Sunday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[darkknight9]

The world has its problems but in this neck of the woods the temps are finally creeping downwards. Thank the maker for fall.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, Friday we enjoyed the fireplace for the first time this fall, the backyard is dangerous due to falling acorns, and Saturday we went for a hike in the NC mountains to enjoy the fall color.

Ranger Falls (From Cliffside in our case.) It was a bit challenging, on account of the fact that I'm currently recovering (Infuriatingly slowly!) from a case of walking pneumonia. I actually didn't find it difficult to match my wife's pace, for once!

[jay.tee]

I was right around the corner on Saturday. Beautiful place, great weather!

[Krenn]

I worked out recently that the entire constitutional convention only actually contained about 24 man-years worth of debate and work product towards writing a constitution. 55 delegates times 115 days. And honestly, most of the constitution was actually mainly written by like, five people. The rest was just vote-wrangling and editing by committee.

And all that work product was done without internet, without computers, without secretaries or interns or first-year associates, without typewriters or telephones or telegraphs. America's first real law library was founded in the exact same location as the Constitutional Convention... fifteen years AFTER the Constitutional Convention.

Which, to put in perspective, means that the Volokh Conspiracy, including comments section, might actually contain more time, effort, sources, and debate over the constitution than the actual Constitutional Convention ever did.

[bloocow2]

Of course you forgot knowledge, wisdom and reason. We've got that in spades!

I wonder what the founders would have been like on internet comment threads.

[Krenn]

Well there's a terrifying thought....

John Hancock's infamous signature block formatting... Slave Owner's racist screeds... Representatives from relatively theocratic states with little psalm-based sign-offs to everything... People calling for elected nobility of proven lines of administrative merit... Drunken s*** posting about burning down internal infrastructure improvements as being an offense to the common man or whatever.... Mutual accusations of carpet-bagging and office-seeking....

Our respect for the founding fathers would crater so fast....

[Frank Drackman]

John Adams is a blind, bald, crippled, toothless man who is a hideous hermaphroditic character with neither the force and fitness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.@TommyTheJ/Monticello

[Krychek_2]

Which makes one wonder why anyone things originalism is a good idea. Why would anyone think that the views of racist slave owners, theocrats, proponents of elected nobility, drunks who just wanted to burn everything down, are good public policy, especially after they've been dead for 200 years?

The founders had some good ideas, and they deserve great credit for sending King George packing. But it's a huge leap from that to the claim that their opinions on what is good policy should be cast in concrete.

[Michael P]

They were wiser than you. Of course you don't like their ideas.

[SRG2]

Wiser? Perhaps. More knowledgeable? Categorically no.

[Michael P]

"Wisdom is the right use of knowledge. To know is not to be wise. Many men know a great deal, and are all the greater fools for it. There is no fool so great a fool as a knowing fool. But to know how to use knowledge is to have wisdom." - Charles Spurgeon

[Joe_dallas]

knowledge without wisdom is dangerous. Compare the amount of knowledge in almost every subject we have today compared to the late 1700's yet the young (and leftists) largely believe that socialism is a better economic system than capitalism.

[Krychek_2]

You and Michael P are both defining wisdom as agreeing with you.

[Michael P]

The elites of the time haf a much stronger focus on political theory, social dynamics and similar topics than most people get today -- and they weren't exposed to noxious disinformation like Marxist theory. So they were ahead of you and SRG2 in multiple ways.

[Krychek_2]

And they were also racist slaveholders, proponents of elected aristocracy, and theocrats. Go ahead and make the case that that makes them wiser than us.

[SRG2]

So they were ahead of you and SRG2 in multiple ways.

And way behind in others. So your point is, er, poiintless.

[bernard11]

they weren't exposed to noxious disinformation like Marxist theory.

Instead they had monarchism, rule by hereditary aristocracy, forced religious orthodoxy, slavery, the inferiority of women and non-whites in general, etc.

Michael P. is a sort of intellectual Miniver Cheevy

[Sarcastr0]

The elites of the time haf a much stronger focus on political theory, social dynamics and similar topics than most people get today

Not buying this. Political theory, like all sciences, is one of progressive insights, where each generation builds on the last.

disinformation like Marxist theory
I see you've kept yourself safe by not learning anything about Marxism.

Jingoism about the Founders does you no favors.

[Michael P]

It's always amusing to see which of the faithful useful idiots will jump to defend the noxious nonsense of Marxism.

[Sarcastr0]

bernard11 - I never read that one. I knew Richard Corey via Simon and Garfunkel, but thanks for introducing me to Miniver - that surely captures something about humans across the centuries!

[Sarcastr0]

Michael, saying you're ignorant of Marxism isn't defending Marxism.

I'm no fan of Marx, for real - I *understand* why I'm not a fan, you're just repeating the tribal sayings.

A jerking knee and proud incomprehension doesn't make you righteous.

[Krychek_2]

No, Michael, what's amusing is how enemies of progress always invoke Marxism. The civil rights movement was opposed as Marxist. Social security was opposed as Marxist. Wage and hour laws were opposed as Marxist. Some things never change.

[Bwaaah]

Sarcastr0: "Political theory, like all sciences, ..."

Political theory? A science? Only in some reactionary notion of science in which science has fallen.

You reveal yourself.

[bernard11]

Much easier to call something or someone you dislike Marxist than to actually explain your dislike.

Not everything you dislike is Marxist.

[Sarcastr0]

Political science is a science, which has a theoretical component and an experimental (in this case experiential) component.

[Krychek_2]

Actually I have the benefit of hindsight to see how their ideas turned out. Some better than others.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you Humpty Dumpty.

[Krenn]

It's just a basic principle of contract law. The constitution is effectively a contract entered into by our ancestors, and all contracts are to be interpreted based around what the signatories mutually understood when they signed it, or, if they signed it without a full understanding of the edge-case consequences, the contract should be interpreted based around what any relevant expert during that time period would have told the signatories about contracts of that type if they had only bothered to ask.

Makes more sense than saying that future judges get to modify the contract however they like, for any reason they like, and everyone else's descendant who isn't a judge will just have to lump it.

[Joe_dallas]

which is why leftists hate the concept of originalism / textualism

[Joe_dallas]

Krenn 12 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"It's just a basic principle of contract law. The constitution is effectively a contract entered into by our ancestors,"

Fwiw - that is one of the arguments that the bill of rights was incorporated against the states at ratification. The states were a party to the constitution and the bill of rights via the ratification process and therefore incorporated against all parties to the constitution. Granted it is a minority position, and completed overruled with baron v baltimore.

[Krayt]

No Weasels Rule: Did the states interpret that way, or only as applying against the feds?

The states weren't an anachronism at that point. They were the real deal, the big men on campus. The federal government was to their benefit, not to their domination.

[David Nieporent]

What are the first three words of the constitution?

[Krayt]

Not seeing "weaselry a-ok" in there.
Later pols: "We the people is synonymous with "do anything we the powers want."

[Sarcastr0]

The Constitution isn't written like a contract.

We have a concept in my office where you do a Terms of Agreement that specifies the form future contracts will take. That vehicle includes a lot of purposeful ambiguities, to allow for flexibility but maintaining a set of general expectations for process etc.
While it is an agreement, it is not a contract, it's a framework for future contracts.

That's the Constitution - laws are the future contracts, but it's more of an agreement.

Hence stuff like 'the legislative power' and 'the judicial power' are left flexible in the document. It's not a recipe that's full of specific instructions, and it can't effectively be treated like one. You're not going to nail down what that means by reading the Federalist Papers (though you might get some clues!).

The Constitution does a great job setting out general terms. And while originalism purports to add meat to those bones, that's not how it operates in practice or intent. As originally created in the 1980s the originalist project is more about political cover to make unpopular decisions overruling the Warren Court than anything else.

That's not to say that originalist scholarship has nothing to teach us! But thinking it's all you need is not self-evident.
And originalists tend not to like to do that work, preferring dramatic invocations of bad faith in the other side to shoring up their own bona fides.
------
Have you ever noticed the most self-righteous bloviators about originalism tend to just think it means instantiate all the stuff they want and nothing they don't?

That's how you can tell those using it as a partisan tool from the actual scholars.

[Riva]

You’re confused little communist girl that never smiled. The constitution is not merely a “Terms of Agreement.” It contains binding and enforceable obligations, duties and responsibilities. It sets forth the framework for government together with an allocation of power. It is not something that future Supreme Courts can add to or modify to their little liberal hearts content.

And, it may surprise you, but the Constitution actually has an amendment process. If you want to modify the Constitution, propose a frigging amendment. Many have. Kinda sounds like a contract, doesn’t it?

This may be the dumbest thing you’ve ever posted little communist girl that never smiled, and there’s a lot of competition for that title. In what field exactly do you work?

[Sarcastr0]

Calling it a framework is a concession I’m not sure you realized.

You confuse binding with defined and concrete. We agree the Constitution is binding. You just conceded it is not fully defined if it’s a framework and distribution of authority.

Maybe it’s that you are so used to arguing the President has all the authorities you missed that this isn’t the same discussion.

You complain when people call you a bot…here I said nothing to you and you lay the insults on thick from the start of your comment to the end.
What a hypocrite you are!

[Riva]

And the inevitable and predictable fall back into the sick dehumanizing insults. What a vile little shit you truly are.

And an idiot. Just to be clear I do reject completely the idiocy of your living constitution BS. You ignore my essential points and focus everything on one word you misinterpret in context. (Something you, as I recall, improperly accuse me of, speaking of hypocrites you fucking jackass) The Constitution is not a "framework" in the sense it is a malleable proposal (under your twisted read). It sets forth a definitive framework of government with clearly defined responsibilities and limited powers for each branch and official. From which, as aside, we get the separation of powers. Something else you buffoons generally misunderstand.

And since you fuckers are back to parroting the sick dehumanizing insults, because essentially you are incapable of actually arguing a point, this exchange is now concluded.

[Sarcastr0]

Riva: "And the inevitable and predictable fall back into the sick dehumanizing insults"

Riva, shortly before:
"You’re confused little communist girl that never smiled"
"This may be the dumbest thing you’ve ever posted little communist girl that never smiled"

You're a hypocrite, like many wannabe bullies who want to dish it out but can't take it.

[Sarcastr0]

It sets forth a definitive framework of government with clearly defined responsibilities and limited powers for each branch and official.
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested"
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested"
"The executive Power shall be vested"

Do you think that's clearly defined?

[Riva]

I respond only to note that the little communist girl that never smiled has no more grasp of the English language than she does of the Constitution. “Little communist girl that never smiled” is, of course, a mocking insult, with a touch of truth. It is, however, in no way dehumanizing. There is a fundamental difference you fucking gaslighting clown, in purpose and effect.

Now fuck off and post your bullshit somewhere else.

[bernard11]

You know what, Riva? Fuck you.

You contribute nothing here but idiocy and insults. You are unable to do anything more than repeat irrelevancies and call people nasty
names.

Your presence is destructive. STFU.

[Riva]

The left is not particularly good at self reflection, are they Bernie? And they really don't like being exposed as the hypocritical ignoramuses that they are.

So, nope, not leaving, find yourself a safe space somewhere else clown. Oh and, fuck off yourself.

[bernard11]

Classic Riva.

Irrelevant nonsense, followed by random insult.

And there is no bigger ignoramus than you. Are your comments part of some high school project? If so, you deserve an "F."

[Krychek_2]

"Makes more sense than saying that future judges get to modify the contract however they like, for any reason they like, and everyone else's descendant who isn't a judge will just have to lump it."

Except that's a far cry from what living constitutionalism actually holds. It's not about modifying the contract; it's about interpreting the contract. Choosing one plausible interpretation over another is not modification. Interpreting terms as we understand them, rather than as how the framers understood them, is not modification.

[Krayt]

Interpreting terms as we understand them, rather than as how the framers understood them, is not modification.

Actually, it is precisely that. The greatest design principle of the Constitution was roadblocking all too common arrogation of power by those in power, at their whim.

"Well, we wanna do stuff that would be laughed out of the room back in the day. Let's just get judges to read between the lines."

This is not a valid process to gain power!

And that's hackery first class. It makes a charismatic demagogue with a 51% transient hot-aired bare majority look like a deeply compelling philosophical argument for vox populi vox dei.

[Joe_dallas]

Krychek_2 1 hour ago

" Interpreting terms as we understand them, rather than as how the framers understood them, is not modification."

Dead wrong - It is absolutely a modification - period - no if's and's or buts

[Krychek_2]

OK, so add that to the long list of things you're wrong about.

[Joe_dallas]

Krychek_2 1 hour ago

" Interpreting terms as we understand them, rather than as how the framers understood them, is not modification."

My comment - Dead wrong - It is absolutely a modification - period - no if's and's or buts

Krychek - got caught being dead wrong , yet accusing the person exposure the error of being wrong - Try to explain why your statement is not a modification -

[Krychek_2]

There are some words, like "apple", "dog" and "tree", whose meaning does not change appreciably over time. James Madison would have understood "The dog is sleeping under the apple tree" to mean the same thing we would understand it to mean today.

That's not true of words like "liberty", "due process", and even "the people". We understand those words to mean very different things from what they meant to James Madison. In a 1789 document, It's not readily apparent what an "inalienable right" is in the same way that it's apparent what "30 years of age" means. So before we go any further, the whole notion that there is only one right answer to many constitutional questions is a pipe dream.

The authors of the Constitution knew this; they were not as stupid as their originalist disciples make them out to be. So they intentionally wrote in broad strokes leaving the details to be filled in as issues arose. And it's not a modification to say, The founders did not answer this question, so we have to. The Constitution is silent on the point.

And recognizing that the Constitution was written in broad generalities also implies that its meaning will be reconsidered as values change. Again, no one is seriously calling to reconsider that you have to be 30 to serve in the Senate; there is no genuine dispute as to what those words mean. That's not one of the generalities the Constitution is written in. But the ideas of due process, fundamental liberty, privileges and immunities, even the Ninth Amendment -- those are general for the specific purpose of filling in blanks. Hence, reading them through the lens of how we understand things is not a modification; it's faithfulness to the very idea behind the Constitution in the first place.

[David Nieporent]

Interpreting terms as we understand them, rather than as how the framers understood them, is not modification.

It absolutely is. And you'd never accept that if you had entered into a contract. Let's say you have a long term lease on a property, and the lease says that it is terminable at any time by the landlord if the property is not used for X purpose. You use it for something that you and the landlord both agree is included in X. Then the property is sold, a new landlord comes in and assumes the lease. And he says, "I've reviewed the least, and I've decided that X does not include what you're doing, so I'm evicting you." You would, of course, go to court to fight it. And you would say, "Judge, he's trying to change the terms of the deal." If the new landlord's response was, "No, I'm not modifying them; I'm just reinterpreting them according to what I think they should mean," you'd not meekly shrug, "OK" and pack up your stuff and leave. You'd rightly claim this was illegitimate. What matters is what the contract was understood to mean when it was entered into, not linguistic drift or new ideas about best uses for the property.

[Krychek_2]

And whether I would win that case would depend on the details. We'd fight it out and the judge would just have to decide if the use fit within X or not. Based not on what the original landlord intended, but on what the words actually say, and whether my interpretation is plausible. Further, in fairness, most leases don't last for 250 years.

David, see my response above to Joe, which I think responds to your concerns as well. Unlike q lease, the Constitution is written in broad generalities with the specific intent that later generations would sort it out case by case.

[Josh R]

As Jack Balkin argues, there is a difference between original meaning and original expected application.

For example, "liberty" has always meant freedom from oppressive restrictions. But what constitutes an oppressive restriction is an expected application of liberty that changes over time.

[wvattorney13]

"But what constitutes an oppressive restriction is an expected application of liberty that changes over time."

You guys can keep saying that, but what it means in practice is whatever 5 Justices believe. That is concentration of power at its highest. It is not rule by the people but rule by judges.

Is gay marriage an "expected application of liberty"? Get 5 votes and see who wins.

[Josh R]

Of course it comes down to five justices. It also comes down to five justices no matter what method of construction you use.

[Sarcastr0]

So did you never go over the history of Free Speech law in your Con Law course?

[bernard11]

it's about interpreting the contract. Choosing one plausible interpretation over another is not modification. Interpreting terms as we understand them, rather than as how the framers understood them, is not modification.

I would say applying rules in a way that makes sense today, rather than the way they were applied two-plus centuries ago is not "modifying the contract."

Conditions change. Knowledge is acquired. Errors are discovered. The implication of the text is better understood.

Besides, the rules were not always interpreted in an honest fashion. Does equal protection allow coverture? Did the Alien and Sedition Acts comply with the First Amendment? Was the 15th Amendment generally honored in the years after ratification?

No, no, and no.

Which illustrates that the way the Constitution's rules were followed historically is a poor guide to their meaning.

[Joe_dallas]

Krychek_2 43 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Which makes one wonder why anyone things originalism is a good idea. "

Because any other form of constitutional interpretation is what ever the judge wants the law to be!

posted speed limit is 65 - judge says it should be 55 - 10mph over speed limit $1000 fine

Wyoming gets 3 votes in electoral college for each senator and one representative - nope judge say Wyoming only deserves 1 vote - lets give those 2 to NY !
presto - living constitution

[Krychek_2]

That's a pretty bad caricature of what living constitutionalism holds. When the language is plain and unambiguous, the living constitutionalists all hold that it means what it says. The problem is there's a hell of a lot that originalists think is plain and unambiguous that really isn't if you dig into it.

But since that's your caricature, let's run with it. Language that you consider plain and unambiguous results in the country being driven over a cliff. Should a judge grease the skids and watch the country go over? Or is there an outer limit at which even you would say that the Constitution is not a suicide pact?

[Krayt]

Language that you consider plain and unambiguous results in the country being driven over a cliff

It's odd the country is in the grips of a charismatic who wields this in so many ways that, I'll risk, you think are wrong, and yet you persist in apologetics for it rather than learn and shut it down.

I guess this is the left's version of Make America Great Again: suffer through mass and massive abuse of the rationales you rely on to work around the Constitution, to return to glory days, some day. Cue spotlight swinging on a cute girl looking heavenward with a hopeful tear in her eye.

[Krychek_2]

My issue with Trump is his ideology. And the hypocrisy of Republicans who have blasted Democrats for years for, in their words, abandoning the Constitution, while standing mute as Trump does the same. Don't do what you've screamed at Democrats for doing.

Keep in mind, though, that without the electoral college there never would have been a Trump administration in the first place - he would have faded into oblivion after losing in 2016 - if not for the electoral college. One of the arguments in favor of the EC is that it protects us from dangerous demagogues. After Trump, that argument is a laugh riot.

[Joe_dallas]

Okay - trump is bad
Yet the electoral college likewise saved us from someone vastly worse - Kamala

[Krychek_2]

Since Trump has taken office, the following things have happened:

1. He has handed China our competitive and technological advantage on a silver platter. Thanks to his war on higher education, China is about to replace the US as the place where the best and brightest go to get educated.

2. The US dollar is about to lose its status as the world's default currency. Thanks to Trump's trade wars, other countries have decided the US can no longer be trusted and our currency should not be the world's currency.

3. A number of countries that formerly had been pro-US or neutral-US have now moved into China's orbit, again because of the trade and tariff war.

4. We have an anti-vaccine and anti-science loon in charge of public health. 'Nuff said.

I could go on, but those will do for a start. And you don't have to take my word for any of them; I'm getting them from conservative economists and publications like Foreign Affairs and the Economist and the Wall Street Journal.

So, in which parallel universe would Kamala Harris have topped that? I think she was a bad candidate, would have been a weak president, and not been re-elected. But our enemies are in a much stronger position, which is why most of them were cheering for him.

[Krychek_2]

And, probably unlike you, I actually read conservative economists and economic periodicals. And they're mostly apoplectic about the damage Trump is doing to the country.

[Joe_dallas]

lets see

negotiated an israeli hamas cease fire

substantially reduced Iran's nuclear program (as compared to the facilitation of Iran's nuclear program with obama).

your comment # 1 - Trump is not assaulting higher education - he is assaulting woke education

#2 - the move away from the US dollar as the world default currency has been a slow move over the last 15 or so years.

Here is an IMF article from june 2024 - which preceded trump

https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2024/06/11/dollar-dominance-in-the-international-reserve-system-an-update

Dont let your irrational hatred hinder your critical thinking skills

[Krychek_2]

Oh, you mean the ceasefire that fell apart 24 hours later?

And yeah, the world has been moving away from the dollar; Trump just sped up the process by about 20 years.

And the jury is still out on Iran's nuclear program. If Trump actually did kill it I'll give him credit for it, but as with the Israel/Hamas ceasefire it's still early.

Now, can you please provide a simple, straightforward, coherent definition of woke so that I know what you're talking about?

[bernard11]

Trump is not assaulting higher education - he is assaulting woke education.

Ridiculous, Joe.

How does cutting grants for scientific research assault "woke education?"

How does denying visas to foreign students - many in technical fields - assault ""woke education?"

How does trying to put the universities under Trump's control - his so-called "compact," - assault ""woke education?"

How does punishing students and faculty for saying things Trump doesn't like - assault ""woke education?"

Forget it. He and his gang of fools are simply on a vindictive campaign against American universities. And it's going to hurt the country immensely.

[Joe_dallas]

No - That caricature highlights the absurdity of any methodology of constitutional interpretation other than originalism and/or textualism.

Any other methodology is simply what ever the judge wants the law to be, not what the law is.

[Sarcastr0]

What are some other methodologies than originalism that you feel boil down to what a judge's police preferences are?

Surely you've done the work to understand these methods and their flaws. Otherwise your broad brush seems more like a stubborn embrace of ignorance.

But that doesn't sound like you.

[Joe_dallas]

Sacastro - Any thoughts to understanding the discussion before chiming in with a non relevant comment?

[Sarcastr0]

OK to be less coy:

You made charges against living constitutionalism. From both your posting history and the nature of your accusations, I don't believe you have the first clue what living constitutionalism means or encompasses.

Prove otherwise.

[Joe_dallas]

Sacastro - cutting through all the analytical rhetoric (aka BS), the living constitution methodology boils down to the simple analysis - the constitution is what we want the constitution to be. nothing more nothing less.

Your failure to admit the obvious is telling.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, that's not what it is.

You're still the laziest!

[bernard11]

Joe's idea of evidence for his statements is a repetition of his statements. That's the best he can do.

[Krychek_2]

"No - That caricature highlights the absurdity of any methodology of constitutional interpretation other than originalism and/or textualism."

You know, if someone who doesn't like Christianity used that method on Christianity -- caricature it to highlight its absurdity by sticking it with views few if any Christians actually hold -- you would rightly accuse the speaker of being an anti-Christian bigot. Yet, it's no greater a leap to stick Christianity with pedophilia, cannibalism, slavery and racism than it is to stick living constitutionalists with two of Wyoming's electoral votes go to New York.

In both cases, you're sticking people with views they don't actually hold. So maybe you could honestly engage with living constitutionalism instead of making stuff up about it.

[Joe_dallas]

Krychek -
brett's response to Gaslighto is spot on
Brett Bellmore 10 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Which makes one wonder why anyone things originalism is a good idea."

Because the alternative is letting unelected judges just pull the law out of their asses.

Your repetitive comments show you intentionally fail to grasp the obvious.

[Krychek_2]

OK, so you don't have a response to your methodology being the same as those anti-Christian bigots that you abhor.

But fine, let's run with your caricature. Suppose some crazy judge actually ruled that two of Wyoming's electoral votes would go to New York. What would happen next? Answer: Even if the Supreme Court had nine living constitutionalists on it, it would be reversed lickety split.

Next

[Joe_dallas]

krychek - no longer being able to hold a coherent discussion on the living constitution

[Krychek_2]

Joe, establishing that your arguments are idiotic is not inability to hold a coherent discussion.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Which makes one wonder why anyone things originalism is a good idea."

Because the alternative is letting unelected judges just pull the law out of their asses.

If we, the people, don't like the constitution the founders bequeathed us, we can amend it. But if textualism and fixity until amended go out the window, we've lost control of it; It can change when we refuse to amend, amendments can be mooted, the judges are in charge, not the people.

[Sarcastr0]

I know you like to strawman non-originalism as though it's not textualist. But that's not actually true, it's just more of those leftists in your head causing trouble again.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I know you like to strawman non-originalism as though it's not textualist."

What does that have to do with Brett's comment? If a judge pulls his own idea of what process is due in a particular case out of his ass, that's still textualist.

[bernard11]

How, under originalism, should a judge decide if a defendant received due process? On what standard should he rely?

[Krychek_2]

"Because the alternative is letting unelected judges just pull the law out of their asses."

Except that they don't. If you actually read the analysis of those living decisions you hate so much, you would see that they normally find a much better rationale than that, even if you happen to disagree with it. Plus, as I pointed out to Joe, there is an appellate process.

[Joe_dallas]

living constitution is how we got kelo
or Ricci at CA2,
Moore
or the dissent in Heller.

appellate is not much help correcting errors of the living constitution with the proponents of the living constitution such as the likes of Stevens, sotomayor, jackson, souter to name a few

[bernard11]

Because the alternative is letting unelected judges just pull the law out of their asses.

Bullshit. What originalism does is let judges pull history out of their asses, or Jr. high school books, and then make law based on what they pulled out.

[Stephen Goldstein]

Why should their opinions on what is good policy should be cast in concrete?

At risk of over simplification, because that's what was agreed, subject to a formal process to modify the agreement.

Imagine that you and a friend *agreed* to have lunch at a nearby steakhouse. You friend is driving. You're more than a little surprised when your friend parks in front of a vegan restaurant. "What's going on," you ask? "We agreed that we would do lunch at 'Steaks 'R Us.'"

Your friend explains, "Well, I didn't think that decision was cast in concrete. And anyway, my doctor told me to cut down on red meat so my diet has evolved."

You protest, "Yea but we agreed to go for steaks. We should have discussed this and come to a new agreement . . . or not."

Your friend responds, "Too bad, I'm driving."

Anyway, that's what I think.

[David Nieporent]

Which makes one wonder why anyone things originalism is a good idea. Why would anyone think that the views of racist slave owners, theocrats, proponents of elected nobility, drunks who just wanted to burn everything down, are good public policy, especially after they've been dead for 200 years?

You're not arguing against originalism with that; you're arguing against constitutionalism — and, arguably, all written law — with that. If you don't care about their views, then just say, "To hell with the constitution"; don't say, "Well, we're going to pretend we're following it but actually just doing whatever we want anyway."

[Krychek_2]

No, David, I'm not, I'm arguing that when there are multiple interpretations of the Constitution, the interpretation that the framers would have chosen is entitled to no special deference merely because it is the interpretation the framers would have chosen.

[wvattorney13]

I'm curious. When there are "multiple interpretations" of the Constitution, first, how do you decide if a potential interpretation is even a reasonable one to include for consideration? Then, how do you choose the best one?

It's just the one you like, right? All of the stuff about the founders being racist and the like; isn't it all so you can ignore the natural reading and substitute a ham-fisted one that you like?

[Sarcastr0]

It's just the one you like, right?

People trying to explain living constitutionalism to y'all are saying exactly the opposite of this.

[Krychek_2]

wvattorney, you keep talking as if that's an issue that only applies to my side. It doesn't. Under any method -- originalism, living constitutionalism, or some other -- *somebody* is going to have to decide whether a particular interpretation is plausible and, if so, whether it is the best available interpretation. And whomever decides, the losing party is going to say, "Well, why should it be *you* who gets to decide. So please stop talking as if that's only an issue for living constitutionalists. Who gets to decide that a particular interpretation *isn't* reasonable?

And yes, the founders were "racist and the like" so it's not a frivolous question to ask why their interpretation should be given special deference.

And here's the best answer I can give you. I don't have the citation in front of me, but it's from Judge Stephen Reinhardt's dissent from a November 7, 1991 Order in Harris v Vasquez, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 90-55402:

"Ordinarily, we can tolerate the fact that the law rests on the judgment of fair-minded men and women -- the law is what judges say it is. For when the law is unclear, as it often is, there is no better way of determining it than to have persons of integrity, trained in the skills of legal construction, examine the Constitution, statutes, and legal precedents and try their best to arrive at the most plausible resolution.
. . . .
"[L]aw is an evolutionary process, and, at least until recently, our law has unfolded in an enlightened and progressive manner over a period of two hundred years. We can hope that over the next two hundred years further progress will be made and that we will return to a progressive and expansive view of individual rights and liberties."

Stephen, from your lips to God's ears.

[David Nieporent]

Bold choice to quote from a dissenting opinion in the case in which SCOTUS (eventually) had to order 9th circuit judges to stop entertaining Harris's frivolous attempts to delay his execution.

[Krychek_2]

David, I was personally involved in the Harris case. I happen to agree with you that most of his arguments were frivolous. But the portion of Reinhardt's opinion that I quoted is exactly right for the specific point on which I quoted him.

What in the quotation do you specifically disagree with?

[bernard11]

It's just the one you like, right?

Sounds like originalism to me.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If a court can order a President to spend money that Congress encumbered for something else (essentially hurricane/flood/earthquake relief) then why can't a court order a President to have the US Treasury stop paying Congressional salaries and instead spend that money for something else too?

Forget appealing, I think it is time for Congress to Impeach!

[Krayt]

Good question. Is the money allocated, but there's no money to pay people to send it out? Or is it not even allocated?

I can't imagine the judicial branch has the power to allocate unallocated in either case, but the latter would seem a worse violation of the three ring circus. God knows the current admin is no stranger to sketchy repurposing of cash.

[Riva]

Many in the federal judiciary deserve it but I think Judge Boasberg, a co-conspirator in Biden and Smith’s Arctic Frost spying campaign against essentially the Republican party, is the best place to start. And the ire from some targeted senators may give this effort a good possibility of removing at least this hack.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKaDby3_Ghc

Civil liability on the part of the Telcos?

[David Nieporent]

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

[Just Eric]

Glad to see this comment and am hoping to see more explanation of that decision which superficially smacks of pissing on separation of powers by a judicial officer gone wild.

[Commenter_XY]

I am curious how NYC-based lawyers and judges will vote on Tuesday. Will they elect an anti-semitic marxist as Hizzoner? That race, I am watching with some measure of wonderment amusement b/c I think Mencken was right about getting what you voted for.

It will be interesting to see how a NYC owned grocery store operates (will it be like Walmart or like Whole Foods). Is that (NYC owned grocery store) even legal under the NY state constitution?

[Krenn]

I'd be more interested in whether or not the NYC Mayor even has enough independent budget control to build such a store in the first place without city council approval...

[Brett Bellmore]

There seems to be something built into humanity that requires periodic visits from the Gods of the Copybook Headings to correct. I expect they're packing their bags right now.

[ThePublius]

"will it be like Walmart or like Whole Foods"

Neither. It will be a dingy, nearly empty shelves replica of a soviet era market. More like a crummy food pantry.

[Estragon]

“Soviet era market”

Time will tell, of course, but there are actual real-world examples you can look at rather than indulging in your boomer Cold War fantasizing.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/atlantas-city-run-grocery-sees-early-success-sparking-debate-over-governments-role.amp

[Michael P]

The only one fantasizing about the Cold War here is you.

https://www.historytools.org/stories/why-the-soviet-union-faced-endless-food-shortages-in-the-1980s

Personally, I am going to judge success or failure based on more than two months of data.

[Estragon]

“only one fantasizing”

Well, no, that would be the people talking about what food pantries were like in a different country 40 years ago. I merely provided a contemporary example, which seems more likely to be relevant to NYC’s experience should they decide to go forward with these plans.

[Michael P]

Citing history is the opposite of fantasizing. You quoted a puff piece about a two-month-old store, which even a moment's thought would have shown is not enough from which to judge success. Lots of bad businesses last longer than that. Let's see how the first few quarters' budgets look for that Atlanta store.

[Estragon]

Uh, it absolutely can be. Again— if you want to come in here and argle bargle about stuff from 40 years ago in another country, I can’t stop you. But this contemporary example seems to me to be more likely relevant to the experience NYC might have, rather than “Soviet era market”— whatever you and Publius are picturing in your heads that means.

As to the second part of your comment, I think that is amply covered under “time will tell.”

[Joe_dallas]

Michael P 2 hours ago
"Personally, I am going to judge success or failure based on more than two months of data."

fwiw - the city owned store in KC likewise showed early success, but not so much after a year or so.

Real socialism has never been tried before - maybe the next communist mayor of NYC can make it work!

[Estragon]

I agree that is also a more relevant example than comparisons to 40 years ago in another country.

[ThePublius]

"Kansas City's government-run grocery store, Sun Fresh Market, closed permanently on August 12, 2025, after years of struggle despite millions in public investment. The store, located in the Linwood Shopping Center, faced challenges including crime, empty shelves, and high operating costs, leading to its closure. The city had purchased the shopping center in 2016 and opened the grocery store in 2018 in an effort to provide fresh food access in the area."

Oh, and the "boomer" comment - get bent.

[Michael P]

Why should he look at what happened in actual socialist republics, which only had about 70 years to make things work, when he can instead look at two months of a Potemkin shop?

[Joe_dallas]

correct - after 15 months or so, the city owned KC store has not been much of a success.

[Drewski]

I see you didn't read the article you linked. It doesn't support you.

[CountmontyC]

Wow, it has managed to stay in business a grand total of seven weeks. Absolutely amazing.

[Life of Brian]

When you actually look past the cheerleading and see what the store actually carries and how they're priced, it seems like a bad joke.

The website just shows deli stuff, but the (very frou-frou) grab and go sandwiches are $10-11, the (very frou-frou) smoothies are $10, and a rotisserie chicken is $11.

They don't advertise grocery prices, but here is one of several photos in Google Maps clear enough to see shelf price tags. A 40-oz bottle of Crisco vegetable oil is $6.49, while the same bottle of oil is $4.04 at a nearby Publix. Can't add more links, but the frozen food picture shows Red Baron frozen pizzas for $7.65 -- any big-box store has them for sub-$5.

Other data points welcome, but it's hard to see how they could be very far out of line with these.

I'm struggling to see 1) how this could be legitimately seen as any sort of resounding success for publicly-owned grocery stores, and 2) how it has jack-all to do with "affordability" as trumpeted by its proponents.

[ducksalad]

One suspects its "success" depends on customers with more than enough money who feel virtuous shopping at a public grocery.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, it doesn't take much cynicism at all to notice how they picked one of the lowest average income zip codes for bragging rights, but just happened to land the store right in the middle of the area that drags the average way up. Apartments in the immediate area start at $1250 for a studio, and go way up from there.

If truly low-income people actually shopped at that store rather than the numerous lower-cost alternatives in the area, they'd end up even worse off.

[BrotherMovesOn]

I don't know anything about those neighborhoods but wow, those are very nice apartments for very cheap money!
I'm apparently living in the wrong city, rent-wise.

[Krayt]

I do wonder if the city will apply the same government burdens to itself as it does to other businesses in the area.

Starting with "unofficial" burdens.

[Michael P]

Haha, that's funny. It's going to need subsidies, of course. I'm just curious whether those will be more or less than 10% of sales.

[ThePublius]

One thing that occurred to me, given Mamdani's strident socialism and his statements regarding seizing the means of production, is that rather than build city-owned grocery stores, he might seize them under the auspices of eminent domain. So, he could declare, for example, "all of the Gristedes and Key Food supermarkets have now been taken, the employees thereof are now city employees, the stores are under city management and/or oversight, and hours and prices are determined by the NYC supermarket council." That would be the most expeditious move he could make, given that his term with be four years, and he will want to deliver on this promise.

(Socialists and communists don't build, they take.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that occurred to me, too. It will be entertaining, (Because I don't live in NYC!) to watch as his communist threat/promises transition from "That was two years ago, why are you bringing it up now?" to "Why the shocked face, this is what he said he'd do, and was elected to do!".

[Commenter_XY]

Believe it or not, I want the anti-semitic marxist to deliver on his promises after he is elected. It will be a spectacle, worldwide.

[Frank Drackman]

He'll have to work hard to kill more peoples than Cuomo did.

[Commenter_XY]

That is true. Governors Cuomo & Murphy elected to allow covid+ patients into nursing homes, with disastrous results.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Allow" is too generous. They elected to compel nursing homes to accept covid patients. They didn't allow them a choice in the matter.

But if there's one thing commies are good at, it's killing people.

[Joe_dallas]

fwiw - Coumo and the rest of the NY politicians take great credit for the reduction in covid deaths after the introduction of the vaccine. The real reason is the at risk population was substantially reduced prior to the vaccine.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/new-york/

[hobie]

I asked three AIs if Mamdani was either a Marxist or an antisemite. And the AI's said neither was true. So where are you getting the Marxist/antisemite stuff from?

[ThePublius]

The AI's are hallucinating, as they are prone to do.

[hobie]

They're just the sum of all human knowledge, so what the hell do they really know?

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha, ha, you really believe that? No, I don't think so, you're just using that as a foil. Haven't you read, even on here, at the Volokh Conspiracy, of all the cases of AI hallucinations in briefs and pleadings and even in decisions? Are you daft, or just dumb?

[bernard11]

Why do you want that?

Is it worth subjecting millions of New Yorker to the problems and difficulties his policies would produce just you can have another little gloat?

I don't live in NYC, but if I did I would certainly not vote for Mamdani, even if his election would prove me right about the foolishness of some of his ideas.

[David Nieporent]

The problem is… what's the alternative? The utterly unqualified vanity candidate Sliwa? Or the corrupt and vile Cuomo?

[bernard11]

Fortunately, I don't have to choose.

If I did, I'd probably go for Cuomo, expecting him to be a sort of bad status quo mayor. Not what the city needs, probably, but the status quo may be better than what Mamdani or Sliwa would bring.

[wvattorney13]

Latest poll is 40-34-24. As much as I dislike Cuomo, I think Sliwa needs to drop out and endorse him. If I lived in NYC, I would be the biggest Cuomo supporter.

https://nypost.com/2025/11/01/us-news/andrew-cuomo-closing-in-on-zohran-mamdani-as-nyc-mayoral-race-tightens/

[Michael P]

I wonder what a Condorcet ballot would show (besides lots of people getting confused about how to fill out the ballot). Or even instant runoff.

Although if NYC were using that kind of ballot, I think Adams would not have dropped out, and the number of "paradoxical" -- or otherwise surprising/problematic -- results grows pretty quickly as you have more than three serious candidates.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Cuomo lost his party's endorsement and ought not have run.

[Josh R]

I wouldn't conclude too much from one poll.

[Life of Brian]

I don't see how the RCP average at all changes the conclusion that Silwa needs to drop out and endorse Cuomo -- in fact, it strengthens the notion that Cuomo doesn't have a prayer otherwise.

[Josh R]

I would think it is more important for Sliwa to drop out if the true numbers are 41/34/24 (the single poll) than 46/31/17 (the poll average). In the former case, Cuomo needs to win Sliwa voters 16-8 to win. In the latter case, Cuomo needs 16-1.

[Life of Brian]

Ah, so you're thinking Mamdani may be a lock at this point regardless.

[Josh R]

Pretty much (*) because Sliwa did not drop out. But, if the single poll is accurate, Cuomo could have won if Sliwa had dropped out. If the polling average is right, Sliwa dropping out would not have helped.

I'm guessing there is a 5% or so chance the polls are far enough wrong to make a difference.

[ThePublius]

Let it be known, Estragon thinks city owned and operated grocery stores will be a success in NYC. Note, not a joint private-public partnership, but city owned and operated. Let's check back after Mamdani's been in office for one year to see:
- are there any stores yet?
- how are they doing?
- what do they receive in subsidies?
- are they in communities that actually need them, or in relatively affluent communities?
- and so on....

(Yes, socialism hasn't worked, because we haven't tried real socialism yet.)

[David Nieporent]

Let me be clear that I think Mamdani's idea is stupid, a bad solution to a problem that doesn't exist. But I find this discussion frustrating, because people on both sides are talking about whether the stores will be "successes" without defining what they mean by success. We should all be able to agree that if a store closes, it's not a success. But if it stays open with subsidies, is that a success or a failure? Is the goal for it to be self-sustaining? Is the goal for it to be heavily utilized by the poor? Etc.

[Mr. Bumble]

Anything that requires subsidies to remain viable should be considered a failure.

[wvattorney13]

"But if it stays open with subsidies, is that a success or a failure?" That's the real clincher, isn't it?

I mean, I could keep a restaurant open if I had reasonably unlimited funding. Is my restaurant successful because I can keep the doors open simply because I have the funding to keep the doors open? That seems tautological.

Even if my restaurant manages a good social goal, say, feeding every poor person in the community, that by itself shouldn't be enough if any plausible alternative would have also fed the poor at a much lower cost.

[Sarcastr0]

As Mayor, Zohran will create a network of city-owned grocery stores focused on keeping prices low, not making a profit. Without having to pay rent or property taxes, they will reduce overhead and pass on savings to shoppers. They will buy and sell at wholesale prices, centralize warehousing and distribution, and partner with local neighborhoods on products and sourcing. With New York City already spending millions of dollars to subsidize private grocery store operators (which are not even required to take SNAP/WIC!), we should redirect public money to a real “public option.”

I found this useful to get a sense of the purpose/plan here.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The word "decimate" initially meant to arbitrarily disembowel one in ten, leaving the other nine alive to tell everyone of your brutality.

Imagine if ICE were to resort to decimation -- to simply disembowel everyone they encountered at a raid -- illegal alien or protester. How many times would they have to do this before the illegals self-deported and the protesters started finding something else to do?

On a more realistic perspective, how is tracking ICE not interfering with governmental administration? How is it not AT LEAST AS bad as peacefully walking into the Capitol on January 6th?

So why aren't we seeing people being arrested at 4AM?

[ThePublius]

"Imagine if ICE were to resort to decimation -- to simply disembowel everyone they encountered at a raid -- illegal alien or protester."

That wouldn't be decimation. I thought, based on your opening sentence, that you knew what the term meant.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Good catch -- I got too cute by half tossing in disembowel.

[ThePublius]

I was objecting to "everyone" - where decimation means one in ten.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And everyone is also singular.

But if everyone were members of a group that was decimated, then
it would be 1:10.

[ThePublius]

Are you on drugs?

[Michael P]

Decimation originally did not involve disembowelment, but simply killing by some means -- such as beating to death with clubs, according to https://militaryhistorynow.com/2014/02/26/no-safety-in-numbers-a-brief-history-of-decimation/ .

[Estragon]

“simply disembowel everyone they encountered at a raid”

Does it give you pleasure to imagine such things? You need help my guy.

[Mr. Bumble]

Bring on the snow plows.

[Estragon]

Bring out the butterfly nets.

[bernard11]

Imagine if ICE were .... to simply disembowel everyone they encountered at a raid

This is beyond insane.

I would hope anyone involved, all the way up the chain of command, would be sent to prison for life, or executed.

You are mentally ill and in serious need of medical attention.

[David Nieporent]

The word "decimate" initially meant to arbitrarily disembowel one in ten, leaving the other nine alive to tell everyone of your brutality.

The word decimate never meant anything at all about disemboweling anybody. Your capacity for wrongness continues to amaze.

[Mr. Bumble]

FWIW:

Dr. Ed 2 7 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User

Good catch -- I got too cute by half tossing in disembowel.

[Malika la Maize]

Donald Trump has become the butt of the joke after sending out a gibberish Truth Social message on Wednesday before quickly deleting it.

The chronically-online president, 79, has turned viral social media blunders into a tradition, having birthed the word “covfefe” in 2017 and accidentally rebranded himself as “DONAKD J. TRUMP” earlier this year.

Now, Trump, who is currently in South Korea as part of a six-day Asia tour, has minted 2025’s own “covfefe.”

At 10:43 p.m. local time, the elderly president hit post on a short, baffling entry: “South Carerdddd.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-79-fires-off-gibberish-214856368.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAD_jvMn0jtuZmHy4m6pWUSePlKt2fj3D378hdcljT4XHGVTjDRukPRyLTC_6nfMgKEIoMT6QXyuADYnOsUiWz4-9ov_FnHVAfpjdJQ13v7Wr-XRIGN6xLorO-LZBD8_Lep4rWNTye9Y_MGG-a-WNTc3ctPiCO2-XPqJUtqCyXbrw

[Malika la Maize]

FBI Director Kash Patel traveled to Pennsylvania State University over the weekend to watch his girlfriend perform at a wrestling event, according to a recent report that cited flight records associated with a government-registered jet.

Patel, 45, appeared alongside his partner, country singer Alexis Wilkins, 26, at the Real American Freestyle event at the school, prompting some internet sleuths to inquire about how he got there. Wilkins posted pictures of her and Patel at the event.

A jet, registered to the Department of Justice, appeared to have taken a roughly 40-minute-long flight from the Manassas Regional Airport in Virginia to State College Regional Airport on October 25. Roughly two and a half hours later, the jet departed from State College for Nashville, where Wilkins lives. A passenger manifesto for the jet was not released.

Over the last few months, the FBI director has faced criticism from lawmakers for what they believe is overutilizing a government aircraft for personal reasons.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/kash-patel-girlfriend-fbi-jet-b2854757.html

[Mr. Bumble]

Just following the lead of his predecessor.

[ThePublius]

In the total scheme of things, who cares? It's not like all of these govt. big wigs haven't been doing this forever.

And, how do you know he didn't reimburse the government for this use? Do you know?

[Michael P]

You think Kash Patel is gonna be sitting on a waiting line at United?

https://nypost.com/2025/05/08/us-news/bernie-sanders-refuses-to-apologize-for-flying-on-private-jets/

[Randal]

Just so no one's confused by this wildly off-the-mark attempted whataboutism: Bernie was not flying around in a government plane on the government dime like Kash.

[Michael P]

Right. Bernie Sanders is all in favor of big government, so he would at least be consistent if he flew on government planes. He pretends to be against the rich, but flies on private jets and (last I heard) owns three houses. So he's a hypocrite on top of being a nose-in-the-air patrician.

[ducksalad]

On the one hand we've got an avowed big-government socialist who has a lot of private wealth and spends it enjoying the fruits of capitalism.

On the other, an avowed small-government conservative who expects the taxpayers to subsidize his relationship with his girlfriend.

Remember that in November 2026 you don't have to vote for either of these. There are other options.

[Randal]

But if you do vote for one of them, the choice is clear: hypocrisy vs. corruption (and hypocrisy).

[wvattorney13]

Come on. He has a house in Vermont, one in Washington and like every good Vermonter has a lake cabin. Just a regular dude.

[Zarniwoop]

Not surprised that the pedophilia protector hasn’t heard of the creepy rule: https://xkcd.com/314/

I used to be pretty skeptical that there’s much in the Epstein files, but the longer it drags on the more I think they’re hiding something. And it’s not “but Bill Clinton”, because they’d absolutely throw Bill under a whole caravan of busses.

[Michael P]

Yes, you must be right about why Joe Biden didn't release the Epstein files.

Alternatively, the longer it goes on, the more likely it is that there aren't additional files from, or significantly focusing on, Epstein himself or his crimes.

[Michael P]

See, for example, https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/31/politics/jeffrey-epstein-financial-records-unsealed-jp-morgan on just-unsealed court records, and these bits on suspicious activity reports (SARs) from a bank:

“Generally, the only new material here is the SARs themselves. Those basically summarize financial information produced in litigation, much of which has been public for years. The SARs do confirm what’s been inferred all along: the bank filed SARs about Epstein early on, and specifically when it exited Epstein from the bank in 2013 – and repeatedly between 2013 and 2019, as required,” said Patricia Wexler, a spokesperson for JPMorgan Chase.
[....]
“After an exhaustive investigation more than four years ago, the Dechert law firm concluded that Mr. Black paid Epstein only for tax and estate planning advice that saved him and his family billions of dollars. To imply that Epstein somehow had influence over Mr. Black is false and patently absurd,” Susan Estrich, an attorney for [one of the other parties in a SAR, Leon] Black, said in a statement. “Indeed, it was Mr. Black who fired Epstein because he was disruptive and believed the fees for his services were excessive. The Dechert Report also found that Mr. Black had no knowledge of Epstein’s criminal activities.”

[Dr. Ed 2]

Three words -- Duke Lacrosse Team.

Say an accuser says he was on orgy island at the same time a NY Supreme Court says he was in Manhattan testifying in one of the many suits brought against him.

You got a whole transcript.

You don't release this accusation, it's clearly false.

[Krayt]

The problem is it seems to protect both sides, with each side dragging ass when it's the one in power.

[Michael P]

Another perspective, also suggesting that there's little (it anything) left to reveal:

https://www.thetimes.com/us/news-today/article/rina-oh-interview-virginia-giuffre-jeffrey-epstein-fjk0kxzhr

[Commenter_XY]

I don't want the FBI Director, regardless of party, flying private at all. That is too much risk to the country.

[Sarcastr0]

If the FBI Director is load-bearing, that's bad leadership.

I'll allow that the President is special, but in general people acting as single points of failure are a sign someone has already fucked up.

[ducksalad]

XY's remark could be taken two ways.

One is that he is so precious that we can't afford to lose him.

The other was explained by Dr. Ed - he is so hated his mere presence is incitement to violence.

[Commenter_XY]

A foreign power like Iran or China or Russia or North Korea would be very interested in 'plausibly denying' kidnapping or killing the FBI Director. Why give them the chance?

[ducksalad]

I do not believe for a second that China has any interest in killing or kidnapping Kash Patel. There really just isn't any evidence that's how they conduct foreign policy.

The other three I'm marginally less confident. As in there's an 0.1% chance versus 0.001% chance with China. But still Kash Patel is not a high value target. Even from a MAGA point of view, he is not a valuable decision maker, he's an easily replaced lackey.

You or I could name a dozen loyalists Trump could swap in if Patel quit.

But anyway, XY - based on recent events in the Middle East, I thought you were firmly in the "kill the terrorists before worrying about the hostages" camp.

[Commenter_XY]

Not to worry ducksalad, I remain firmly in the kill the terrorists (especially hamas) camp. The actions of hamas on 10/7 (and afterward), defined them. The palestinians (75% of them) agree and strongly support hamas (and their tactics).

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/417167

The rules in that region of the world don't comport to Western rules and values. As for a FBI Director, simply disrupting an investigation can be a win for an adversary. The risk is to the country simply too great. I don't have an issue requiring an FBI Director to fly Uncle Sam Airways. I'd feel the same way if Team D is in charge (Heaven help us!); that person is too important to national security.

[David Nieporent]

An FBI director doesn't conduct investigations; nothing that happened to one would disrupt any.

[bernard11]

A foreign power like Iran or China or Russia or North Korea would be very interested in 'plausibly denying' kidnapping or killing the FBI Director.

Why would they be interested? Seems like it would be an extremely foolish thing for them to do. It's not as if the FBI would suddenly collapse if Patel disappeared.

[David Nieporent]

Nor does Patel have a whole lot of classified information memorized that could be tortured out of him. They're not going to find out the names of American spies by kidnapping Patel. C_XY has simply watched way too much 24.

[Michael P]

Gaslight0 pretends that FBI directors people in similar roles are chosen for their irrelevancy in those roles. Not surprising that a bureaucrat wants responsible leaders to be mere figureheads.

[Sarcastr0]

Single point of failure and relevancy to role are nowhere near the same thing.

If you fail in the first case, the institution fails. If you fail in the second case (Excluding the sub-case encompassing SPF), the institution continues with a different person filling the relevant role.

Though, frankly, I've seen no evidence Kash Patel is even relevant to his role except as the President's hatchet-man. From his testimony, he may very well be a detriment.

[Michael P]

As usual, this "single point of failure" thing is a straw man that you made up to argue against.

The President personally chooses the best person he knows for each role. Losing that person means falling back to an inferior candidate -- at least from the perspective of the person who nominates them. You act like that's an irrelevant concern.

[Sarcastr0]

If he's not a single point of failure, then Commenter's 'risk to the country' needs some work to support.

To lay out where you've arrived.
Your current argument is that Patel isn't a single point of failure, but he's the optimal man to do the job, with second best being enough of a drop he can't fly commercial.

You got a LOT of work to do to show that, lol.

[Michael P]

"Risk to the country" as opposed to the language used in, say, Executive Order 13526?

You're just proving my point that you can only argue against straw men.

[Sarcastr0]

You're going to have to do more work making the connection between Kash's inherent value and that EO.

[Michael P]

From section 1.2 of that EO:

(3) ‘‘Confidential’’ shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

"Secret" and "top secret" are defined similarly, except for using "serious" and "exceptionally grave" to modify "damage". The thresholds for these are often astonishingly low. Saying something has "risk to the country" is a hugely broader category. It's miles away from your "single point of failure" delusion... just as you are miles away from arguing in good faith.

[Sarcastr0]

Commenter didn't just say 'risk.'

We don't fly all our sensitive docs on private jets.

You're Commenter was being his usually silly self. You're picking up on yet another bad argument and ignoring the actual original post to try and make it something you can defend.

That's not how it works. You gotta dance with the thesis what brung ya.

[Michael P]

Lol, now you've totally abandoned the "single point of failure" argument. Why did you dump the thesis that you brought to the dance? I guess that's just the kind of person you are.

[Sarcastr0]

My argument applies to Commenter’s OP.

You changing the thesis isn’t my abandoning anything.

I’d note your thesis doesn’t support his private jet use.

[David Nieporent]

The President personally chooses the best person he knows for each role. Losing that person means falling back to an inferior candidate

I mean, that's obviously silly and not even remotely how presidents make appointments, plus there isn't one "best person" for any role. Yes, there are better and worse tiers of options, but within any tier, the options are indistinguishable.

Although I'll allow that given that Trump's single criterion is willingness to break the law and lie on his behalf, the pool of acceptable candidates is quite small.

[Riva]

Where would you vile creeps be without your projection? “Hatchet” men would be James Comey, Merrick Garland, John Brennan, Jack Smith, among other Biden/Obama thugs.

[David Nieporent]

Remember the main MAGA motto: IKYABWAI?

[Riva]

It seems asshole no more understands what “projection” means in this context than he does the separation of powers in constitutional interpretation. A true, well-rounded asshole.

[David Nieporent]

That's literally what projection means.

[Riva]

"Projection" is the left's favorite rhetorical tactic to discredit opponents by specifically attributing to them, in a deceptive and misleading way, the left's own corruption and bad behavior. IKYABWAI is superficially similar but is merely an adolescent retort and deflection that ignores any substantive argument or engagement. Rather similar to most of the postings here from asshole like you and other second rate trolls.

[Riva]

But even more fundamentally, I am not engaging in projection (or even asshole's infantile IKYABWAI). The little communist girl Sarcastr0 is.

[ducksalad]

Actually yes. I'd like the FBI to be mostly about enforcing general statutes that stay on the books from administration to administration. As opposed to making sure we feel the results of the most recent election good and hard.

You know, government of laws not men.

[Riva]

What about spying on representatives of the opposing party? Should we turn a blind eye to that in this, you know, government of laws not men?

[Sarcastr0]

This is you, yet again not engaging with the comment and just pulling out talking points.

This is why people mock you as a bot; you could take what you just wrote and paste it as a response to any accusation of bad acts by the Trump administration.

People like it more when you of read, consider and provide an actual counterargument.

[Riva]

It’s called operation Arctic Frost.

And my response was not to you, you fucking imbecilic gaslighting clown.

F off

[Dr. Ed 2]

Whitey Bulger was held in a Plymouth jail when he was on trial in Boston. The first day they flew him the 40 miles in a USCG helo, which was seen as extravagant.

So they drove him, and Boston's traffic went from the worst in the nation to FUBAR beyond hope. https://www.newsmax.com/US/WhiteyBulger-Helicopter/2011/07/01/id/402232/

The Massachusetts Governor travels in an unmarked state police car with a state police driver. Michael Dukakis wanted to take the subway to his residence in nearby Brookline. So he had to have six; state troopers with him, along with another in a car above ground in case something happened and they needed to take the Governor somewhere quickly.

He did it for show but this was way more expensive than simply driving him.

As to Kash Patel flying commercial, would you want to be on that plane, knowing that it is likely being targeted by terrorists because he is? And would you like to put up with the extra security required because of that?

Or just let him fly in a military plane?

[ducksalad]

Plenty of other options for a personal trip that are low risk, low profile, and low cost.

His girlfriend could send a roadie to pick him up in a non-descript car. He could have taken Uber (only about $300). He could put on a luchador mask and take Greyhound.

However I'm fine with the jet if he reimbursed the government, and I don't know with certainty that he didn't.

[Krayt]

Hey! Everyone always pays the going commercial flight cost on these, even if it's just a miniscule fraction of the actual cost! It's just done for safety reasons.

Look, here's the quickly cobbled-together paperwork showing so, since some irritating journalist is asking.

This is how it's ever been, and shall ever be.

[DDHarriman]

Anywhere a Trump politician/appointment goes, their life is in extreme danger from Democrats. This is the price we pay for safety for our civil servants.

[ducksalad]

They even celebrate by wearing "Problem Solved" t-shirts after a kill, amirite?

[wvattorney13]

"His girlfriend could send a roadie to pick him up in a non-descript car."

Kash could buy the guy a case of Natty Light for gas money.

[David Nieporent]

Why would any terrorist target Kash Patel?

[hobie]

HaHa! Yeah, The Daily Show did a thing on Kash and jets. It spliced all the clips of him berating Biden administration for using private jets

[Riva]

This concerns you? We have the Arctic Frost spying scandal, one of the worst scandals in American history, and countless other abuses of the Obama and Biden years coming to light and you’re hot and bothered by a plane?

Not the sharpest troll in the shed. Truly second string. Maybe not even that.

[ducksalad]

one of the worst scandals in American history

You're supposed to type that in all caps.

[Riva]

Isn't gross government corruption and the weaponization of the legal process fucking hilarious?

[David Nieporent]

When you find any evidence of either that wasn't undertaken by Trump, let us know.

The Arctic Frost spying scandal neither involved the Arctic, frost, spying, or a scandal.

[Riva]

Well asshole, given that you still believe in the Steele “dossier,” the Russian collusion fraud in general, the lies from the 51 intel hacks, the Charlottesville lie, and probably believe Biden was actually competent, you’re views are not that compelling. Which should go without saying because, as noted before, you’re a world class asshole.

And of course, the response was not directed to you. So fuck off

[Frank Drackman]

Great World Series game 7 with the first "Golden Pitches" since 2016 (a pitch, the result of which could lead to either team winning/losing the World Series, can only happen in Game 7, bottom of the 9th or Extra Inning, with visiting team ahead by 3 or less runs, and 1 out, Golden Pitches are rarer than Total Solar Eclipses, and there were several last night, until the Big Dodger in the Sky had his way)

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

My bad, could also happen with no outs, with 2 runners on, visitors ahead by 2 or less, Home team could win with a homerun, Visitors could win with a triple play.

[wvattorney13]

Why couldn't it happen with 2 outs, 1 runner on, visiting team up by 1?

[Frank Drackman]

It could

[bernard11]

It was a great game.

Best World Series we've had in a while.

[Michael P]

What's the matter with Rockville?

https://mocoshow.com/2025/11/01/needles-allegedly-found-in-candy-given-to-children-in-rockville/

(I suspect this will be a case of tampering after the candy was given to the kids, but at least it's a case of the urban legend occurring with sufficient specificity to be fact-checked.)

[Frank Drackman]

I think they're taking that "Free Needles" a bit too far

[ducksalad]

I suspect this will be a case of tampering after the candy was given to the kids

Yup.

[Michael P]

This is why releasing suspects on their own recognizance is a problem: https://www.doj.state.or.us/media-home/news-media-releases/odoj-files-motion-to-revoke-release-of-melissa-fireside-believes-she-has-fled-country/

Other media reports that she crossed into Mexico on the ground and then flew to Amsterdam, and that her absconsion was reported by the missing boy's father.

[SRG2]

This is why releasing suspects on their own recognizance is a problem

Thank you for supporting my "conservative vs liberal" evidence hypothesis.

[Michael P]

You have a lot of stupid hypotheses, and you usually spell them out as poorly as you did here -- probably because you spend no more time thinking them through than you do typing them out.

[SRG2]

As I have said before, the hypothesis is that conservatives use anecdotes while liberals use statistics.

Anyone who wanted to make a reasoned argument for the failure of releasing on recognisance would cite statistics showing that there was a problem, e.g., 20% of suspects released thus re-offended in the next 6 months, compared to only 5% , etc or whatever. Anyone incapable of making a rational argument - like yourself - and readily swayed by emotional arguments will find a single case to cite, clutch their pearls, and moan about how terrible it is.

You may well be right that there is a problem - but your anecdote doesn't cut it as an argument, only shows the proneness of the conservative mind to emote rather than reason.

[Michael P]

https://nypost.com/2022/02/14/43-of-people-let-go-with-no-bail-on-a-serious-charge-in-nyc-were-rearrested/ says 43%. A longer-term (50 months) study says the number was 57%. https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/zero-dollar-bail-study-felony-violent-crime-arrests/ says people released without bail had twice the felony re-arrest rate as others, and three times the violent crime re-arrest rate.

But leftists don't care about those, they care about sob stories that Pro Publica or NPR dig up. Which, incidentally, shows that your hypothesis is merely an artifact of what you notice.

[SRG2]

Now why didn't you post the stats originally? That would have proven your point. But no...emotion first reason second,

Which, incidentally, shows that your hypothesis is merely an artifact of what you notice.
well, no, because you only posted the stats after being prompted to.

But leftists don't care about those,

I'll let an actual leftist answer.

[Michael P]

I didn't post statistics because, as I said, "leftists don't care about those, they care about sob stories that Pro Publica or NPR dig up."

Just look at the stories about immigration arrests, abortion, and Saint George of Fentanyl.

[Randal]

Everyone likes human interest stories that play into their priors. NPR is doing human interest. They're not trying to convince anyone.

If you were posting human interest stories, Pichael, then anecdotes are wonderful for that. But you claim to be trying to convince people who don't already agree with you. That requires an actual argument. Using an anecdote as an argument makes you seem like an idiot, and it's a fallacy that conservatives seem especially prone to, as SRG noticed.

[Michael P]

Yes, SRG2's hypothesis is pure bunk.

I wasn't expecting the resident denialist brigade to dogpile a straightforward example of an obvious and shop-worn failure mode of one of their pet causes, but apparently I should have known that the hypocrites would demand rigorous statistics while offering none of their own.

[Sarcastr0]

No one is disagreeing with the stats.
I don’t know much about the area, so I’m not gonna take that up.

We are all noting how you seem to arrive at your conclusions.
No denial, just talking about critical thinking.

[Michael P]

Yawn. You're not even trying to engage on the original point, you're just making a characteristically shitty ad hominem argument that boils down to calling me names. And it's all based on your attempted mind-reading rather than anything I've written. It reflects entirely on you, and says jack squat about me.

[Sarcastr0]

This might be the worst deployment of ‘that’s ad homimen’ I have ever seen.

I don’t say you were wrong. I said I didn’t feel equipped to have an opinion.

I know that’s not something you ever do.

[SRG2]

You should have known that if you're making the claim, it's incumbent on you to prove it. You're whining because I requested stats not anecdote. Did I disagree with your stats once produced? I did not.

So what the fuck are you whingeing about?

[Michael P]

Gaslight0 is now denying that "We are all noting how you seem to arrive at your conclusions" is an ad hominem.

Sad, but no more than we have come to expect from such a determined idiot.

[Michael P]

SRG2- Statistics tell nothing about whether that case illustrates a major problem with such lax releases. You just wanted to deny it is a problem. And you wanted to make a claim about leftists vs sane people that turned out to be very wrong.

[SRG2]

Statistics tell nothing about whether that case illustrates a major problem with such lax releases.

The case illustrates bugger all until you provide statistics.

You just wanted to deny it is a problem.

No, I wanted information, not anecdote.

And you wanted to make a claim about leftists vs sane people that turned out to be very wrong.

I made no such claim. I do claim that there is a particular difference between conservatives and liberals, the former not necessarily being sane (some here being pathologically authoritarian) and the latter not being leftists.

Not only was I not proved wrong, but your later responses provided more evidence for the hypothesis. "Statistics tell nothing". No, statistics don't give you the emotional fuel that you seem to need from anecdotage.

[Sarcastr0]

Prophetic: "The truthiness is, anyone can read the news to you. I promise to feel the news 'at' you."

[hobie]

We let dangerous rapist/insurrectionist out on PR bond.

[David Nieporent]

This is why releasing suspects on their own recognizance is a problem:

Setting aside why you think a single anecdote would prove anything, what does it have to do with ROR? Can people granted bail not also flee?

[Michael P]

Bail is traditionally set at a level high enough to dissuade that in a normal case. There was very little dissuasion here -- lots of Democrats fantasize about moving out of MAGA Country, especially when they are about to face felony charges.

[SRG2]

Has anyone else watched "House of Dynamite"? Gripping stuff, I thought, albeit an incomplete film.

The Atlantic has a nice related article:
The Military’s Missile-Defense System Cannot Be as Good as It Says

[Don Nico]

That is enough of a comment to get me to watch the film.

[Mr. Bumble]

Does anyone remember the stories and pictures of starving Biafran children complete with pictures of their bloated bellies?
How long before we see stories and pictures of starving SNAP recipients (many of whom already have the bloated bellies).

[Dr. Ed 2]

Food is cheap -- HEALTHY food, not so much.
We stopped teaching Home Ec 45-50 years ago.

[Frank Drackman]

Food's Food, McDonalds 1/4 Pounder with Cheese is 520 Kcal, Applebee's Caesar Salad with Grilled Chicken is 950Kcal, ever notice most people eating Salads are fat?

Frank

[David Nieporent]

We stopped teaching Home Ec 45-50 years ago.

We did not. Once again, Dr. Ed just makes shit up.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The why do Millennials not know how to cook?

[hobie]

I don't know why food security always gives you MAGA a hard-on. It's like your weapon of choice. USAID/Food Banks/SNAP all gone? Hooray! Gazans starving to death? Yes, please!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, hopefully Kash Patel's FBI is a wee bit more honest.

https://www.newsmax.com/us/michigan-detroit-fbi/2025/11/01/id/1232845/

[ducksalad]

The speculation on the news is Venezuela next, but the decider in chief said this a few hours ago:

If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country, “guns-a-blazing,” to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities. I am hereby instructing our Department of War to prepare for possible action. If we attack, it will be fast, vicious, and sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our CHERISHED Christians! WARNING: THE NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT BETTER MOVE FAST!

[Mr. Bumble]

"Guns-a-blazing" brings me back to Guns-a-Go-Go.
https://chinook-helicopter.com/chinook/gunsagogo.html

[ducksalad]

Morning, Bumble. Happy Standard Time Day!

I'm not into helicopters, but I wonder if the Gatling guns could be mounted on the hood of my Toyota. For people who drive slow in the left lane.

[Mr. Bumble]

Ah, the thrill of having to reset all of the clocks.
Suggest the 40mm automatic grenade launcher rather than mini guns.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hood wouldn't support the weight and good luck staying on the road if you ever fired it.

The rocket pod on top of your car would work. but don't fire at speed because you might light your car on fire -- the air doesn't go straight back.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and thank you for your service!

[Longtobefree]

What Nigerian government?

[Randal]

If we attack, it will be fast, vicious, and sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our CHERISHED Christians!

What a strange thing to say. Now Trump is on record, written record, characterizing terrorist attacks on Christians as "sweet."

More substantively... "America First" sure didn't last very long, did it! Globalism's back, baby, except Trump seems especially preoccupied with the western hemisphere. I think that's smart actually. Pax Americana you know.

[ducksalad]

A thoughtful essay on the role of the filibuster in our American constitutional system:

Remember, Republicans, regardless of the Schumer Shutdown, the Democrats will terminate the Filibuster the first chance they get. They will Pack the Supreme Court, pick up two States, and add at least 8 Electoral Votes. Their two objectors are gone!!! Don’t be WEAK AND STUPID. FIGHT,FIGHT, FIGHT! WIN, WIN, WIN! We will immediately END the Extortionist Shutdown, get ALL of our agenda passed, and make life so good for Americans that these DERANGED DEMOCRAT politicians will never again have the chance to DESTROY AMERICA! Republicans, you will rue the day that you didn’t TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER!!! BE TOUGH, BE SMART, AND WIN!!! This is much bigger than the Shutdown, this is the survival of our Country!

[Sarcastr0]

This doesn't seem like it'll persuade the Senate...but who knows, maybe we'll restart work this week.

[DDHarriman]

A bunch of Democrat teachers in AZ dressed up as an assassinated Charlie Kirk with a bloody t-shirt emblazoned with 'PROBLEM SOLVED'.

Are Democrats demons IRL?

https://x.com/1109Patricia/status/1984890541998219652

[Glaucomatose]

Meanwhile, back IRL:

Dear Vail Parents and Families,

We’re writing to inform you about a situation that has been circulating on social media involving members of Cienega High School’s math department.

A photo showing teachers wearing shirts that say “Problem Solved” has caused confusion and concern. We want to clarify that these shirts were part of a math-themed Halloween costume meant to represent solving tough math problems. The shirts were never intended to target any person, event, or political issue.

Unfortunately, the image is being shared online with false claims that they were intended as a statement of recent events in our country. This is unequivocally untrue. The shirts were purchased online and were also worn last year as part of the same math-themed costumes, long before recent events. For anyone questioning the validity that the shirts were worn last year, I am happy to provide the photo to you.

So the question for you is: what do you think the people lying to you about this think of your intelligence? Because they're probably right.

[DDHarriman]

>So the question for you is: what do you think the people lying to you about this think of your intelligence? Because they're probably right.

You should check the picture out first before stepping onto that rake.

The outright gall. Are you like one of those people where that judge asked "What if you were the one pushed onto the subway tracks" like 10x and your only response is "but I wasn't"?

[Glaucomatose]

Good point. That picture definitely shows that the shirts the teachers bought a year ago were all part of an elaborate plot to mock the upcoming death of Charlie Kirk.

You sound very smart.

[DDHarriman]

Why do you think that photo is last from last year and not this year, smart guy?

[Glaucomatose]

The photo you linked to is from this year. The shirts were bought last year, when they were worn at a similar event.

DDHarriman no read gud.

[DDHarriman]

If you wrote English instead of Democrat, maybe a human could understand it.

[hobie]

Poor gullible MAGA.

[ducksalad]

I don't think DDHarriman was taken in. He just knows that (a) some people would take his word for it without checking, and (b) those who do check would be annoyed by the lie, and he thinks that annoying people that way is funny.

[hobie]

The three commenters here that continually keep seeing jeebus in tortillas (so to speak) are this nut, that lex idiot and MichaelP. Each of their citations are always completely wrong. Must be how they get their kicks. Sad

[DDHarriman]

Tell us how you White Savior'd your way into the 'hood and are enlightening all those poor negros you are lovingly gentrifying.

TIA

[ducksalad]

Most everything you post is dishonest.

The t-shirt is on amazon.com and has been for years. Look up "problem solved t-shirt" and you'll see it from several vendors.

The photo was from a school math contest. "Problem solved", get it?

It's no more likely to represent Charlie Kirk than Hassan Nasrallah, Malcolm X, or Archduke Ferdinand. Correction, it's much less likely, since the t-shirt was designed before the Kirk assassination but after those others.

[hobie]

What's so demonic about celebrating the death of a homophobic, misogynistic, racist, antisemitic neonazi monster like Kirk?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Because it might encourage your death?
There is a reason why assassination is considered generically BAD...

[David Nieporent]

A bunch of Democrat teachers in AZ dressed up as an assassinated Charlie Kirk with a bloody t-shirt emblazoned with 'PROBLEM SOLVED'.

Voltage guy is lying again. There was no reference of any sort to Charlie Kirk, no hint of any sort of any reference to Charlie Kirk, and we know for a fact that it had nothing to do with Charlie Kirk because they wore the same costumes in prior years.

[DDHarriman]

Judge Boasburg violated the law to give Democrats cover to spy on conservative Senators with their Artic Frost We're Totally NOT Fascist investigation.

https://x.com/MikeBenzCyber/status/1984491584306528705

I hope he serves prison time.

[Randal]

Time for a new handle! We're on to your voltage (again).

[DDHarriman]

If you were remotely smart about online safety you would too.

Deranged Democrats are roaming the streets looking to murder people like me to satisfy their seek demonic bloodlust (as witnessed by Problem Solved bloody t-shirts)

[Hugh]

Come out of your dystopian fantasies. Come to Portland, that "hellhole" and see the people in clown and banana costumes, unicyclists, and nude bicyclists confronting Trump's Gestapo.

[DDHarriman]

I know you're not smooth brained enough to think those costumes are just for silliness and not terroristic utility?

They protect against tear gas while they riot and domestic terrorize federal civil servants.

And it's such a gestapo "the people in clown and banana costumes, unicyclists, and nude bicyclists (are) confronting", many of whom are military aged foreign nationals, domestic terrorizing civil servants.

[Randal]

Hahahaha you should be a MAGA podcaster, you'd fit right in. Keep 'em stupid and frothy!

You should do us a favor and follow in Tucker Carlson's footsteps: try convincing as many maggots as possible that America is such an irredeemable hellhole that their only option is to move the family to Russia! I love those stories.

[Hugh]

Weasels like Hawley, Mike Johnson, Jim Jordan and Cruz were rightfully investigated to see if they were part of a violent seditious attempt to overthrow our American Republic. If they are not guilty, they have nothing to fear.

[ThePublius]

Classic! That's like saying you don't need the fifth amendment, you dolt.

[David Nieporent]

There was no spying and no violation of any law.

[DDHarriman]

It's spelled out plain as day in the link Gaslightr0.

[ThePublius]

Ditto

[Randal]

Wow are you a lot of gullible rubes.

How do you not notice that you're being continuously lied to?

[David Nieporent]

It's spelled out plain as day in the link Gaslightr0.

I admit that — unlike most of the time when MAGA rants — some specific statutes are actually identified in the tweet. Trouble is, nothing in there identifies any facts of any sort that suggest that any of these statutes were violated. Investigating people for potential criminal activity does not violate any of their rights.

[Randal]

I just want to reiterate that when you threaten someone with being "lined up against the wall and shot" it's an execution by firing squad that's being suggested there.

Lots of retards around here don't seem to be aware of this common phrase.

[Hugh]

Written by Thomas Jefferson, July 4, 1776, about the abuses of England's King George III:

"For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world.” “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us.” “He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our Legislatures.” “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people.” “Obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither.”

Sound familiar?

[ducksalad]

Thanks for digging up that last quote. People often forget that one.

But sadly we also need to remember that in 1776 King George had plenty of supporters on this side of the Atlantic. There weren't 13 colonies, it was more like 20+ depending on how you count and many of them ended up sticking with him. Within the 13 colonies some people ended up leaving although most eventually saw reason and changed their minds. Or at least decided to keep their heads down.

[Roger S]

Don't forget the part about “Merciless Indian Savages”.

[DDHarriman]

Does anyone else think Charlie Kirk is up in heaven laughing his ass off at all those Democrats who cheered and celebrated his tranny-terrorist assassination lose their welfare?

[Dr. Ed 2]

No.

[ximoy54893]

normal, healthy, mentally sane americans close their eyes and into their heads pops an image of a gay man thrusting his erect penis in and out of another man's butthole until he has a pleasurable, shuddering orgasm resulting in the powerful ejaculation of gobs and gobs of hiv infected man cream into the other man's colon. when they come to, they're sweating and gag in disgust. liberal democrats like david nieporent envision that and think "what a sweet, healthy, courageous marital act between a husband and a husband!"

[Glaucomatose]

Usually when I close my eyes I think about my wife, my family, what's been going on in my day, or if I'm feeling good, my boat or my ski house.

If that's what pops into your head, when you close your eyes, you really should just find a male prostitute to give you what you've clearly been fantasizing about.

[Randal]

Wow are you auditioning for Playboi's erotic fiction section? This is the wrong reddit for your gay stuff.

[Bwaaah]

David Nieporent is not a Democrat. And it's odd that you attribute your own graphic sexual ideation to him.

[ThePublius]

I honestly can't believe it, but I bought film, and film developing chemicals today. I must be losing my mind. I shot a whole roll of 120 (12 exposures) B&W yesterday, and some 35mm color today.

There are some cool chemistries now that make developing color really easy, about as easy as developing B&W.

I really like the feel of film cameras, and the psychology of it, too - waiting, and working on it.

Now I have to get my digitizing setup going....

[Mr. Bumble]

Keep film alive!

[Bwaaah]

You have an enlarger? Papers? You planning to do your own prints?

Oops. Doesn't work like that anymore? "Digitizing setup..."