langston posted a message to X.com, formerly Twitter, criticizing two U.S. Secret Service agents and then declaring, “2nd Amendment in full effect. Gonna slit the throats of agents and their families.”
Evidence in the case revealed that Langston’s statements went well beyond mere political rhetoric or bluster and constituted true threats directed at specific federal agents.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/lubbock-man-convicted-threatening-kill-secret-service-agents-and-their-families
Langston, who faces a maximum of 15 years in federal prison, is scheduled to be sentenced on Nov. 6.
Trying to kill law enforcement? I see a pardon in his future. He just has to start wearing the right kind of cap.
Well, Clinton pardoned people who BOMBED the Capitol.
Aren't we obligated to arrest Putin as soon as he lands on American soil? He has a warrant out for kidnapping 20,000 Ukrainian children.
So far the only places he has been able to travel to are autocratic nations friendly to Russia
As long as the US isn't a party to the Rome Statute, it has no obligations under the Rome Statue.
"the Rome Statue"? Which one? Whoever named that clearly didn't know how many statues there are in Rome!
When does the Statue of Limitations on the Rome Statue run out??
Whatever Legal body who put the warrant out can execute it, I hear "Dog the Bounty Hunter" is available.
That would include the US, of course.
Finally! someone got the over-the-head reference!
The two of you on the same mental wavelength.
That ain't praise, mind you.
Aren't you in a sour mood today. Are you sitting on a tack or something?
Considering the reports of mortgage fraud and now the FBI 302s alleging Schiff was directing classified material leaks to undermine a sitting President, how much hot water is Schiff in and why is he still a Senator?
Because he is a Senator and a Dem the water isn't that hot.
Lex, why aren’t you mad about the lack of response to the rural victims of Helene I noted above? Did ZOG get to you?
Why do you think any of your comments commands my attention?
So it’s ZOG? Did they promise you a chance to see a human girl naked?
He will be punished as severely as Eric Holder was for contempt.
Schiff haff fotos of Nake-ed T-rump!!!!!
White House Scrambles To Justify Trump’s Senior Moment
No one at the White House quite knows how to spin President Donald Trump’s recent and increasingly frequent string of senior moments — least of all White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, 27.
After declaring a “public safety emergency” to deploy troops against street crime in Washington, D.C., Monday, the 79-year-old president inexplicably told reporters—twice—that he was “going to Russia on Friday.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/white-house-scrambles-to-justify-donald-trumps-senior-russia-moment/
Has Vegas set odds about Trump making it to end of his term?
Or perhaps his staff will simply pigeon hole him and roll him out for photo ops from time to time?
It’s a constantly running thing for him, like the 1,000 percent price decrease, the egg prices thing, forgetting he appointed the fed chief, etc., His staff doesn’t have to do anything because 1. MAGAns were never serious about concerns over age-related cognitive declines and 2. the media often gives the GOP MAGA officials a relative pass on their stupidity (they’re the party of anti-intellectuals after all).
We're all about dementia/cop beating/child trafficking...until we're not
I heard that recently Russian influencers have been raising the playbook standard pretext that Russia has always maintained some presence in Alaska which makes it 'history and tradition' still a part of Russia. Given Donnie's penchant for handing over ours and other's toys to Vladimir, perhaps his statements are true.
Of course: https://rossialaska.org/
Given that the US bought it for $7.2m, if Putin offers $72m to buy it back that seems like a no brainer for any self-resprecting real estate mogul.
Trump considers himself quite the deal maker so . . . maybe he'll offer Alaska to Russia in exchange for Russia leaving the Ukraine.
Uh oh.... did I just open a can of worms?!?
I think he will pardon Vlad, hand over Alaska for free and give him a taxpayer bounty bonus of $10M ala Tiny, Microscopic Saint Ashtray Babbitt
If you told him that it would let him put Murkowski out of a job, he'd probably jump at the chance.
POTUS Trump has an 8% chance of kicking the bucket in any year, according to mortality tables. Cannot escape the Grim Reaper.
and you have a 100% of posting something stupid today
Trump is going to a Russian summit.
One reason ordinary people don't notice is that there are different types of dementia.
I have an 85 year old relative who talks quickly and coherently, walks sprightly, stands upright. Total blank on anything that happened between 5 years and 5 minutes ago, but she talks a great game on 5 years.
Biden was losing track of his thoughts and having severe trouble with word retrieval, which made it obvious. He said lots of untrue stuff but that was more lying than delusions.
Trump is starting to occasionally go over into word salad, but for the most part he still finishes sentences without stumbling, and he never implicitly concedes that he's messed up through a pause or an excuse me. So casual observers who don't follow policy don't notice that he has badly diminished ability to understand complex issues and his narcissism is taking over his ability to reason at all.
I think the difference is that Trump is "functioning 79 year old doing fairly well" compromised, he's just stuck using an old brain, while Biden is "82 year old with history of brain bleeds starting into dementia" compromised.
And to be fair, if I'm doing even as well as Biden is at the moment by the time I'm that old, I'll be beating the odds by quite a bit.
Nobody at Trump's age is all there, which is why we really need an age limit on public office.
Trump also talks publicly exponentially more than Biden did. With far less scripting.
he still finishes sentences without stumbling
TF? He hasn't been doing that since 2015. He can't even manage that in print, let alone orally. (Unless by "stumbling" you literally mean standing silently still not saying any words at all.)
Apedad, in terms of misstatements, this is minor.
"Going to Russia" versus "Going to an undetermined point on the Russian border to meet with the Russians." And who knows -- Putin may insist of actually meeting on Russian soil.
He's not going anywhere near Russia.
https://open.substack.com/pub/inquisitivebird/p/how-many-are-criminals
In the US: "As the figure above shows, one in four to one in three black men eventually end up in prison. The same is true for one in seven Hispanic men, and about one in fifteen (non-Hispanic) white men." (I wonder what the numbers are for Hispanic men who are not also Black.)
In Denmark: "As shown in the figure above, already by age 24, about 9% of men of Danish origin and 27% of men of non-Western origin have been convicted under the criminal code."
From the source that Mikie P’s source relies on
“Second, our life table analysis demonstrates marked declines in the lifetime risks of incarceration. For Black men, the lifetime risk of incarceration declined by nearly half from 1999 to 2019. We estimate that less than 1 in 5 Black men born in 2001 will be imprisoned, compared with 1 in 3 for the 1981 birth cohort.”
Probably because Dem cities have stopped imprisoning criminals, and raised the thresholds for what constitutes activity that will be prosecuted.
Dem cities have stopped imprisoning criminals
You really just say shit. And when called on it? Well, then it gets amazing.
That's how you became the chief 'the Hatians are eating our pets' weirdo long after most of the MAGA shitposters had long ago backed away.
And earlier this week you ended up using Washington State stats to try and argue Washington DC was currently experiencing a wave of murders.
I'd tell you to be less lazy, but 1) It's really amusing, and 2) you seem utterly incapable of stifling that initial over-the-top ipse dixit.
I stand my that statement. The movement towards no cash bail has resulted in a revolving door law enforcement system; and, many cities, most notably San Francisco, have increased the crime thresholds significantly, for example for shoplifting.
D.C. has a no cash bail policy, so they simply release those arrested, or even issue summons in lieu of arrest. This leaves criminals on the street.
Note that I acknowledge the Washington state mistake. I can't recall you ever acknowledging a mistake you've made in comments.
You always manage to attack people who offer arguments, rather than argue the merits. Not just me, everyone. It's part of your shtick, I guess.
Not certain how the no cash bail movement makes for less charged offenses. In theory it should let bad guys out to commit more offenses than they would have.
The no cash bail locations also tend to have prosecutors who will only prosecute certain crimes committed by specific groups.
Oh so bail is your issue here? Because that was not clear.
So what is the purpose of bail, in your view?
many cities, most notably San Francisco, have increased the crime thresholds significantly, for example for shoplifting.
That was a California law, not a San Francisco one, and it happened over a decade ago.
According to this, Chelsea Boudin eliminated cash bail for all criminal cases in 2020.
What does that have to do with what I said?
They did this in 2000 but not 1985?
Note that around 2010 ish (fucking Obama, of course), they redefined "White" to include MENA.
So in the US gov data, White no longer means Caucasian like it does to the rest of the world.
In fact, the exact opposite is true. Which you'd know if you read Prof. Bernstein's book.
Black and Native Americans are imprisoned in Utah at rates nine times higher than white Mormons
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/rates2021/UT_Rates_2021.html
Omitting rates of crime committed by race. Why ?
sounds low
As expected
And they commit crimes at 20 times the rate.
I've never seen any (Redacted) move that fast. Is that like that poor Woman who's getting raped every 5 minutes??
Statutory rape ain't much of a crime...lately
President Trump appears to have developed a scheme to circuvent both explicit textual Congressional control of all federal taxing and spending, and an explicit textual prohibition on export taxes, by “negotiating” granting export licenses in exchange for a cut of export revenue directly with exporters.
This simulataneously circumvents multiple constitutional strictures on the power both of the President and the federal government as a whole. It is a naked abuse of the President’s discretion over export licenses for national security reasons to extort money for slush fund and graft purposes having nothing to with national security. Indeed, because the Constitution prohibits the treasury from accepting revenue based on export revenue, I think what Trump is doing is nothing more than extorting bribes.
Perhaps we will be informed in due time that because the lawyers have determined the Treasury can’t accept the money, President Trunp has no choice but to handle it separately and decide where it goes himself. Or maybe this will happen without our being informed.
There's always the "presidential library" option?
And unfortunately the courts may never get to hear this one. NVIDIA and AMD aren't going to sue because they really want the license, and the courts will rule that no one else has standing.
On your second point about where it goes - Trump has already claimed he can spend $600B from Europe on "anything I want". The $600B (non-existent, but that's a separate lie) was supposedly going to be in the form of investments in industry but somehow Trump gets to decide how it is spent.
Well, if Wikipedia is accurate, “real estate development, investment, brokerage, sales and marketing, and property management” would seem especially promising industries for such an investment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trump_Organization
I can't see him using it for 'industry investment'. I mean, he's taxing American companies that import, and now taxing American companies that export. And China has yet to pay a dime. America First, baby!
Regarding the takeover of the DC police, the relevant statute speaks of the Mayor providing police services to the President on a short-term basis for specific emergencies.
First, it uses the language of independent contracting. When entity A provides services to entity B, the employees continue to be entity A’s employees, and entity A gets to decide who will actually provide the services and how they will be provided. Entity A doesn’t get to directly control the employees providing the services and order them around.
Second, there is no energency. An emergency reflects a new, acute situation that has happened in the real world. Something new has emerged in the actual world.
A situation where the President up in the morning and gets it into his head that something has to be done now about a long-standing problem is not an emergency. While something new has emerged inside the President’s head, nothing new has emerged anywhere else.
From what my acquaintances in the District tell me, it's been a lot of photo ops mostly. Not a ton of actual crime fighting.
Which makes sense since there's not a lot of actual crime to fight.
I'm just glad no one got shot.
Il Douche, reporting from Whitelandia, VA.
Apparently there's a lot of Humvees camped out on the Mall? What crime are they trying to fight--people getting overcharged by food trucks?
Up next; tanks at The White House.
We already had the military parade, though. Maybe Trump was mad not enough people watched it so he needs to put on another spectacle.
It's so you don't notice the Snipers
Sarcastr0 12 minutes ago Flag Comment Mute User "From what my acquaintances in the District tell me, it's been a lot of photo ops mostly." "Not a ton of actual crime fighting."
"Which makes sense since there's not a lot of actual crime to fight."
Just where did you get the idea there is not a lot of actual crime in DC?
The issue as I see it is not whether or not DC has a lot of crime. As always, people can disagree about how big a problem something is and what should be done to address it. The issue is that there has been no recent large uptick in crime. Crime isn’t that much different from what it’s been previously. So while there’s crime, there’s no crime “emergency.” There’s been no sharp change. Nothing new has emerged. And the statute only permits the President to act in an “emergency.”
The intent was for things like getting a bodyguard to protect a controversial ambassador or other VIP or help with crowd control at a federal event, special services for special occassions, or situations like January 6 when the Capitol Police needed reinforcements pronto. It’s not about a complete takeover to address a long-standing, chronic problem.
"intent"
Laws speak through their words, not some vague "intent" you just invented.
Why would "crowd control at a federal event" be an "emergency"?
Trump is doing it so you oppose it. Simple as that.
That's such bullshit! "In 2024, Washington, D.C. saw a homicide rate of 27.3 per 100,000 residents. That was the fourth-highest homicide rate in the country — nearly six times higher than New York City and also higher than Atlanta, Chicago, and Compton."
"Bowser admits 'hands are tied' as Trump's DC cleanup nets 23 arrests on day one" (Fox News)
Ssee my comment above.
ReaderY 39 minutes ago Flag Comment Mute User "See my comment above."
The crime rate is still very high and has been for a very long time, with the police either doing a poor job or just being overwhelmed. Providing assistance should be welcomed.
Yet the very people wanting to impose lockdowns and other restrictions on law abiding citizens are opposed to efforts at controlling criminal activity
“And has been for a long time.”
So you agree there is no emergency, and Trump’s has no authority to take emergency action.
Congress and Congress alone has power to modify the responsibilities of or bolster the DC police department to address chronic as distinct from emergent problems. Congress could have delegated that authority to the President if it wanted to.
If Mr. Trump sees a problem, he can talk about it to Congress and ask them to do something about it. But he has no inherent power to act on his own.
ReaderY 23 minutes ago Flag Comment Mute User “And has been for a long time.”
"So you agree there is no emergency, and Trump’s has no authority to take emergency action."
No - its been an emergency for decades. Like most leftists, you are mad that Trump is addressing a problem that has existed from decades.
Look up the definition of an emergency in a dictionary.
“An unforeseen combination of circumstances that…”
If it’s been around for decades, it’s been foreseen.
If you want to address a problem in DC that’s been around for decades, talk to Congress.
None of Mr. Trump’s business.
Just doesn’t matter what comes after the “that…” Totally irrelevant.
Google:
"Yes, a long-term festering problem can absolutely become an emergency, even if it has existed for a significant amount of time. Here's why: Tipping Points: Many situations have a "tipping point" where a series of gradual or seemingly minor problems, when combined, can lead to a sudden and significant escalation, according to The University of Utah. For example, a chronic wound that becomes severely infected can suddenly require emergency treatment due to the infection spreading. Compounding Factors: Long-term issues often create a ripple effect, exacerbating other problems and increasing vulnerability to crises. A deteriorating infrastructure over time, for instance, might eventually lead to a catastrophic failure, demanding immediate attention. Cumulative Damage: Prolonged exposure to stress or neglect can lead to a gradual build-up of damage or strain, eventually reaching a point where immediate intervention becomes necessary to prevent further, more severe consequences. Sudden Worsening: Even if a problem has been managed or tolerated for a long time, it can suddenly worsen or develop new, acute symptoms that require immediate action. For example, chronic chest pain that suddenly intensifies and is accompanied by shortness of breath and sweating could indicate a heart attack, which is a medical emergency. Ignoring the Problem: Allowing a problem to fester can worsen its impact and make the eventual resolution more difficult, costly, or even impossible. In essence, while a long-term problem might not be an emergency in its initial stages, neglecting it can lead to a point where its consequences become severe enough to demand urgent and immediate attention."
"Congress could have delegated that authority to the President if it wanted to. "
It did, in the Home Rule Act decades ago.
The President gets to decide what an "emergency" is, not you.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
Only if there is a lawsuit.
DC hasn't filed one. So until it dos, its the president's call per statute.
Just because you can get away with murder if nobody discovers you doesn’t mean it’s OK as long as nobody discovers you. Shooting the witnesses and so forth to cover your tracks doesn’t make what you did more legal.
"Shooting the witnesses and so forth to cover your tracks doesn’t make what you did more legal."
Good point! Man you are quickly descending into madness.
The statute does not define emergency so the president gets to do so, subject to a no hope Hail Mary lawsuit of course. Its not anything like murder, you complete dope.
No. A Republican President can’t decide to call out the national guard because there are too many Democrats in Congress and he needs some arrested so he can get a big enough majority to pass an Enabling Act.
Emergency powers in the American constitution just don’t work the way Germany’s did in 1933. President’s discretion is subject to abuse of discretion review. A situation not remotey close to the dictionary definition of an emergency isn’t an emergency.
Readery - your comments have delved into delusions
Wow, 23 people in one day! That's almost half of the DC average last year. Great job, team.
Also, good to see one of the things they're doing is taking guns away from people. Don't all the second amendment fans tell us that the first thing the Nazis did was take away everyone's guns so they can't fight back?
Whose guns were taken away? There is nothing about the current situation in that link you supplied.
Were the gun possessors of age? Were they federally prohibited persons? Were they carrying legally? Were the guns stolen?
I'm a staunch 2nd Amendment advocate, but I don't support underage criminals carrying stolen handguns in order to commit crimes.
The gun thing came from Patel's xeet on the topic, where after noting that they had served an arrest warrant on someone charged with murder, the next thing he listed was that they had made a bunch of firearms arrests. No idea on any details beyond that (because Patel and the White House didn't provide any AFAICT), but DC's gun laws are still quite restrictive so it's easy to imagine people carrying illegally there in contexts that would be legal in most red states.
Well, that's an awful lot of speculation. But be that as it may, the law is the law. D.C. is about as far from constitutional carry as one can get, and even so, a 14 year old can't carry in any of the constitutional carry states, as far as I know. And, you do know, that there are 14, 15, 16 year olds committing carjackings in D.C.
That said, if I drove to D.C. I would arm myself, regardless. Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.
(long sidebar: "Yes, non-residents can apply for a concealed carry license in Washington, D.C. The process and requirements are generally the same as for residents, with the added requirement of proving U.S. citizenship or permanent residency for those born outside the U.S. or its territories. The firearm must also be registered in D.C. Here's a more detailed breakdown: 1. Eligibility: U.S. Citizenship or Permanent Residency: Applicants must be citizens or permanent resident aliens. DC Registration: The firearm must be legally registered in Washington, D.C. 2. Application Process: Firearms Training: Applicants must complete a firearms training course certified by the Chief of Police, which includes at least 16 hours of training in areas like firearms safety, nomenclature, and marksmanship. Background Check: A background check is required. Application Submission: The application, along with supporting documents and the registration for the firearm, must be submitted to the Metropolitan Police Department. "
I also understand the application must be submitted in person.
That's why I'm an advocate of concealed cary license reciprocity, at least, and even better, national constitutional carry.)
Listen, the new DHS jackboots spent their time on the amazing crime reduction initiative of...stopping cars on 14th Street, one of the major corridors in DC.
This doesn't look like authoritarian theatre at all!
TP you got *wrecked* on this issue on the Monday thread. Washington State is not Washington DC. Homicide is not all crime. NYC as your single point of comparison is dumb.
I take it no learning has occurred.
Right wing man is still terrified of cities. News at 11.
But ignoring your 'DC is a hellhole' silliness, do you think photo ops are the way to prevent homicides?
Will you stop attacking me and stick to the issues? I recognized the Washington mistake. And, I pointed out that not all homicide is crime. And, I'm not afraid of cities, I lived and worked in NYC for 25 years, including as a clerk in Bronx liquor store.
And, D.C. is a hell hole. That's why the NG and FBI are supplementing the PD, and the police union supports it.
Homicide is a crime != Homicide is a proxy for all crime. You are cherry picking. Part of your comments where uou say wild shit and can't back it up.
What is this don't attack you? You make stupid, hateful comments, and double down, I'm gonna keep calling you out as stupid and hateful.
So I'm not dropping the 'Haitians are eating our pets' either. I will keep dragging you for making comments that are racist as alll fuck. No wonder you hate DC!
I mean, if you think of it, isn't DC just full of events likely to draw a lot of blacks?
~scary~ It's amazing you can go on.
Well, then you are just a dick. Get a life.
You post racist stuff and get mad when I point it out.
I would say the actual dickery is the guy who advises not to go to events where there are gonna be a lot of blacks.
"I would say the actual dickery is the guy who advises not to go to events where there are gonna be a lot of blacks."
No, that's actually prudent. Aren't you aware that when the HBCUs have their beach weekend in Virginia beach that white business owners close, and even board up their shops, and many white residents leave town? Why would that be?
Because there are still racists in Virginia?
Just a thought!
Spring break has historically been a caution regardless of the race.
But you just see it with black people because you're racist as fuck.
You still believe the Haitians are eating pets? Been pretty quiet about that.
"Spring break has historically been a caution regardless of the race."
Not so. It's much more dangerous and destructive with black groups. Not racism, just a fact. Vandalism, "wilding," gunshots, etc.
Must have just missed the question about the pets!
It's much more dangerous and destructive with black groups
Any backup for this?
"wilding," This is Stormfont shit. You should be ashamed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freaknik
""wilding," This is Stormfont shit. You should be ashamed."
Wilding is what the black participants call it, you dope!
Yeah, right along with the knock out game and polar bear hunting.
For someone who claims to have grown up in NYC you seem to be unaware of what went on. "Wilding is a slang term that originated in African American communities and refers to the act of engaging in violent or destructive behavior in a group. It typically involves young men gathering together and causing chaos in public places, often targeting innocent bystanders and businesses. This behavior can range from vandalism and theft to assault and even murder.
The term "wilding" gained national attention in 1989 when a group of teenagers were accused of attacking and raping a woman in New York City's Central Park. The media sensationalized the incident, using the term "wilding" to describe the alleged group behavior of the teenagers. The case sparked widespread outrage and led to calls for harsher punishments for juvenile offenders." https://www.fastslang.com/wilding
Gaslighto - lets us know if and when you are capable of making an informed and coherent comment
Where's Snake Plissken when you need him?
Well done Joe FTB, Well done! He really grew up from that "Jungle Boy" Gilligan's Island Episode
On an unrelated note:
The Military Occupied LA for 40 Days and All They Did Was Detain One Guy
Well, that and act as a deterrent.
No more riots seems like an accomplishment.
LA and California governments being embarassed enough that they step in to control the riots just to get back at Trump was not something I expected to see in 2025.
What riots? That two people set a car on fire?
Are you kidding? Why do you lie to minimize what happened?
"According to a report last week, the unrest cost the City of Angels more than $32 million in damages and police overtime costs, not counting the cost of National Guard troops ordered in by Trump."
"The number of busts from last month’s rowdy anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles has now surpassed 40, including a teen charged with attempted murder and a man busted for slamming a cop with a flagpole."
So you quote from an unnamed source citing an unspecified report that mixes together an undetermined amount of "damages" vs "overtime costs." And cite a tiny number of arrests, one of which was for what I've been repeatedly assured is tourism.
https://nypost.com/2025/07/01/us-news/busts-from-la-anti-immigration-riots-continue-to-mount-da/
Your minimization of the riots in LA is ridiculous. Oh, andas if setting cars on fire is nothing to be concerned about, except that's the tip of the iceberg of what happened. What about the officer hit by a cinder block that someone hurled?
And you say "what riots?" Are you f'ing kidding me?
I can see why you didn't want to post the link. Because it reveals that there was a tiny amount of property damage in these supposed "riots."
If he did not gaslight, he'd be unable to write anything.
The Narcissist's Prayer:
That didn't happen. ← We are here And if it did, it wasn't that bad. ← And also here And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not my fault. And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did, you deserved it.
Why won't you leave poor Trump alone!
and we've got Thousands of Hydrogen Bombs and haven't used any of them, that's sort of the point.
You forgot about those murders that happened just a few blocks from the anti-democracy protests.
"From what my acquaintances in the District"
I notice you don't live there any more. Curious since its crime free.
I think the emergency was that a neegro from Prince George ventured into DC and thumped a white MAGA.
You know, some have speculated that with Trump in charge of the police, a MAGA militia could enter DC and try to sack the Capitol and Trump would just sit on his hands a let it happen. But what are the odds of that happening?
Guess you discount the intern being killed.
"Cincinnati viral beating victim [white] says violent mob started attacking 'like a pack of wolves' https://www.foxnews.com/us/cincinnati-viral-beating-victim-says-violent-mob-started-attacking-like-a-pack-of-wolves
Whew!, that story was 24/7 in the MAGAverse.
"Black leaders raise concerns over handling of Cincinnati 'brawl' investigation [white group beat a black man]" https://www.wlwt.com/article/downtown-cincinnati-brawl-investigation-cecil-thomas-discussion/65651668
The story you paraphrase as "white group beat s black man" says that one white man slapped a black man, and that resulted in a melee that led to the arrests of six black people (who apparently ganged up on the slapper). Where is the white group, and why do you hate facts?
"All six are Black, raising questions about why the white man is still not facing charges."
Yes, the Honkie seriously injured the (Redacteds) Fists with his face, sort of like when James Byrd Jr. damaged the bumper on his murderers Pick-em-up by inconsiderately tying himself to it. Difference is 2 of 3 Byrd's murderers were Executed, the other got Life without Parole (for flipping on the other 2) Of course that was in Texas, where life is actually valued (at least legally)
So you mean the second story really was "black group beat a white man", and your original description was fundamentally wrong.
It's like the old Hockey Joke "I was at a Violent Brawl and an "End the Violence" March broke out!!"
As the The Talk: Nonblack Version counsels:
(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.
I'm not blaming the white victims here; I think they were foolish to go there, and even more foolish to perhaps have provoked the attack. But it doesn't justify the attack, which was quite brutal, and cheered on and recorded by blacks in attendance. Only one person called 911.
Thanks for supporting my Derbyshire reference from Monday's Thread. That particular point reminds me of one of the "Dirty Tricks" Tricky Penis's Chief Dirty Trickster (UC Berkley Trained Lawyer (The) Donald Segreti), pulled, on Senator Edmund Muskie (D, Maine) They considered Muskie the most competitive of the DemoKKKrats in 72' Leaving flyers, placing posters, in Baltimores Black neighborhoods, advertising a fictitious Muskie Rally with "Free Beer, BBQ, Fried Chicken, Guest Speakers Sidney Potier, Lorne Greene, Rosey Grier, Musical Performance by Sly & the Family Stone, Earth Find & Fire, Al Green" with the location the same as an actual scheduled "Peace Protest" so you got lots of Angry Blacks strewn among a bunch of dirty Hippies, Hilarity ensued
Those black leaders are actually calling for the White victims to be charged with felony incitement.
I guess being White around blacks is now a crime.
about 10 years ago we had a number of Gas Passers out for a considerable amount of Shekels, I mean time, due to Skiing Injuries, tried adding a rider to our Contract listing Skiing as a "Prohibited Behavior" but turned out it was easier just to nonchalantly inquire if a potential Gas Passer was a Skier, funny, no Skiing injuries for quite a while
"Second, there is no energency.[sic] An emergency reflects a new, acute situation that has happened in the real world. Something new has emerged in the actual world."
That's not so. An emergency can exist and persist because the powers that be neglect it, or decide to do nothing about it. And then someone new comes along, a new sheriff in town, as it were, and decides to act.
Here's a useful definition:
"An emergency is “a situation that poses an IMMEDIATE RISK to life, health, property, or environment. that requires urgent intervention to prevent a worsening of the situation and has a high probability of escalating to cause IMMEDIATE DANGER to life, health, property, or environment”."
This has been festering for a long time in D.C. Trump rightly points out that the nation's capital should not be such a crime-ridden, dangerous place. That's why D.C. is first on the list. Next are Chicago, St. Louis, Detroit, Baltimore, and so on.
So right after you posted the definition of emergency, you posted a 'should' statement.
That is inconsistent.
You have a reading comprehension problem.
he doesnt have a reading comprehension problem, its a problem with logic, common sense and reality. Though in his defense, its a common problem with leftists.
That DC is easily the most violent capitol city on Earth is embarrassing. Almost twice the murder rate of Bogota.
What’s the basis for your claim that there is a “high probability” of crime in DC “escalating?” What evidence do you have to support it? Any? Speak up.
What are you talking about? I don't think anyone said that. At least, searching for it only comes up with you.
"Pirro calls out DC laws letting 'young punks' off the hook for violent crimes" https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pirro-calls-out-dc-laws-letting-young-punks-off-hook-violent-crimes
"But they know that we can't touch them, because the laws are weak," she said. "I can’t touch you if you’re 14, 15, 16, 17 years old"
Now then, on FB, a cut of that video with Trump standing next to Pirro has him smirking when he hears that line. But looking at the original on Fox, I see that the smirk was just photoshopped. This kind of reckless shit is how a good man's reputation can get spoiled!
Just checking if the VC regulars are at all concerned by Trump's sprint towards authoritarianism. ... Looks like the answer is no.
Alright, moving on.
Let us know when Trump gets as authoritarian and Obama and Biden were.
Drink!
Sure, because Obama/Biden repeatedly sent the National Guard into cities against their will and had appointees tell the DOJ to ignore court orders.
Trump stopped riots against the will the cities, who seemed to want the riots. An authoritarian acts against the will of law-abiding citizens.
Sure, sure. It's not authoritarian if you're breaking the law to deploy the National Guard against the city or state's will if you're doing it for their own good.
Big brother to the rescue!
I don't think your definition of "Authoritarianism" is the same as my definition of "Authoritarianism" Let me know when "45/47/48?" makes getting an experimental Immunization a requirement for performing my Profession. Oh, he wants to crack some Criminals heads? Good.
Oh eM Gee guys, how come everyone is not panicking day in and day out like me!!?!!?!?
Please, the sky is literally falling now!!! What are we going to do besides cry on the internet??!??!!?
Oh, I know the wannabe fascists are celebrating, I was just curious to see what kind of mental gymnastics folks were engaging in.
Hey? Do you think you'll be able to get a ride in Trump $400m gift from Qatar?
What have the fascists made you do?
Nothing! I thankfully don't live in the US!!
Wait, you don't live in the USA, but you're all stressed out and panicked by what you believe is happening here?
lmao wtf is that some sort of mental illness?
Why do you think I'm all stressed out and panicked?
I'll admit to being a bit worried, Trump has the potential to destabilize the whole world, and I do in fact feel some empathy for Americans.
But personally, I don't see his actions doing much immediate harm to me.
Trump: Selling AI chips to China is a national security risk China: Remember we own a large amount of $TRUMP, hence, your ass Trump: We must sell AI chips to China, and shakedown the American makers for money while doing it
Now be good, obedient hayseeds and get your newly minted red Make China Great Again caps. Autopenned by Trump himself.
This is sickening.
“We had over 900 cases going, 600 counts of fraud and another 392ish investigations. The court of criminal appeals, which is our highest court on criminal matters, struck down a statute from 1951 that the legislature passed legally directing the attorney general of Texas to prosecute voter fraud. It was in place for thousands and thousands of cases and they on an 8 to 1 vote suddenly said it's unconstitutional for the attorney general to be in court. You said you had roughly 900 cases. Some of them were not adjudicated yet. How many of them all dismissed? All dismissed? 100%. So everybody got away with voter fraud. Everybody we know was committing voter fraud. The court of criminal appeals said they're dismissed. They get to commit all the voter fraud they want now and in the future. We are allowing that the reason that matters should matter to voters across the country because if Texas can't protect against voter fraud, we're gonna lose the state.”
“We had over 900 cases going, 600 counts of fraud and another 392ish investigations. The court of criminal appeals, which is our highest court on criminal matters, struck down a statute from 1951 that the legislature passed legally directing the attorney general of Texas to prosecute voter fraud. It was in place for thousands and thousands of cases and they on an 8 to 1 vote suddenly said it's unconstitutional for the attorney general to be in court.
You said you had roughly 900 cases. Some of them were not adjudicated yet. How many of them all dismissed? All dismissed?
100%. So everybody got away with voter fraud. Everybody we know was committing voter fraud.
The court of criminal appeals said they're dismissed. They get to commit all the voter fraud they want now and in the future. We are allowing that the reason that matters should matter to voters across the country because if Texas can't protect against voter fraud, we're gonna lose the state.”
https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/1955585354008031531
They're trying to steal Texas.
So you don't like it when someone tries to steal an election, eh?
AFAICT, this happened in 2021? And the 8-1 decision was by an all-Republican court:
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/12/15/ken-paxton-election-prosecute-court/
Who is this "they" you speak of?
The only people who have won every statewide race for the last 30 years are Republicans. So he must be referring to them
Bush Republicans.
But I love how you make a point to highlight party affiliation because regards of John Roberts crying about it, everyone and I mean EVERYONE knows the judicial system is biased and partisan.
Wait, so your theory is that back in 2021, the "Bush Republicans" were trying to "steal Texas" and...do what with it, exactly? And also, somehow Ken Paxton, who came up in Texas in the early 2000s and became AG of Texas a year before Trump was even running for President the first time is not one of the Bush Republicans?
Or more likely: you see something on X that makes you mad and have a tantrum about it without actually doing the slightest bit of diligence about the context or thinking about what might be going on.
Please slow down and pay attention.
The AG, Paxton, had 900 cases of voter fraud dismissed because 8 of 9 judges invalidated a 50 year old statute empowering the AG to prosecute voter fraud.
The Uniparty/Deep State/Neocons/Democrats have all been aligned to thwart democracy.
Hell, even Bill Barr was just found to have been colluding with Fani in ATL with those prosecutions against Trump people.
Are you really blind to the decades long effort by Neocons/Establishment Republicans to undermine Trump and disenfranchise tens of millions of voters?
Have you ever considered getting your news from legitimate news sources?
Who the fuck is "they" in this statement? The far right wing Texas Court of Criminal Appeals?
Also, the court decision that is being discussed was from 2021. And the case wasn't about "voter fraud." It was about campaign finance violations.
Wrong place.
Looking for something, I found this old comment.
Moreover, when your power derives from a written document, it may make sense for judges to defer to the same written document for other things as well.
Originalism is not a "perfect solution", but it is the only one tied to the source of the power being wielded.
"Originalism" means so many things, so it is often unclear what a person means when the term is used. But, for purposes of a response, I will quote Steve Calabresi:
Originalists believe that the constitutional text ought to be given the original public meaning that it would have had at the time that it became law.
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/white-papers/on-originalism-in-constitutional-interpretation
I think the Constitution should be applied by using current meaning as developed over time, case by case, incident by incident, applying general methods of interpretation, including textualism, precedent, structure, prudence, and so forth.
This involves "deferring to the written document." I take the Constitution, which various people take an oath/affirmation to uphold, to be the "source" of power here.
The text is "equal protection," and the document says various people have a role in applying it. John Marshall noted once that the specific applications of the text will, over time, be applied in a way "dimly" at best expected by the original framers.
The idea that originalism is the only "legitimate" form of constitutional interpretation is misguided hubris.
Which Originalism (or Textualism) are we talking about?
Actual Originalism Empirical Textualism Fair-weather Originalism Framework Originalism Halfway Originalism History & Tradition with a special focus on “analogous regulation” Intrinsicist Originalism Instrumental Originalism Liquidated Originalism Original Intent Original Law Original Meaning Original Methods Originalism Original Public Meaning Process-Formalist Originalism Semantic Originalism Structuralism Textualism
The right one. Obviously.
As I said at the time, all genuine forms of originalism tend to converge on the same answer outside of pathological situations, because the authors of the law write the text to embody their intent, and having done so, the public reading it arrive through the ordinary working of language at the same meaning.
Now, obviously "fair-weather" originalism means originalism that is given up on if you don't like the result, likewise "halfway" originalism, and "liquidated" originalism. So you can't expect 'originalism' that admits to being significantly non-originalist to always converge in the same way.
And, unfortunately, you can't expect justices to practice real originalism all the time, even the ones who claim to, because why would Presidents nominate and Congress confirm anybody they'd expect to take away their own illegitimate usurpations of power?
" . . . because the authors of the law write the text to embody their intent, and having done so, the public reading it arrive through the ordinary working of language at the same meaning."
Not according to Justice Scalia.
In Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998), Justice Scalia, writing for a unanimous Court, declared that “statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils, and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by which we are governed.” Id. at 79.
John Marshall helped to ratify the Constitution.
People don't accept what he says either, when it suits.
Something, something about looking over guests at a cocktail party, or something.
Not according to the Justice who called himself a faint hearted originalist, and admitted to frequently ruling contrary to originalist principles?
"Not according to Justice Scalia."
How does your quote contradict what Brett said?
Dead conservatives are always useful to leftists.
...you do realize this is an indictment of MAGA, not the left?
Scalia is now a liberal squish shows how insanely radical you've gotten pretty quick.
Scalia was always a squish, unless you were comparing him to liberals. He admitted to being a squish!
Scalia saying he was harmless doesn't mean he was.
He was your most effective originalist; he created the movement in the judiciary in a lot of ways.
'We're all originalists now' is wages of his legacy.
And now he sucks. Impure, impure!
Gotta be Brett Bellmore-approved GENUINE originalism. Or else it's just sparkling jurisprudence.
I can't argue with Calabresi's definition. The reason why the "original public meaning" should control is twofold: that "original public meaning" defined the original public understanding of the limits of the power being transferred to the government via the Constitution, and subsequent changes in public meaning lack any relationship to that power beyond the coincidence of similar language.
Obviously, with respect to new situations not conceived of at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, either the original public meaning would have to be expanded somehow to encompass "all the new shit", as Jeff Lebowski might say, or the Constitution must fail to address those things, as ultra vires.
There's probably a good argument to be made that the Founders were not so shortsighted as to have intended (nor had the public understood) that the Constitution would gradually become irrelevant and require frequent amendment in order to cover each new technology or change taking place in society.
How to faithfully implement the application of the Constitution to new situations is the real challenge; there are certainly more numerous ways to do so unfaithfully.
You appear to favor the application of traditional common law principles to constitutional interpretation. Given our common law tradition, that seems a logical option, but I don't think that it would be appropriate for a constitution, due to its role in defining transferred power: Judges have no inherent power to re-define, either by expansion or contraction, the transfer of power from the people to their government.
Judges have no inherent power to re-define, either by expansion or contraction, the transfer of power from the people to their government.
Why not? What is the judicial power that is mentioned in article III other than the power to say, in a given case, whether a machine gun is included in the word "arms" in the 2nd Amendment even though the original public meaning of that word and that amendment included no such weapon?
You ask "why not?" I ask "why?"
If there is an assertion of power, it must have a source.
Yes, the judicial power of article III. If you're going to resolve cases and controversies, you have to say what the law is. And in many situations, particularly today, that will require you to apply the words of the constitution to situations that were completely unimaginable to the people who lived in 1787-1790. There is no way to do that without "re-defining", in the Brett sense of the word, constitutional terms. In your black & white "people vs. government" framework, a given judgment might favour the people or the government, but the court has to come down one way or another, and it is doing interpretation regardless. That is inherent in its power & duty under the constitution.
I'm not arguing that there is no power of judicial review inherent in "the judicial Power"; I am saying that it is not unlimited, and that the limits of that power are both enumerated and inherent within the structure by which it has been theoretically transferred from the people to the government.
(I had mentioned "re-definition" because Joe had suggested that judges should interpret the Constitution "by using current meaning as developed over time, case by case, incident by incident, applying general methods of interpretation, including textualism, precedent, structure, prudence, and so forth", which I took as a description of common law jurisprudence, which, as you know, evolves over time.)
I agree that common law jurisprudence is a very useful concept, but it is not suitable for a constitution--in particular one which includes specific procedures for amendment which imply that it is not supposed to otherwise "evolve".
Yes, I am drawing a distinction between interpreting and re-defining (in the common law sense). Even if you would not, you still need to know how to distinguish between "interpreting" and "making shit up", because, as the last six months has ably demonstrated, we can no longer assume that any constitutional "norms" will be respected if they are perceived to stand in the way of Trump's accretion of power to himself (directly) and to the Executive Branch (incidentally). We (and by this I mean both originalists and others) can no longer simply demur and say that any "interpretation" cited by the Court is automatically legitimate under its Article III powers simply because that has always been the case in the past.
The assertion is via 'the judicial power.' I don't think that locks in any particular method of interpretation, though I do think good jurisprudence at least picks a lane.
One trend in recent opinions I've been liking opinions running through a number of different methodologies. Pleasing everyone including the various flavors of originalist.
That actually aligns with my personal style, which is not to pick a lane (despite what I think is good jurisprudence above). I really enjoy seeing how different methods of interpretation, originalist and otherwise, differ or align. They align more than you'd think!
At this point very little interpration of the Constitution is going on. Mostly the US courts do constitutional law by interpreting previous interpretations of the Constitution, and by interpreting interpretations of interpretations of the Constitution. But that's OK, that's how the common law method is supposed to work.
Just like playing Telephone or "Chinese Whispers" for you.
That's certainly how we got from Miller's "Only military arms are protected" to today's "Only civilian arms are protected."
And so the courts do a gradual random walk away from the Constitution, which wouldn't be so bad if it were some secret document only the elite were permitted to read. But it's a public document everybody reads, and so the further they walk from it, the more people notice the discrepancies.
You've got to read Baude.
If you do podcasts, he makes the case for a more positivist originalism based on what the legally educated public understood here: https://dissenting-opinions.simplecast.com/episodes/the-positive-turn
I also read Eric Segall.
Baude's originalism leaves something to be desired.
I'm not an originalist, so I'm already off from the break. But Baud's the most self-interrogating and thus self-consistent originalist of which I am aware.
And he's a dork for procedure, which I appreciate.
He has his strong points. Also limitations.
One thing he does that is a bit silly (and a bit like someone here) is assume his breed of originalism is "our law" as if it were obvious. He tossed that in when writing his 14A, sec. 3 pieces.
That's a fair put.
"You've got to read Baude. "
Dude tried to make his career with a ludicrous interpretation of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which got rejected 9-0.
So, pass.
No one cares about your ad hominem, Bob.
"The Supreme court disagreed 9-0 with him!" might not be a great argument that Baude is a bad originalist, (You'd need to establish that the Supreme court's rulings are a good metric for originalism.) but it's hardly an ad hominem, unless maybe you assume disagreeing with the Supreme court has some serious moral dimension to it.
Bob is saying he's not going to engage with Baud's analysis and arguments because of who he is.
it's hardly an ad hominem, unless maybe you assume disagreeing with the Supreme court has some serious moral dimension to it.
That makes no sense. An ad hominem is not a personal attack. It is an attempt to argue that a particular argument is wrong because of some irrelevant fact about the person making the argument. Which is what Bob did.
Note that if Baude were arguing the A14S3 case at the Supreme Court, then losing 9-0 would be a mark against him and not an ad hominem. (Though for the reason you describe, it wouldn't necessarily say anything about originalism.) The lawyer for a party has the responsibility to his client to try to persuade the court, and failure to do so would be relevant. But scholars saying, "X is the best reading of this law" are not making a prediction that a court will agree with them.
"An ad hominem is not a personal attack."
I disagree and Google concurs: "Yes, an ad hominem is a type of personal attack used in arguments. It involves attacking the person making the argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself. This is a logical fallacy because a person's character or personal traits are irrelevant to the validity of their argument."
It is actually the name of a logical fallacy, which involves making an argument based on a personal attack. Not all personal attacks are ad hominem, however, so it would be incorrect to equate the two terms.
If you recall, Bob had justified his decision not to "read Baud" by stating that Baud was a flawed individual who had "tried to make his career" with a "ludicrous interpretation" of Section 3, which the Supreme Court rejected. That is not a logical reason to not "read Baud", who may have many interesting things to say about many topics; it is the justification of a decision ("don't read Baud") based on a personal attack ("he is a flawed individual").
Thus, Bob was employing an ad hominem, not simply making a personal attack. Therefore, in this context David probably should have said, "an ad hominem is not just a personal attack".
Of course, Google's definition also could have been worded better, because an ad hominem is a "type of fallacious argument" (which includes a personal attack) rather than a "type of personal attack" (which is used in a certain type of fallacious argument). Spot the difference?
"original public meaning" defined the original public understanding of the limits of the power being transferred to the government via the Constitution, and subsequent changes in public meaning lack any relationship to that power beyond the coincidence of similar language.
The Constitution does not appear to me to provide instructions on using "original public meaning."
I have multiple pocket copies. It says things like "equal protection." Not the "OPM" of equal protection.
I don't think judges (and everyone else) who apply the Constitution in the way I said are "redefining"* the Constitution in the way you assert. The people established the Constitution text and applied it the way I said. So, for instance, when the 24A was ratified, there was a long tradition on how it would be interpreted.
There is a significant connection other than "coincidence" here. It is usually a game of generality. If the people wanted to clarify, as it did with multiple amendments starting with the 11th, that the application via the way I stated was wrong, it could have clarified.
It was not.
==
Note: Functionally, Martinned is correct on "redefining," but the allegation is that something is being illegitimately changed.
Various originalisms speak of some degree of "construction," which redefines things within legitimate boundaries.
I've often thought that there's a kind of Godel incompleteness to the law and constitutions, in that they can lay out rules, but at some point the rules about the rules about the rules... have to stop.
So, how does the Constitution tell us it's supposed to be interpreted in an originalist manner? By being written down.
Because 'originalism' isn't a special legal doctrine, it's more of a language doctrine. It is, simply put, how you read old documents, if you want to know what they actually mean. ANY old document.
If the Constitution were the constitution of some dead country, with no modern legal force, interpreting it in an originalist manner would be utterly uncontroversial.
The reason originalism is controversial is because the Constitution actually has legal effect, and a lot of people insist that we must find a meaning they like in it, regardless of whether it's actually there to be found. They're not disinterested seekers of truth, they're highly motivated reasoners.
And we actually have a serious moral dispute over whether judges are obligated to seek the actual meaning of the law in a disinterested manner, or to do "justice" (Whatever that might be!) even if it requires a strained or implausible reading of the law. In fact, that latter position is so dominant that originalism has been breaking against it.
You think everything written down is an exact recipe? That's not generally true, and not evidently how you must read a Constitution.
You assume it's a recipe; it might be a framework. It sure isn't written with the clarity of a contract or statute.
A constitution is not just a document; it's not even just a law; it is written evidence of an event: the voluntary transfer of power from the people to their government under specific terms.
You can read that evidence in many different ways, some good, some bad; but you can never change the event which it memorializes.
Why is all this important? Ask yourself how newly elevated Chief Justice Emil Bove will interpret the Constitution in 2028. (Hint: he's not an originalist.)
"Trump justifies his D.C. takeover by citing crime rates, but Cleveland’s are higher. Could we be next?!"
https://www.cleveland.com/news/2025/08/trump-justifies-his-dc-takeover-by-citing-crime-rates-but-clevelands-are-higher-could-we-be-next.html
Yea, so what? If the U.S. Capitol, the White House, all of those national monuments, all of those monumental federal office buildings, the SCOTUS, etc., were in Cleveland, then he'd be taking over the Cleveland PD to clean it up.
He does have more legal justification for doing this in D.C., so doing it elsewhere will be more legally difficult.
Don't you want Cleveland cleaned up, too?
Apart from excessive littering and reckless driving, I don't see any crime in my hood. I guess it'll take Emmett Till making a suggestive comment to a white lady to get MAGA all riled up. Otherwise, black on black crime ain't much of a thing these days
Wow, you and Sarcastr0 (regarding D.C.) are really in denial.
"Reports from 2019 indicate that Black individuals are disproportionately affected by homicide in Cleveland. Out of 106 homicide victims in Cleveland in 2019, 92 were Black, and 77% of those Black victims were males. When the race of both the victim and the perpetrator was known in homicide cases that year, 91% of Black victims were killed by other Black individuals. The per-capita offending rate for African-Americans in homicides was roughly eight times higher than that of white individuals, and their victim rate was similar."
You're assuming hobie views minorities as his equal?
He does not.
DC is a federal district, not a state. Perhaps the author should educate themselves before writing an asinine column.
BREAKING NEWS:
"Migrants hiding from ICE are starting to cover their bodies with Epstein File papers"
ICE Agent: "I don't see anything."
There was a good bit on the Andy Griffith Show.
Barney Fife is struggling to deal with a couple of miscreants who consider him unworthy of their respect.
"You're both a lot bigger than I am, but this badge represents a lot of people who are a lot bigger than either one of you."
Ultimately, We the People are behind it all.
Loved that episode, and one of the Bumpkins threatening Barney was the Late/Great Allan Melvin(Jewish BTW), who also threatened to beat up Barney in "Barney's Uniform", played "Sam The Butcher" on the Brady Bunch, Sergeant Hacker on "Gomer Pyle USMC" and Barney Hefner on "All in the Fambily/Archie Bunker's Place" was also in a number of Dick Van Dyke episodes
Trump seems to think that St Petersburg is still called Leningrad
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-alaska-russia-putin-leningrad-b2806865.html
Spirochaetes or dementia? We have a right to know!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zGAfEpXQrw&ab_channel=KarlderF%C3%BCnfte
James Comey, according to reports, ordered the release of classified documents to harm Trump in 2017.
Let's hope he is held to account.
"James Comey, according to reports, ordered the release of classified documents to harm Trump in 2017."
According to what reports? And what do you posit would constitute his being "held to account"?
Still waiting, Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2.
Potomac press@potomacpressdc 1h "CRITICAL SHOOTING IN BROOKLAND AREA MPD is on the scene investigating a shooting in the 3300 block of 15 Street Northeast. Per MPD an adult female was transported by DCFD with Life threatening injuries. H/T @NFTC_News"
Weird, I have been assured there is no crime in the District.
Why do you lie?
Sorry, I have been assured there is not a lot of actual crime in the District.
Who's lying? Sarcastr0, told us there's not a lot of "actual crime" in DC. He lived there, after all. "Which makes sense since there's not a lot of actual crime to fight."
(what's "actual crime," anyway?)
Who's lying?
Bob. He said "there is no crime in the District", This was an obvious lie. Now after I said he was lying he changed his tune.
Are you kidding? He was being sarcastic. He was probably referring to statements by Sarcastr0.
You do know what sarcasm is?
"He was probably referring to statements by Sarcastr0. "
Of course, as my second post shows.
It was hyperbole not sarcasm.
Amazing our committed the left here to the position that crime is minimal in DC.
It was a lie, which you have already apologized for--remember?
However, it was an obvious lie, intended to be provocative.
Much like SRGs's question, which was not a genuine question.
Bottom line: We already know why you lie.
"apologized for"
Sarcastically.
Of course it was.
See rule number 1.
"not a lot" is all relative, anyway. He didn't personally get shot to death, not even once.
To be clear, "no" is not the same thing as " not a lot of" some category of something.
"May I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism in the British Navy, absolutely none. And when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount"
...and you apparently think Bob is as funny as Monty Python.
The Judge who denied the Trump/DOJ request to unseal the Epstein Grand Jury transcript has joined the coverup:
udge Paul A. Engelmayer said in a written decision that federal law almost never allows for the release of grand jury materials and that making the documents public casually was a bad idea.
And the judge also belittled the Justice Department’s argument that releasing grand jury materials might reveal new information about Epstein’s and Maxwell’s crimes, calling that premise “demonstrably false.”
After privately reviewing the materials the government sought to release publicly, the judge wrote that anyone familiar the evidence from Maxwell’s 2021 sex trafficking trial would “learn next to nothing new” and “would come away feeling disappointed and misled.”
“The materials do not identify any person other than Epstein and Maxwell as having had sexual contact with a minor. They do not discuss or identify any client of Epstein’s or Maxwell’s. They do not reveal any heretofore unknown means or methods of Epstein’s or Maxwell’s crimes,” Engelmayer said.
He said the materials also don’t reveal new locations where crimes occurred, new sources of Maxwell and Epstein’s wealth, the circumstances of Epstein’s death or the path of the government investigation."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/judge-wont-unseal-transcripts-of-grand-jury-that-indicted-epstein-ex-girlfriend-maxwell
Now what? Impeach the Judge? Impeach Bondi?
I don't know or care about the specifics of this ruling, but Engelmayer hates Trump and should not be allowed to hear any cases involving this administration. Just like Amy Berman Jackson, Mark Walker, and a handful of others.
Are you going to go back to mixing him up with Oetken and falsely claiming he's gay?
Why would Bondi claim on national TV that she had a client list on her desk?
She didn't said she had Epstein stuff to review, I don't think she intended to say she knew exactly what was in it before she reviewed it.
“It’s sitting on my desk right now to review. That’s been a directive by President Trump. I’m reviewing that.”
She should have made it clearer though.
She’s in waaaay over her head, unfortunately
Impeach the President? It is President Trump that seems to be at the heart of the effort to withhold information. Now he could simply explain why he is stalling the effort or just stall the effort, leaving it at that. But what seems to be happening is an effort to distract and obfuscate. Why would Rep. Comer call Bill Clinton to testify and not the current President? Why talk about releasing grand jury testimony and not just release everything? IT appears the effort is to look like something is being done when nothing really is being done.
Well they've already tried that twice, and they already had one vote on an impeachment resolution this year.
House Res.353 was introduced 4/28./2025 but it looks like it was killed in committee.
lol, Kaz, this is a spirited attempt— I’ll give you that. Bondi says there were 1000 victims. Did Epstein and Maxwell personally rape them all? Can you think of a reason the identity of third party johns wouldn’t be relevant to the charges Maxwell is facing?
Bondi says there were 1000 victims. Did Epstein and Maxwell personally rape them all?
So, no, they didn't. I've repeated this many times: that figure includes people who Epstein simply had pictures of, not ones he personally sexually abused. All of the underage people who were personally abused were abused by Epstein/Maxwell, yes. There were no johns.
“All of the underage people who were personally abused were abused by Epstein/Maxwell, yes.”
Again. That is exactly what one would expect from GJ materials in re Maxwell.
No, the judge has not "joined the coverup". Denying an insincere government request to unprecedentedly release irrelevant materials relating to Epstein's and Maxwell's indictments does not usefully assist the Trump Administration's cover up of the role Donald Trump has played in the Epstein events and/or crimes.
Based on what we know about her and her pathetic fealty to Trump, impeaching Bondi will probably become a good idea at some point over the next 3.5 years, but lacks evidence of anything other than routine incompetence at this time.
If Democrats reclaim control of the House in the midterm elections, I predict that Pam Bondi will develop a severe case of assholus constrictus.
Who are you going to believe, Sarcastr0 or a former DC Police Chief?
"Former Capitol Police Chief: Trump Right, DC Crime Out of Control
Debunks Fake News: Gang Activity Up, Not Down
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/08/13/exclusive-former-capitol-police-chief-steven-sund-bigger-picture-shows-d-c-crime-is-on-the-rise/
That is not a former DC police chief. You can't even reed gud.
Ha, ha, you're right, thanks David.
And now for something more lighthearted. Via the inestimable Paul Campos, I present Lara Loomer’s deposition in her deformation suit against Bill Maher:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.434676/gov.uscourts.flmd.434676.100.0.pdf
It’s hard to overstate how much good stuff is in here. Post your favorite passages below!
THE WITNESS: Several of President Trump's staff have told me in confidence that -- that Lindsey Graham is gay.
MS. BOLGER: Hold on. Ms. Loomer, there's no question.
Hehehe good one
Katherine Bolger is a beast (I mean this positively, she was in beast mode for the depo). Wow. I started laughing at her direct 'What is your email address' question. That whole exchange was revealing (and hilarious).
I thought this was supposed to be a legal blog? “No Question” doesn’t mean “Yes” Confused? Let me decide for you (unlike the Late/Great Hannibal Lector I won’t disembowel and then hang you) “ So 12 Inch( so you’re hyperopic also) when did you stop regularly buggering young boys?”
Frankly
I haven't read the deposition, but it appears from the objections to the protective order that attaching a party's own deposition of more than 200 pages as an exhibit is a subterfuge to circumvent the very protective order which is at issue.
deformation suit
D.C.; nothing to see here:
"On the night of May 17, a mob of about 100 teenagers terrorized the Navy Yard neighborhood a block from Nationals Park.
It was the second such teen takeover in less than a month.
At about 8 p.m., police began receiving calls about disorderly conduct, but the situation quickly turned violent. One group of teens beat two bystanders, punching them, knocking them to the ground and then stomping on them, according to WUSA9.
There was at least one other similar incident that night."
My heavens!
Maybe if you shake your fist at them those teens will get off your lawn.
What's past is prologue. You defended the mobs who beat Jewish soccer fans in Amsterdam, and you defend the mobs who beat random bystanders in DC.
Pretty strained to make another tired accusation of antisemitism, while ignoring the open 'Jews control America' antisemites in your own camp.
Though I do find the idea of a DC being nonstop terrorized with roving mobs of youths pretty amusing. Like some right-wing fever dream come to life.
The Central Park Five (hundred)...
Who did rape women, why do you defend rapists?
"Though I do find the idea of a DC being nonstop terrorized with roving mobs of youths pretty amusing. Like some right-wing fever dream come to life."
And yet, that is what's happening. Teens carjacking.
"More than half of the carjackers arrested in Washington, DC, over the last two years were minors, the majority of whom were just 15 and 16 years old, according to a shocking review of police data in the nation’s capital — which has come under the spotlight after President Trump’s latest threat of a federal takeover.
Since August 2023, DC police have collared 333 carjacking suspects and 56% of those busts were of kids under 18, figures from Metropolitan Police Department show.
And 60% of the juveniles arrested for stealing cars were 15 or 16 — but ages ranged from 17 to as young as 12, according to police records."
"Over the past two years, DC saw a total of 1,046 carjackings — vehicle thefts where the owner was present. And 72% of those crimes involved a gun."
https://nypost.com/2025/08/06/us-news/minors-account-for-half-of-dcs-carjacking-arrests-since-2023-including-pint-sized-perps-as-young-as-12-police-data/
By coincidence, Washington, D.C. and New York City both experienced 959 carjackings in 2023.
The populations of these places are 707,250 and 8478k, respectively.
So, the per capita rates of carjackings, per 100,000 residents, are 135.6 for D.C., and 11.3 for NYC.
And I'm told there's no significant crime problem in D.C.
Why do you keep disingenuously saying,"DC has a higher crime rate than NY, so therefore DC's crime is a problem?"
NY is an incredibly safe city — despite the mewling quims in the GOP who pretend to have been scared when they were there. It's the safest big city, an incredible public safety success story over the last few decades. No, DC is not at NYC's level, and while it would be great if it were, it doesn't need to be in order for it not to have a major crime problem.
...but in fact, despite recent declines over the past two years, it does have a major crime problem. Like Chicago and other major cities much is not reported on or in fact recorded by the authorities.
"NY is an incredibly safe city" "It's the safest big city"
Bullshit. I lived there for 25 years and have visited innumerable times since I left, and I can tell you there are many place you cannot go safely, especially if you are white.
"The safest cities in the world, according to various indices, include Tokyo, Singapore, Amsterdam, Sydney, and Toronto. These cities consistently rank high due to factors like low crime rates, strong infrastructure, and effective safety measures. Other cities often mentioned in the top rankings include Copenhagen, Osaka, and Zurich."
David lives in Whitelandia NJ and probably only visits the better parts of the city for work, maybe a ball game or show. Pretty sure he never rides the subway.
David lives in Whitelandia NJ
This is a bizarre (and recycled) insult from the ankle-biter; I don't know what he thinks that word means or how it applies.
Pretty sure he never rides the subway.
As with respect to every other topic, you are wrong.
"As with respect to every other topic, you are wrong." Says you. FYI, Whitelandia is a reference to how Ron Kuby described where he lived when he did a radio show with Curtis Sliwa. Like you, he would practice in the cities but live where it was safe. Curous, what's the demographic makeup of your current place of residence.. Ther's a subway between NY and NJ?
"Ther's a subway between NY and NJ?"
PATH
Port Authority Trans Hudson is NOT a subway but a commuter train. There is a difference. Limited station and stops.
Curous, what's the demographic makeup of your current place of residence.
100% white (though not according to antisemites). Oh, you meant the town, not my house. Wikipedia says that as of the 2020 census it was about 2/3 white.
Ther's a subway between NY and NJ?
As you know, there is not. When I go into the city (which I did every day for work for a dozen years but now only on occasion since I WFH) I take NJT into the city and the subway to get around the city.
Closer to 75% (72%) in 2020, down from 85% in 2000 and 80% in 2010. Blacks hold steady at 5%. Biggest change is Asian (9% in 2020, up from 4% in2000) and Hispanic/Latino (9% in 202 up from 4% in 2000). Like I said, Whitelandia.
General Surgeon I knew in the Navy, grew up in Queens, Wrestled at Fordham, proficient in multiple Martial Arts, 6’4” 250 Said he never took the Subway, he knew he’d have to kill someone eventually (look at the Bullshit Dan Penny went through) He’s one of the top Colon guys in So Cal now
"The safest cities in the world, according to various indices, include Tokyo, Singapore, Amsterdam, Sydney, and Toronto.
I meant "safest big city in the U.S."; I thought that was relatively clear from context, but if it wasn't, I am clarifying now.
“He slams his fist against the post and still insists he sees the Ghost” Thanks for inching this thread to 1,000 posts (since I’m feeling charitable I’ll count your post as “cogent”(barely, try to step it up next time)
"Several cities in the U.S. are consistently ranked as very safe. Some of the safest include Nashua, New Hampshire, Columbia, Maryland, South Burlington, Vermont, Gilbert, Arizona, Warwick, Rhode Island, and Portland, Maine. Other cities frequently mentioned in top safety rankings include Naperville, Illinois, Cary, North Carolina, and Frisco, Texas."
I grew up in Columbia. It is a very nice place, but one thing it is not is a large city. I am not familiar with all of the rest of those, but the other ones that I am familiar with are not anything close to large cities. South Burlington isn't even a small city; it has 20,000 people!
Haha this list is one of the better own-goals I've seen in a long time.
Presumably because they are mainly located in states controlled by Democrats?
And now you've discarded baselines and normalization entirely.
At some point ideologues find legit numbers just hold them back so they just press into service any old number.
"Maybe if you shake your fist at them those teens will get off your lawn."
The teens did more than "shake" their fists.
"One group of teens beat two bystanders, punching them, knocking them to the ground and then stomping on them"
Apparently you find that funny.
Could you give us your address? Maybe they could “Flash Mob”( is that what you call it? “Flash Mob?”) At your place
Googling and Googling looking for stories. Settling on a FOX News story that leans on something from May. Because that's all he has.
It's hard out there for ThePublius, trying to substantiate his fear and loathing of DC. We all saw him say he's afraid of places where black people congregate, so it's kind of a fools' errand anyhow.
Once again, as usual, instead of addressing the issue Sarcastr0 attacks the reporter. Tired shtick.
Anderson Cooper explains the clever trap Trump has set for Democrats after announcing DC crime crackdown that has infuriated liberals
When you've lost Anderson Cooper on this issue, you've lost....
"Anderson Cooper thinks Donald Trump has taken over policing in Washington DC to dare Democrats into saying there's no crime problem in US cities.
The CNN star told New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman that the Dems' decision to highlight falling crime in DC will likely backfire - because so many locals of all political persuasions have recent personal experiences of lawlessness.
'It’s so interesting,' Cooper said on his show AC: 360 on Tuesday. 'The conflict, you know, Democrats face when talking about the policing in the District of Columbia.'
'Do you point out statistics of out of a 30-year low as they as the statistics show, and thereby sound like you’re saying, oh, there’s not a crime problem in Washington, DC? Where there’s crime problem everywhere.'
Haberman agreed, conceding: 'There is a crime problem everywhere.' "
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/media/article-14997885/cnn-anderson-cooper-maggie-haberman-dc-trump.html
Everyone knows lying is more effective than truthing.
That's why Trump does it.
What's the lie?
It's a fairly general statement: Trump lies constantly.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news?
Did you get to keep your Doctor like Barry Hussein promised?
Posting this in support of your assertions makes it looks like you know you're lying but don't care.
What are you talking about? I just posted the article on Anderson Cooper. None of those are my words. I did not lie.
You are in denial about crime in D.C., and are vociferously defending that denial by attacking those who don't agree with you. You are shameless.
It's nice to live in Whitelandia, VA.
Cooper's whole take is the facts are on the Dem's side but the politics will probably redound to the GOP because of anecdotalism and strawmanning.
Anecdotalism and strawmanning...sound familiar?
To your “Global Warming”, so I’m Hitler because I drive a Vette and dump used Motor Oil on the side of the road(I’m just returning it from whence it came) used to take it to Auto Zone, but they’re pricks about it, and the place you’re supposed to dump it is always nasty, getting used Oil on my $200 Florsheims
Our times wander towards the dark of the past. Reversion is in store. Humanity lends toward an abyss. Hope, while strong in some, is largely in short supply. Most want, but few give. Human nature continues to be its only fault ; the masses remain lost with their own ; needless repetition is the norm ; growth passes.
"Our times wander towards the dark of the past ... " et seq." This could be a Stuart Smalley monologue, if he was really stoned on quaaludes, and depressed.
Another liberal Biden-judge traitor:
[ICE] seem to be detaining some arbitrary portion of such individuals as they leave their regularly-scheduled immigration court proceedings. But treating attendance in immigration court as a game of detention roulette is not consistent with the constitutional guarantee of due process. And the “suggestion that government agents may sweep up any person they wish, for [no] reason [whatsoever] . . . so long as the person will, at some unknown point in time, be allowed to ask some other official for his or her release offends the ordered system of liberty that is the pillar of the Fifth Amendment.” Chipantiza-Sisalema, 2025 WL 1927931, at *3 (citing Velasco Lopez, 978 F.3d at 851-52; Valdez, 2025 WL 1707737, at *3-4).
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.646032/gov.uscourts.nysd.646032.16.0.pdf
"DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb says we "can't arrest our way out of crime""
"MEH, OBAMA SAID WE COULDN’T DRILL OUR WAY OUT OF AN OIL SHORTAGE. AND YET…"
"Democrats want to dismiss the clear and simple and workable answers because they don’t produce enough graft. Also, once you solve a problem, you can’t use it anymore."
https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1954971780327849985
Since the Trump crackdown is resulting in fewer arrests than before the Feds came in, seems like they've fully bought into this sentiment!
Have a citation for that?
Yep. Here's the baseline:
https://mpdc.dc.gov/publication/mpd-adult-arrests-2013-2024
20387 arrests in 2024 over 366 days = ~56 / day
And here's what we've got so far:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scoop-trumps-new-dc-crime-crackdown-yields-more-than-100-arrests
I'm not sure what the total period for the 103 arrests are ("less than a week"), but there were 26 Monday and 43 on Tuesday, both of which are well below 56.
I'll note that the most common arrest on Tuesday was for firearm crimes, reinforcing my point above that it seems like the main thing they are doing is taking away people's guns.
P.S. The article above is such typical Fox News propaganda: put the "more than 100 number" out there without making any attempt to compare it to the (higher) baseline. Make something that's bad sound like it's good for all of the folks who aren't going to bother to check.
Well, when you turn on the kitchen light the cockroaches scatter. The increased police, FBI, and NG presence on the streets could be scaring off the criminals, hence, fewer arrests. It would be intesting to know the actual crime rates difference, 'though it's too soon to tell; and, we know the previous crime stats were fudged.
Haha, is there any version of arrest data that wouldn't just confirm for you that they are doing a great job? "More arrests" = "see they are catching all the bad guys!" "Less arrests" = "they are scaring all the criminals to stay at home!"
You're even giving yourself wiggle room to decide everything's going great even if crime levels don't change by just dismissing the data. Seems like there's no possible evidence that would convince you that this was an ineffective or counterproductive intervention.
Who are you quoting? I didn't say those things.
That surging law enforcement into an area suppresses crime, and therefor arrests, shouldn't be a surprise.
You pushed back on: 'Since the Trump crackdown is resulting in fewer arrests than before the Feds came in.'
But then when jb came with receipts you flipped to saying actually that was good and proved this was being effective.
You've created an unfalsifiable thesis, as jb pointed out quite clearly.
Okay, so can you give an example of a data point that you think would persuade you that this federal takeover of DC law enforcement was not going well?
Two days of data vs 366 days…not exactly a valid comparison at this point especially comparing a newly in-place force vs a long-term entrenched department.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think Trump’s move was well thought out at this point. But let’s compare stats that are at least valid to come to that conclusion.
I agree there's not much statistical power at this point, but that doesn't stop Fox News from gloating about how many arrests there have been, so it seems important to put the numbers in context.
At a minimum, the data doesn't support the idea that the federal takeover has dramatically improved the state of law enforcement in DC (yet). And as usual, Trump and Co were and are making claims about how quickly they were going to change things.
People who are sure it's simple show up on the fringes of both sides. They're invariably wrong, sometimes monstrously so.
If a policy area were actually simple, it would have been done long ago.
Okay, everyone. An important update on the federal crackdown on crime in DC: They caught the guy who threw the sandwich!
Unfortunately, it seems like this was too tough of a case for the Feds because, despite them giving chase as we can see in the video, it was actually the Washington Metro Area Transit Authority cops who eventually apprehended our villain.
Once in custody, they even got the guy to confess:
The detective wrote that the man charged in the crime, identified as Sean C. Dunn, 37, had confessed after he was apprehended. “I did it. I threw the sandwich,” the detective quoted him as saying.
And I'm sure we're all sending thoughts and prayers for the victim, but it seems like he's okay:
The officer who was struck with the sandwich did not appear injured in the video and was among those who immediately gave chase.
Now that arrests in DC are happening at roughly half the rate as before this big takeover, it's good to see that at least they're focusing on only the worst of the worst.
Was it a ham sandwich?
That might confuse the grand jury as to who the perp is, so hopefully not.
If he's a Muslim, then prolly not.
From the picture, he looks like a sissy boy.
Attorney General Pam Bondi revealed the man charged with hurling a Subway sandwich at a federal officer in DC was an employee of the Department of Justice.
Bondi sent out a post on X on Thursday morning announcing the ex-employee, Sean Dunn, was fired following the incident.
‘If you touch any law enforcement officer, we will come after you,’ Bondi declared.
‘I just learned that this defendant worked at the Department of Justice — NO LONGER. Not only is he FIRED, he has been charged with a felony.'
So, no job, legal fees, possible felony record. Brainiac.
He didn't even get to eat his sub. Sad.
If I were him I would insist on going to trial. Let's see if they can find 12 people who think that throwing a sandwich at someone ought to be treated as a felony.
If it was a Muslim victim and the sandwich had bacon or ham on it, it would be a hate crime.
And if he had instead yelled that the cops should be killed for not advancing Donald Trump's career, then Bondi would've declared him a valued member of the DOJ.
How do you pivot to Trump on this? Oh, yea, TDS. Never mind.
Um, who do you think Bondi works for?
David Never-Coherent coming through in the clutch! Lot of retired Marines in the area (does “8th and I” mean anything to you? Probably not) I’ll give you props(ask your Shoeshine guy) about the “12 People” thing, they got 12 in Minn-a-Soda to say witnessing a Fentanyl OD was murder. Was there Peanut Oil on the Sandwich? Was the Officer Peanut-Allergic, did the Accused know his Victims Peanut Allergy Status? I guess that’ll come out in “Discovery” Which I’ve heard requires Lawyers, who require $$$, maybe this Shitstain will get off eventually
The “New Balance” running shoes are a “Sissy Boy” tell, and maybe a Fellow “Conspirator” can help, when was the last time someone used “Sissy Boy” before I brought it back recently?
OK, I owe you a H/T.
HT accepted, I’m sensitive to the “New Balance sign” Since I had a pair in the 90’s and got called a “Sissy Boy” it’s been Converse and Adidas ever since, Oh, and Flip Flops? Never or Crocs,
Chuck Taylor All Stars?
Umm, never was that Nerdy, I rock the Larry Bird “Cons” (like Jimmy Connors with his discontinued T-2000’s I have a stash, and they occasionally show up in my size on EBay)
"By the 1950s, Chuck Taylor All Stars had become a standard among high school, collegiate, and professional basketball players.[10]
In the 1960s, Converse had captured about 70 to 80 percent of the basketball shoe market, with Converse Chuck Taylor All Stars being worn by ninety percent of professional and college basketball players. Due in large part to the sale of its All Stars, the company began to expand and open more factories.[2][11] "
Guess anything can become "nerdy" after a long enough time has passed. Hardly though when I remember them. Of course that was a time of short pants basket ball.
Doing a “Deep Dive” I may have had a pair of Chuck Taylor’s circa 1969. Were those the one that had the “Red Dot”?? I started dribbling as a Baby, and later Mom got me a Basketball to dribble(on) I loved that Basketball like a Basketball, my the time I got into “Organized” Hoops it was all the Adidas, Puma
These are the ones I remember having. Black or white, high top or low cut. That was it.
Forgot the link. Doh. https://www.ebay.com/itm/406068790797? .
It's not inconceivable that someone named Sean Dunn is a Muslim, but it doesn't seem that likely.
Seems like it's not just the feds who aren't putting up with bullshit. https://x.com/Rightanglenews/status/1955664493054427482
Despite what some rando on X decided to overlay on the video, I'm pretty sure trying to pull a cop off of arresting someone was always going to go badly for you. You guys should maybe visit some places that you like to spend so much time commenting about.
"You guys should maybe visit some places that you like to spend so much time commenting about."
How presumptuous of you! You don't know where Mr. Bumble or I are, or come from. FWIW, I grew up in the Bronx, and even worked in a liquor store in the late '70's/early '80's. I've had the "privilege" of having been mugged multiple times, robbed at gunpoint three times, and more. I know all about street crime.
50 years ago you got mugged. So you know all about cities today.
And black people.
Especially those hungry hungry Hatians.
What, do you think I've lived in a vacuum since then? I live in a city now, one that's been known to be pretty rough.
Il Douche claims to have grown up in NYC and didn't know what "wilding" was. Willful ignorance or stupidity=douche.
For you, Sarcastr0:
Main Course: felis domesticus
The Human Condition is pretty much the same today as it was 50 years ago, or 500 or 5000 years ago. 1973 Mississippi Senator John Stennis was shot and robbed by 2 muggers literally 100 feet from his Capitol Hill residence, the accused were out on Bail within days, the Senator never fully recovered
I know that if you think there are places in the US where you can randomly assault cops trying to arrest someone and not expect any consequences, you have never been to that place.
Moved
"arrests in DC are happening at roughly half the rate as before this big takeover,"
Seems like a good thing. Arrests happen after a crime has occurred. Bad guys avoiding committing crimes means fewer victims.
You're probably right that the marginal decrease in arrests is because people aren't going out as much.
All people. Criminals and law-abiding citizens.
It's unsustainable but more importantly an infringement of freedom DC did not ask for.
"law-abiding citizens"
Just vibes.
You don't live in DC, how do you know law-abiding citizens are not going out? If true, its because of fear mongers like you, Mr. Police Are More Dangerous Than Criminals.
I live right next to DC. As you know. I was in DC on Tuesday.
I've talked to acquaintances in DC about this whole stupid thing.
"how do you know law-abiding citizens are not going out" Because I'm not a fucking moron and understand how people act in the face of heavily armed groups rolling through town.
"I live right next to DC. " In Whitelandia, VA and sure to be home before dark.
You're so full of it. The only reason people aren't going out in D.C. is because of the criminals, not the law enforcement officers. Unless they are criminals themselves.
Sarcastr0 must think we live in a vacuum. I've been listening to plenty of "man on the street" interviews, and people in D.C. say they don't go out because of the crime, and they generally welcome the arrival of the FBI and NG and the additional law enforcement that provides.
Geez. What a dick.
"Because I'm not a fucking moron "
If you say so.
"understand how people act"
Like I said, vibes. You have no evidence.
Remember when Governor Kathy Hochul deployed armed National Guard troops to patrol the NYC subway last year? That really freaked people out. Subway ridership took a real hit as citizens stayed home in fear of the troops, what with the history of Guardsman and their attacks on civilians.
Back in reality, Sarc is a moron.
Maybe he had a sub machine gun.
Too bad the ICE Agent attacked with the Subway Sandwich didn’t shoot the (Redacted) Can just see the Agents Testimony
“Why did you shoot him?” “He was attacking me with a Subway BLT!”(did it have Mayonnaise on it? Justified on that basis alone) For the Mouth-Breathers, it’s a “Monty Python” reference
What the Hellman!
Hey Sarcastr0:
Bring the Vibrant Flavors of Haiti to Ohio with This Savory Haitian Cat Recipe
I can't tell if you're really so clueless you don't get that this is satire, or if you're just pretending not to.
Racist.
Somewhere, Carl Rowan is smiling, “Who????” Asks Queenie, And Yes Queenie, there was History before the E-ville Big Farma invented a cure for the HIV-ie(and endlessly promoted on Cable TV with the ED and IBS meds) Carl Rowan was a liberal Columnist in DC, big Gun Control supporter, who in the 80’s pulled a pistol on 2 Trespassers skinny dipping in his pool, In true Liberal fashion he defended HIS right to exercise his 2d Amendment rights, but not anyone else’s
"WASHINGTON -- A dealocked jury resulted in a mistrial Thursday for syndicated columnist Carl Rowan, who was charged with unlawful possession of the handgun he used to shoot and wound a teenage intruder at his home in June." UPI Archives Sept. 29, 1988
Oh wow, I’d forgotten he’d shot the guy (good for him)
Wow, this Threads got some “Legs” (HT ZZTop) let’s try to get it to 1,000, and please, no lame “850!” “900!!” Only pertinent, cogent, or OK, “Special Dispensation” for Queenie only where she questions my Boner Fides, And rushed out this morning, so is “45/47/48?” Going to have a UFC Event at the White House (explains the Photo Op on the Roof, that’s where the Steel Cage will lower from) Or at the Kennedy Center?
I’d like to see both
U.S. Grand Jury Indicts Haitian Gang Boss Jimmy ‘Barbecue’ Cherizier
I wonder if he barbecues cats?
https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2025/08/13/u-s-grand-jury-indicts-haitian-gang-boss-jimmy-barbecue-cherizier/
you guys suck, hundreds of blithering Idiots, and when I simply ask for enough posts to get to "1,000" it gets slower than MLK Jr's Facebook Page. (No posts since April 1968/Memphis, is he sick??) OK, you get a 10 minute make-out session with 1: Taylor Swift, 2: Natalie Portman, 3: Scarlett Johanssen, No, "4", "hold all 3 at gunpoint while they (redacted) isn't an option C/mon, for Frankie, for Eugene, for Sleepy Joe Effing Floyd George, respond
You know the crazy guy in the middle of town at the intersection, the one they call "The Mayor," the one who stands on the sidewalk by the traffic light and waves cars through all day, even though nobody follows his directions?
I'm thinking of that guy, and Frank trying to get to 1000.
Please log in to post comments
Mute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?
Autumn Billings | 10.15.2025 5:05 PM
Jacob R. Swartz | 10.15.2025 4:50 PM
Christian Britschgi | 10.15.2025 4:35 PM
Jared Dillian | 10.15.2025 12:55 PM
Eric Boehm | 10.15.2025 12:20 PM
