Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Politics
Eugene Volokh | 8.5.2024 3:00 AM
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Δ
NEXT: Justice Gorsuch Explains What Collegiality Means
Hide Comments (979)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
In the D.C. prosecution of Donald Trump, Judge Tanya Chutkan is letting no grass grow under her feet. She has denied Trump’s motion to dismiss for selective and vindictive prosecution, opining that Trump had not made the required threshold showing as to either theory. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.198.0.pdf
The Court denied without prejudice another of Trump’s motions to dismiss and has ordered filing by this Friday of a status report that proposes, jointly to the extent possible, a schedule for pretrial proceedings moving forward, and the Court has scheduled a status conference for scheduling for the following Friday. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.197.0.pdf
I anticipate that the “mini-trial” of immunity issues will be the next order of business. I am not sure who will have the burden of production at any evidentiary hearing on those issues. SCOTUS has directed that the first step is to distinguish Trump’s official from unofficial actions. Trump v. United States, 604 U.S. ___, 144 S.Ct. 2312 (2024), Part III. In that “[t]he burden of justifying absolute immunity rests on the official asserting the claim,” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 812 (1982), that suggests that the initial burden of production is on the defense. See Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F.4th 1, 30 (D.C. Cir. 2023).
The Supreme Court has opined that Trump’s importuning Vice-president Pence to unilaterally reject valid slates of certified electors or send them back to state legislatures for review is official conduct, such that Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct. As to this issue it is the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption by showing that a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. Trump, supra, Part III-B-2.
The District Court must determine in the first instance whether Trump’s conspiratorial conduct regarding the fake elector scheme qualifies as official or unofficial. Id., at Part III-B-3. Likewise Judge Chutkan must determine whether Trump’s conduct in connection with the events of January 6 itself is official or unofficial. Id., at Part III-B-3.
IMPEACH JUDGE CHUTKAN
Impeach the judges, prosecute the prosecutors, it’s the only way that we are going to preserve the Republic. `
COMMIT DR. ED 2
Shakespeare was right.
When he wrote “what fools, these Ed 2’s be?”
‘The first thing we do, let’s…’.
Far be it for me to explain to you how fiction works, but I don’t think that was Shakespeare voicing an opinion.
Wait, so that nine hours of Lancastrian propaganda (all three parts) WASN’T the playwright’s true view?!?!!
Weird.
I’m convinced that his father was a gangster in S-u-A. Was thinking of writing a movie script about it.
No, Shakespeare was voicing AN opinion, it may not have been his, but it was AN opinion.
Can you imagine what Andrew Jackson’s supporters would have done had they gone after him after the so-called “corrupt bargain” gave the Presidency to John Quincy Adams?
They WOULD HAVE killed all the lawyers involved — they’d have strung them up outside the courthouses.
And for 220 years, there was a gentleman’s agreement that no matter how corrupt the prior administration had been (US Grant comes to mind) nor how outrageous the loosing side had been in the prior election (Team Blaine comes to mind), you didn’t prosecute them. Threaten to, say you should, but not actually do it.
I think it is an indisputable fact that Watergate severely harmed the legal profession — and Lawfaregate is going to harm it worse.
The fact that a significant number of those caught up in the Nixon Administration corruption were lawyers was the impetus for the ABA requiring that every law school include a professional ethics course as a requirement for graduation in order to maintain ABA accreditation.
The fact that a significant number of those caught up in Trump’s crimes were lawyers should perhaps cause the ABA to reconsider the effectiveness of such courses.
Did Hillary’s lawyers at Perkins Coie pass their ethics courses? You know, the guys working for that cut out law firm she used to hide her illegal use of campaign monies to fund the Russian collusion fraud. Legal ethics must mean something different to Democrats. Kinda like democracy.
Martinned2 : “…but I don’t think that was Shakespeare voicing an opinion.”
Of course this line repeatedly appears here and some friendly, helpful, knowledgeable person always deigns to provide context.
Such as me! It’s in Henry VI, Part 2 (prefer Part 1 myself) and is spoken by “Dick The Butcher”. He’s a thuggish criminal in a larger gang of murderers & thieves and doesn’t have a moral, or ethical thought in the entire play. I doubt Shakespeare intended this line to be singularly different.
Yeah, you and Ed seem like the types to agree with and admire Dick the Butcher, an evil idiot with delusions of grandeur.
Yesterday, you said that Prof. Blackman had filed an amicus brief supporting the argument that Barack Obama had forged documents to falsify his citizenship. Can you provide a link to it?
With a Jointly Sovereign Grand Jury?
NG, what are the actual questions to ask to determine if an act is official or not? I am trying to understand the heuristic that would tell me what is official and what is not. SCOTUS did not leave behind a suggested set of questions to ask.
How do you even frame the question?
Other: Is Jack Smith even legal? I am thinking of the FL docs case.
Last: I anticipate being in Nashville in the not so distant future. Any good ‘off the beaten track’ places you would recommend (not just food)?
Not exactly off the beaten track, but check out the Nashville Parthenon. Full scale replica of the original in Athens, as it would have looked when new.
It’s where a scene from Percy Jackson was filmed, which is how we happened to know about it when we were in the area.
There was a great article in the NYT extolling the Parthenon recently. I’d frankly see a replication of what it would have been like in all it’s glory than to see the crumbly ruins of the actual one.
Crumbly ruins are actually quite impressive. I was able to go in ’21 during Covid when there were almost no crowds.
O wow, that is hilarious. It’s just like those Chinese towns that have a full-scale replica of Venice or sth.
Far from hilarious and actually pretty impressive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenon_(Nashville)
Agreed. As I said, it sounds great to me.
From the link: “It was designed by architect William Crawford Smith”
If it’s a proper replica, how can this be true?
I imagine you still need someone to advise how to put it up in that place.
Yes, but that’s not the same as designing it…
The original is impressive. Someone building a replica in rural USA is hilarious.
I don’t think Nashville TN is rural and why you think the building of a copy of one of the most famous buildings in the world is hilarious escapes me.
The original, plaster Parthenon replica was built during the 1890s as part of Tennessee’s centennial celebration of statehood. Nashville’s population was then about 80,000. It was replaced during the 1920s with today’s permanent, concrete and steel structure. Centennial Park (surrounding the building) is one of the larger urban parks in the city.
I don’t think Nashville TN is rural
He reminds me of the clueless NPR talking heads who were giggling about Frisco, TX being on Amazon’s short list back when they were looking for a new site for a HQ facility. They were laughing because they were under the impression (based on nothing but their own ignorance) that it was a some podunk rural town. Frisco is in fact a nice middle class northern Dallas suburb of about 220,000 people with a median household income of about $68K and a modern shopping mall that’s larger than many small towns…and is home to more than its share of large companies.
He is an arrogant elitist.
The fact that a rural state has a big city in it doesn’t make it any less of a rural state. “Rural USA” is everywhere between the East Coast, West Coast, Chicago, and Texas, roughly.
Atta’ boy. Just keep flaunting your ignorance.
The standard US term for that is “flyover country.” (At least until the climate zealots ban air travel, I guess.)
Someone building a replica in rural USA
If a city of nearly 700,000 people is “rural” then your entire country is nothing but hick towns.
My native country is a really big city with some rural hinterland attached. (And since I’m from that rural hinterland, I’m allowed to say that.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randstad
The UK could do a more than credible job building a replica, since they’d be able start with the original 5th century BC Elgin Marbles.
Sure, but why would they want to? They have plenty of old buildings for American tourists to admire. (Including the British Museum itself, the front of which dates from 1852.)
(Including the British Museum itself, the front of which dates from 1852.)
So basically the same age as this Parthenon replica?
Except it’s an original, not some weird bit of monument envy.
XY, before you go, watch the movie, Nashville. Maybe dated. Definitely powerful.
Or maybe save it until after you get back.
If you like Southern cuisine, Swett’s Restaurant and the Elliston Place Soda Shop are Nashville institutions. Jack’s Bar-B-Que is good, with three locations.
My favorite live music venue is Monday evening at 3rd & Lindsley. The Time Jumpers band plays there every week, with an emphasis on western swing and older country music. If blues is more your taste, Bourbon Street Blues and Boogie Bar in Printer’s Alley is good.
The official/nonofficial acts distinction derives from civil litigation where a president was sued for damages. Per Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 756 (1982), SCOTUS recognized absolute Presidential immunity from damages liability for acts within the “outer perimeter” of his official responsibility. However, a President’s official-act immunity by nature does not extend to his unofficial actions. When he acts in an unofficial, private capacity, he is subject to civil suits like any private citizen. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 694 (1997). The Supreme Court extended this reasoning to criminal prosecutions last month. Trump v. United States, 604 U.S. ___, 144 S.Ct. 2312 (2024).
Much of the conduct alleged in the D.C. indictment overlaps the allegations in complaints where Trump has been sued civilly and denied immunity at the pleading stage. I surmise that the polestar of Judge Chutkan’s factual and legal analysis will be Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F.4th 1 (D.C. Cir. 2023). The Court of Appeals there opined:
when a sitting President acts in his capacity as a candidate for re-election, he acts as office-seeker, not office-holder. The presidency itself has no institutional interest in who will occupy the office next. Campaigning to attain that office thus is not an official function of the office. Rather, an incumbent President’s interests in winning re-election have the same purely private character as those of his challengers—i.e., “substantial personal interests as a candidate” to attain (or retain) the office. . . . Accordingly, a President acts in a private, unofficial capacity when engaged in re-election campaign activity.
Id., at 17 [italics in original].
I hope you have a great time in Nashville.
It derives from Nixon v Fitzgerald? Yeah, and both cases were based on the executive vesting clause and the historic understanding of constitutional separation of powers. And with respect to criminal immunity, there is much to sort through as far as evidentiary questions. Yeah, the repulsive lawfare advocates will try to rush this through. It ain’t going to work.
There is indeed much for Judge Chutkan to sort through as far as evidentiary questions. That being the case, the court is not bound by evidence rules, except those on privilege, per Fed.R.Evid. 104(a). That hearing will move more swiftly than a jury trial and will involve evidence that may be inadmissible at trial. And it will take place prior to the November election, with the whole world watching.
IOW, Br’er John, Br’er Clarence, Br’er Sam, Br’er Neil and Br’er Brett have thrown Br’er Jack into the briar patch.
“with the whole world watching”
Pretrial hearings? LOL
You don’t think the hearings will generate saturation media coverage?
No, they will not. Too inside baseball. To many other things going on.
NG, I know you’re familiar with Nashville. Bourbon Street Blues? I have heard of that place.
Swett’s Restaurant and the Elliston Place Soda Shop are Nashville institutions.
I remember them fondly, especially Elliston, where I had many a lunch of “meat and three.” Those places used to be all over town. If you wanted you could substitute sliced tomatoes for one of the vegetable choice, but this was not publicized.
Swett’s, as I recall, was one of the Black-operated places that whites used to edge in to occasionally, and it became more popular with whites over time.
Enjoy your visit.
I’m told the Loveless Motel has become a place to avoid as a tourist trap, though it was once a great place for breakfast or fried chicken.
when a sitting President acts in his capacity as a candidate for re-election, he acts as office-seeker, not office-holder.
But, from Trump v United States:
On Trump’s view, the alleged conduct qualifies as official because it was undertaken to ensure the integrity and proper administration of the federal election. Of course, the President’s duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” plainly encompasses enforcement of federal election laws passed by Congress. Art. II, §3. And the President’s broad power to speak on matters of public concern does not exclude his public communications regarding the fairness and integrity of federal elections simply because he is running for re-election.
And:
the immunity we have recognized extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.” Blassingame v. Trump
And the President’s broad power to speak on matters of public concern
You’re quoting accurately, of course, but no such “power” exists. The person-who-happens-to-be-president has a 1st amendment right to speak on matters of public concern, as does every other American. But nothing whatsoever in the constitution makes that one of the president qua president’s powers. (Well, other than the SOTU report.)
I doubt Roberts intended to conclude that speaking on matters of public concern is per se a qua presidential power. It suffices that he is speaking on a matter within the scope of his duties.
Why should that suffice? I can speak on a matter within the scope of the president’s duties too.
It suffices (according to Roberts) to be (likely) considered an “official act” by the president (and since you aren’t the president, it doesn’t apply to you).
Look, either you agree with Roberts (in which case you should be able to give me a reason you think that beyond “because Roberts says so,”) or you are merely reporting what he said, in which case I already know that, and repeating that he said it (rather than justifying it) gives me no new information.
My question, to reiterate, was why should that suffice.
I can’t speak for Roberts, but it seems to me the straightforward argument is public communications on an issue which falls within the president’s duties should be presumed to be made to advance those duties, and hence are official acts. I’m sure others will argue, public communications don’t suffice and should be judged under greater scrutiny (I take no position).
You are not vested with the executive power of the presidency you f’ing oblivious clown Nieoporon.
And yet, I can engage in public communications about these issues. So, therefore, engaging in public communications about these issues is not an executive power of the presidency. Thanks for making my point for me.
While a Nieoporon (hopefully with appropriate caregiver supervision) is perfectly free to try to engage with the public, its infantile whining has considerably less import and consequence than when the President of the United States communicates on matters of serious public concern.
Riva, from all indications David Nieporent is a practicing lawyer. I don’t always agree with his views, but his positions are reasoned and what he says is generally reliable, IMO.
Riva, how many lawsuits have you tried to verdict? How many appeals have you litigated to the conclusion thereof? Everything you have written suggests that you are one of several law dilettantes who comment here without ever having tried to persuade a judge or jury of anything.
In my experience, Nieoporon, for the most part, conveys itself as an obnoxious partisan hack. And if you believe its comments are somehow meritorious, especially on separation of powers, this calls into question your own claimed “expertise.” Actually, your own comments are big step in that direction too.
I think the major difference would be that the President’s motivation for speaking on those matters of public concern are likely off limits for investigation. If the President say discussed what he was going to say, and why he wanted to say it to his White House communications director, then, that conversation would be protected.
You on the other hand if you discussed something you were planning to say in public with a colleague would have no such protection.
That’s not an insubstantial difference. Especially since the presumption for almost any speech will be that it’s lawful, and even conflicting evidence of motivation could tip the balance. But excluding any evidence or speculation of motivation pretty much excludes the speech itself from evidence, unless there is no other possible interpretation other than deliberately inciting an unlawful act.
Of course that was the most laughable part of the Colorado insurrection case, the “expert” opinion about “coded” rightwing language. If I don’t have the rightwing language codebook, then there isn’t one. But then again, I can’t hear dog whistles either.
And yet, I can engage in public communications about these issues. So, therefore, engaging in public communications about these issues is not an executive power of the presidency.
No. All we can conclude is public communications is not necessarily an executive power. And as Kazinski pointed out, courts cannot use the President’s motivation as evidence in making that determination.
Riva, your avoidance of my straightforward questions about how many lawsuits have you tried to verdict and how many appeals have you litigated to the conclusion thereof is duly noted.
Running away like a scalded dog. Why am I unsurprised?
Of course I write from a partisan perspective — I have never pretended otherwise. But I support my commentary with original source materials and relevant legal authorities. This is out of respect for readers who can check what I write in real time.
I also write with the benefit of having practiced for multiple decades in a profession whereby I could be sanctioned and/or disciplined for making false statements or representations. Have you ever faced the prospect of similar consequences?
So what? What does that have to do with whether it’s an official act or not? Taylor Swift saying something may have more consequence than a president saying it. Regardless, it’s something any person can do, and therefore should not be deemed an official act.
Not Guilty you have zero respect for any reader who disagrees with you. Especially when you’re wrong. And I was politely ignoring your other horseshit comments. If you want to debate the merits of something, fine. If you’re determined to engage in some belittling insults then I’ll just have to reciprocate.
And Nieporon, brilliant Taylor Swift analogy. That’s Kamala level at least.
“Not Guilty you have zero respect for any reader who disagrees with you. Especially when you’re wrong. And I was politely ignoring your other horseshit comments.”
You are absolutely right that I have zero respect for you, Riva. You have shown no evidence whatsoever of even a scintilla of legal acumen. And I am not wrong. I infer that you have never in your life tried to prove anything to a judge or jury. Don’t claim that your ignorance — which you display in abundance — is politesse.
Chico Marx had the panache to ask, “Well, who ya gonna believe? Me or your own eyes?” Sadly, you don’t.
Well, you’re obnoxious and your legal “reasoning” is one dimensional and infused by a childish dislike of President Trump, so I guess that might qualify to be DC or NY judge. But that could really describe almost any media personality or democrat, but I repeat myself. So I’m going to stick with my original opinion of your legal acumen. Full of shit. Horseshit. Respectfully.
What do you mean when you say ‘power’? I am missing something when you use the term. I thought Josh R summarized well.
Is it a close question to you? Official v unofficial?
The precise contours of which acts are official “core functions,” which are official but non-immune, and which are unofficial may not be perfectly clear, but no court applying Bassingame v. Trump (which binds not only the D.C. District Courts, but future panels of the D.C. Circuit as well) is going to dismiss any count of the D.C. indictment.
The trickiest question IMO will be the second category — official acts as to which the prosecution has rebutted the presumption of immunity.
Ok, thx for that….it helps me understand what to look for. It is fascinating to me, how to make that dividing line.
Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion cited Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F.4th 1 (D.C. Cir. 2023), with approval. It remains controlling D.C. Circuit precedent, binding on Judge Chutkan.
Each of the three civil damages complaints at issue in Blassingame asserts a claim against Trump under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, which prohibits conspiring to prevent anyone from holding a federal office or from performing the duties of a federal office. The Section 1985 claims are generally based on the contention that President Trump engaged with others in a plan to prevent Congress from discharging its duty to count electoral votes and to prevent then-President-elect Biden and then-Vice-President-elect Harris from assuming office. 87 F.4th, at 11.
The D.C. indictment charges that Trump and his (unindicted) cohorts engaged is a conspiracy in violation of three separate conspiracy statutes — 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1512(k) and 241. It also avers that Trump’s conduct violated 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). There is substantial overlap between the conduct alleged in the criminal indictment and what the Court of Appeals found to be unofficial conduct at the pleading stage in Blassingame.
Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion cited Blassingame v. Trump, with approval
…, but not for the reason you think he did. Now perhaps Chutkan will abide by it as binding precedent, but Roberts has appeared to send a warning shot across the bow.
The Chief’s citation to Blassingame evinces his awareness of the decision and its reasoning. He served on the D.C. Circuit, so he of course knows that its decisions bind the District Court and future panels of the Court of Appeals. If it regarded the reasoning of Blassingame as flawed, SCOTUS would have said so.
The SCOTUS decision is by no means “a warning shot across the bow,” unless Roberts is, however obliquely, suggesting that the Court of Appeals in a future case take another look at it en banc.
I think Sotomayor disagrees with you. Here is what she thought of the Chief’s Blassingame reference:
the majority’s dividing line between “official” and “unofficial” conduct narrows the conduct considered “unofficial” almost to a nullity. It says that whenever the President acts in a way that is “‘not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority,’” he is taking official action. Ante, at 17 (quoting Blassingame v. Trump …)
Dissenting opinions are sometimes unhelpful in diving what a majority opinion means. Despite having ample opportunity to do so if it wished, the Supreme Court in Trump did not disapprove the analysis nor did it modify one jot nor tittle of Blassingame.
Where the immunity case really will have the biggest impact is making almost impossible to try to prove a conspiracy between a President and his advisors.
“Where the immunity case really will have the biggest impact is making almost impossible to try to prove a conspiracy between a President and his advisors.”
How so? A president and his advisers can conspire to commit unofficial, unlawful acts in support of his personal objectives, as Donald Trump is accused of doing in the District of Columbia. The statements of any conspirator(s) in furtherance thereof would be nonhearsay when offered by the government against the former president pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E).
If (and only if) the discussion with advisers related to exercise of the president’s core constitutional powers, it would be inadmissible at trial, but whether that is or is not the case can be vetted in a pretrial hearing pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 104(a), where the court is not bound by evidence rules, except those on privilege.
Evidence can’t be introduced for any conduct that is immune from prosecution, be it an exrcise of core power or otherwise.
“Evidence can’t be introduced for any conduct that is immune from prosecution, be it an exrcise [sic] of core power or otherwise.”
That is the point of a Rule 104(a) hearing, to sort out what evidence is admissible or inadmissible at trial.
Immunity attaches to official acts related to the exercise of core constitutional powers. Evidence of those acts is inadmissible at trial.
Official acts within the “outer perimeter of the president’s responsibility but not related to the exercise of core powers presumptively carry immunity, but the government may rebut that presumption by showing that applying a criminal prohibition to such official acts would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” Trump, at Part II-B-2, quoting Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 754 (1982). If the presumption is rebutted, evidence of the “outer perimeter” official acts is admissible at trial. That determination must be made by the District Court at a pretrial hearing. In that such a hearing affects what evidence is or is not admissible at trial, the court there is not bound by evidence rules, except those on privilege, per Rule 104(a).
I guess you missed the part where Roberts said conversations between the President and his aides, cabinet officials, etc, are official acts, even when the conversation may run a gamut of subjects official or non official.
That’s what’s going to doom Braggs conviction, Trump’s lawyers objected calling Hope Hicks about a conversation she had with Trump in 2018 when she was WH Communications director. Testimony that the prosecution felt was key to obtaining a conviction because it showed Trump’s motive in paying Stormy.
You just affirmed my claim (“evidence can’t be introduced for any conduct that is immune from prosecution, be it an exercise of core power or otherwise”).
I missed that part. What Roberts said was:
the Executive Branch has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute, including with respect to allegations of election crime. […] The President may discuss potential investigations and prosecutions with his Attorney General and other Justice Department officials to carry out his constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
That doesn’t grant immunity for every discussion with the AG, instead only for discussion related to core powers (in this case the core power for which crimes to investigate).
“That’s what’s going to doom Braggs conviction, Trump’s lawyers objected calling Hope Hicks about a conversation she had with Trump in 2018 when she was WH Communications director. Testimony that the prosecution felt was key to obtaining a conviction because it showed Trump’s motive in paying Stormy.”
Kazinski, do you have any idea what harmless error analysis is?
Josh R, do you understand the distinction between evidence of official acts involving “core constitutional powers” of the presidency being inadmissible before the jury at trial per Part III-C of the SCOTUS opinion and evidence of official acts within the “outer perimeter” of presidential responsibility but not involving core constitutional powers, as to which the prosecution can show that applying a criminal prohibition to such official acts would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch” per Part II-B-2? Immunity does not attach to the latter category of evidence, which may properly be considered by the jury.
The purpose of a Fed.R.Evid. 104(a) hearing is to sort out what evidence falls in either category. Have you ever participated in a Rule 104(a) hearing? (If litigation were easy, more people would become litigators.) Tautology and question begging doesn’t feed the bulldog. As Cassandra said to Wayne Campbell, if a frog had wings he wouldn’t bump his ass when he hopped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV9U23YXgiY&t=14s
FFS not guilty. You claimed (my emphasis):
If (and only if) the discussion with advisers related to exercise of the president’s core constitutional powers, it would be inadmissible at trial.
The “if” part is correct. The “only if” part is not. If the discussion with advisers is not related to a core power, it is nonetheless inadmissible as evidence if 1) it relates to an official act, and 2) the prosecution cannot show that applying a criminal prohibition to such an official act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch”.
I can’t stand Riva. But, he is right that you are an arrogant know-it-all who can’t admit when he is wrong. Your latest post, while perfectly correct, does not support your “only if” claim.
Josh R., I am not wrong. You have mischaracterized my commentary. You write:
If the discussion with advisers is not related to a core power, it is nonetheless inadmissible as evidence if 1) it relates to an official act, and 2) the prosecution cannot show that applying a criminal prohibition to such an official act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch”.
That is correct. However, I have nowhere claimed that evidence of official conduct as to which the prosecution does not rebut the presumption of immunity is admissible before the jury. I have instead discussed the admissibility of evidence of conduct within the “outer perimeter” of official responsibility, as to which the prosecution does rebut the presumption of immunity. That evidence is admissible before the jury.
Sorting out what evidence falls into which categories is the function of a pretrial Rule 104(a) hearing outside the presence of the damned jury! The trial court there is not bound by evidence rules, except those on privilege. Have you read Part III-C of the SCOTUS opinion regarding inadmissibility of evidence of immune conduct? Hint: it applies only to admissibility before the jury, not preclusion of evidence in a pretrial Rule 104(a) hearing.
Kazinski, Hope Hicks was not discussing with Donald Trump any presidential function or duties.
I have nowhere claimed that evidence of official conduct as to which the prosecution does not rebut the presumption of immunity is admissible before the jury
Yes, you did when you said (again, my emphasis):
That is, you said, “only if the discussion with advisers [is] related to exercise of the president’s core constitutional powers, it would be inadmissible at trial.” That statement is equivalent to “If the discussion is inadmissible at trial, then the discussion is related to an exercise of the president’s core constitutional powers.”
Of course you know that claim is false because if the discussion is inadmissible, it might be the case the discussion was not related to a core power (but rather a non-core official act, not rebutted by the prosecution).
All you had to say, is you mis-spoke in your original “only if” statement and it would no big deal. But, you couldn’t do that. It’s like I am talking with Trump.
Fair enough. I should have said that only if the discussion with advisers related to exercise of the president’s core constitutional powers, it would be per se inadmissible at trial.
As to official acts within the “outer perimeter” of the president’s responsibility but not related to the exercise of core powers, which presumptively carry immunity, evidence of such acts is admissible at trial if the government can rebut that presumption by showing that applying a criminal prohibition to such official acts would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”
Please accept my clarification. But my major point is and has been that the admissibility vel non of evidence before the jury of “outer perimeter” official acts is to be determined at a pretrial Rule 104(a) hearing. There is no per se rule of inadmissibility before the jury except as to official acts related to the exercise of core constitutional powers of the presidency. The trial court may consider evidence of the official acts in determining the admissibility vel non of such evidence before the jury at trial.
Simple — is POTUS a D or a R?
Might also check out the Lane Motor Museum.
https://www.lanemotormuseum.org/
Looks interesting. And 3rd and Lindsley on Monday evening.
That particular motion was always a joke, meant only to impress Trump’s twitter followers (and presumably Trump himself). They had no evidence whatsoever to support it, and some of their arguments were sanctionably bad. (The claim that Smith’s appointment right after Trump announced his candidacy proved vindictiveness, for instance. The argument was that this showed that DOJ decided to prosecute Trump because he announced. But the investigation had begun before Trump announced; Smith’s appointment after Trump announced was precisely to avoid conflicts of interest due to Trump having announced.)
As has been pointed out before, there was no conflict of interest that required a special counsel.
Trump had no position of authority at the time of the investigation in question over the DoJ. Nor did any of his family members. Trump was a private citizen, who could have been investigated just like every other private citizen.
And yet the Biden administration is accused of wanting to prosecute Trump for political reasons anyway. Must be one of those Schrödinger’s conflicts of interest…
Well, when the administration specifically puts in place a certain person whose sole job it is to prosecute Trump….
That is, of course, false.
Uh huh. I enjoy the legalisms, and the simultaenous avoidance when caught in a mistake, as below.
You can read the terms of his appointment here: https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/1553901/dl
You will note that it doesn’t say that his job — let alone his sole job — is to prosecute Trump.
Well, that’s definitive AND conclusive, innit?
The official order appointing Smith and specifying his powers and duties is in fact definitive and conclusive concerning those powers and duties, yes.
You really could be so naive and on-the-spectrum to actually believe that.
I pity you, David
I realize that in Putin’s world, laws don’t mean anything. Here, though, they do.
I realize that in Putin’s world
Are you being paid to mindlessly regurgitate leftist propaganda rhetoric, or is it just a hobby?
Technically speaking it authorizes him to conduct the investigation for Trump v United States and prosecute crimes arising from that investigation…
Now, that’s just authorization. It doesn’t command him to do anything. Those commands are in the Special Counsel regulations.
Oddly enough, if you’re given a court case with a named individual and are told to investigate and prosecute crimes (which are expected to be found), some people “might” interpret that as a job to prosecute the named individual with the expected crimes.
Meanwhile, you’ve run away from your argument that the President directly oversees the prosecution. Seems to be an ongoing practice with you.
What do you mean? Surely you’re not suggesting that if, say, the DOJ National Security Division or Public Integrity Section were leading the prosecution, that Armchair would complain that they were biased?
Of course not. He would never.
And as was pointed out many times before, you are utterly out of your depth here. The conflict of interest is in a president directly overseeing the prosecution of his opponent. If you don’t think that’s a conflict of interest, you’re too dumb to know what the words mean.
The President was not “directly overseeing” the prosecution. At most it would be indirect.
The President would not be directly overseeing a line attorney in the DoJ. There would at least be the AG in middle.
How is this a distinction with a difference? Pile up the middle men high, if none of them are independent, it’s not avoiding conflict.
You don’t really know how this works, do you?
The irony.
Don’t pretend that you understand irony.
Chutkan is a repulsive, conflicted hack who should be nowhere near this trial. And the DC circuit court deserves nothing but contempt for their dismissive rubber stamping of Chutkan. The S.Ct. may not have condemned them as directly as they could have, but all the lower court judges know they were exposed as the political hacks they are.
Which is why they should all be (a) impeached, (b) removed, and then (c) indicted.
Vindictive prosecution is almost always a loser.
Prosecutor’s run on their vindictiveness.
No; they run on their toughness (or harshness, depending on one’s perspective).
To: You From: Drackman, Frank Subj: Life Get one
Frank
Yes, take Franck’s Example and get A Life posting All Day Long with) a Third Grader’s grasp of English!
Got logged out so the muteds came out.
Frank getting annoyed at someone else’s posting is a trip.
The Supreme Court has opined that Trump’s importuning Vice-president Pence to unilaterally reject valid slates of certified electors or send them back to state legislatures for review is official conduct, such that Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.
Here is something I noticed.
If you or I had “importun[ed] Vice-president Pence to unilaterally reject valid slates of certified electors or send them back to state legislatures for review”, then that is a petition for the redress of grievances, fully protected by the First Amendment.
Immunity simply means the court does not even reach the First Amendment question with respect to this allegation.
Good point.
The fake electors schemed involved accusations of perjury, forgery, and identity theft, and I think those accusations would survive an immunity challenge.
SCOTUS analyzed Trump’s discussions with Pence separately from the broader fake elector scheme. Chief Justice Roberts opined that the Trump/Pence discussions were official conduct and directed the District Court to determine whether the prosecution can rebut the presumption of immunity.
As to the fake elector scheme generally, SCOTUS directed the District Court to determine in the first instance on remand whether Trump’s conduct alleged in the indictment was official or unofficial.
Perjury and forgery I can understand, but “identity theft”?
Fraud is not protected by the First Amendment.
It is hard to see how the President making a statement to a member of Congress (or the VP when acting in a Congressional role) about what Congress should do is not immunized. Are we going to prosecute Biden for making false statements while lobbying Congress about the border bill? Every President has made statements to Senators and Representatives that some would regard as untruthful.
Let’s set aside the factual allegations in your comment. I’m fascinated by the form of the argument, “Presidents often commit crimes so therefore we should give them immunity for so doing.”
I can see two other possible conclusions based on your premises. 1. Presidents often break the law, so that shows that we criminalize too many things, so we should narrow or repeal these laws; or 2. Presidents often break the law, so they should be punished for it.
But I cannot fathom why the frequency of their lawbreaking would be cited as a reason why they shouldn’t be punished for it.
Liar! You are not “fascinated”.
I made a garden-variety consequentialist argument that chaos would ensue if Presidential statements made while lobbying Congress were not immunized.
But instead of making a good-faith counter-argument (i.e. offers of bribes should be an exception), you acted like a sarcastic troll.
No, I really am fascinated.
And as a consequentialist argument, it’s just really stupid. If something happens to be technically illegal, but presidents do it all the time, then no president is going to prosecute a predecessor for doing it, because all that would do is open the door for him to be prosecuted by his successor. No chaos will ensue. We know this empirically, because it has never happened, despite no president having immunity before 2024.
Hasn’t happened yet equals can’t happen? Moron. That lobotomy has not served you well.
“It is hard to see how the President making a statement to a member of Congress (or the VP when acting in a Congressional role) about what Congress should do is not immunized.”
That calls to mind Justice Robert Jackson’s comment about his brethren of SCOTUS: “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.” Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 540 (1953) (Jackson, J., concurring in result). What Justice Thurgood Marshall said in 1991 applies equally to today’s Court: “Power, not reason, is the new currency of this Court’s decisionmaking.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 844 (1991) (Marshall, J., dissenting).
That then-President Trump’s soliciting Mike Pence to violate the Electoral Count Act is official conduct is (unfortunately) the law of the case:
Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U. S. C. §15. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.
Trump v. United States, 604 U.S. ___, ___, 144 S.Ct. 2312 (July 1,2024), Part III-B-2. Whether immunity applies to that unlawful entreaty is a question to be determined on remand:
It is ultimately the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. We therefore remand to the District Court to assess in the first instance, with appropriate input from the parties, whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.
Ibid. Why is that so? Because, and only because, John Roberts, joined by five other black robed wardheelers, said so.
More precisely – and I think, importantly – the Court said that discussions between the President and Vice President regarding the VP’s ceremonial role in counting the electoral ballots only “involves” official conduct. It straightforwardly acknowledges that the Constitution does not make the VP the President’s representative for these purposes.
The opinion’s discussion of the President’s relationship with the VP is just obnoxiously sloppy. It takes for granted that the VP is the President’s “second in command”; it implies that the fact that the VP may provide the President some “advice” gives the conversations between the two some kind of “official” status; it presumes that the President has a constitutional role in congressional deliberations, such that the VP acts as his local representative (and tie-breaking vote). But this is all just begging the constitutional question, based on political reality in the present day. The President can’t remove the VP if the VP were to refuse to vote in favor of the President’s prerogative, on legislation or confirmations, and the President has no constitutional role in passing legislation or confirming his own nominees. That’s the whole point in the way that the Constitution separates the legislative power from the executive, and “checks” the president’s ability to place judicial and officer nominees.
The President can’t remove the VP if the VP were to refuse to vote in favor of the President’s prerogative,
Ah, but you forget that the president can get his followers to hang the VP if the VP were to refuse to act as the President wanted.
Advocating violence against the VP is not likely to be judged an official act.
Maybe. But don’t sell Roberts short. He could pull’t off….
Does notguilty just wait around all day every day just to try to always be the first to post a lengthy antiTrump diatribe? Man thats pretty sad. For your life to be so devoted to some one you not only don’t like but hate. I doubt even Melania or rabid Trump fans spend as much time in his warm orange embrace. And the even funnier part is not guilty’s far from alone. Right now there are perhaps millions of other people just like him. Win or lose whatever Trump ends up doing or not doing he’s certainly won the war against against these people who will forever have sacrificed a large chunk of their life being in complete devotion to him.
What an odd thing for you to be whining about.
(I’ll make the obvious point that if a pro-Trump poster or anti-Trump poster wants to spend a decent amount of time creating a meaningful post–a post intended to spark lively debate–she’d probably prefer to have it in, say, the top 5-10 posts…rather than buried as Post #374. where many/most readers will never reach.)
[I’ll also opine that, in terms of “anti-Trump,” the OP was about as benign as possible. Certainly seemed quite neutral to me, anyway. I mean, most of the post was “Trump has the burden of proof re X, while the government has the burden of proof re Y.”
I think it’s fair to say that you and I apparently have wildly different definitions of “diatribe.” ]
Not merely odd. Weird.
yet another American calling something ‘weird’ lately.
Weird!
Okay, Steve, we get it. This constant repetition of the word “weird” is getting a little weird…
Besides, there’s weird, and then there’s demented.
SL’s a good little BlueAnon bot. Hard up for the 50 Sorosbucks? Bet you wish you were on OnlyFans so you could get $1500 for your anti-Trump screeds, instead of pissing into the wind here for 50 cents.
He’s just whining because he tries to be first post every week.
Did you hear about Trump’s back-to-back eagles this weekend? https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1819390103619301677
He really is the greatest golfer in the world!
Behind Kim Jung Un of course
Maybe excepting Lee Trevino.
Story told of him is that he was hustling at a club in New Jersey, and spotted a short par 3 with the hole placement basically at the bottom of a broad funnel. So Trevino goes to the clubhouse bar and heaps scorn on the hole, saying anyone should be able to hit a hole-in-one there. Trevino gets the pushback he’s looking for. Someone offers to bet him he can’t do it. Trevino asks, how much? One thousand dollars. Trevino asks, how many tries? They agree on something like 20 tries, but on one condition—Trevino gets a thousand for every hole-in-one he hits. Then Trevino goes out, gets the range with a few shots, and proceeds to sink a bunch of them.
I have no idea whether that is a true story; which is maybe the relevant point of comparison with Trump. Except that Trump’s story is not entertaining. More weird.
Ask another time for the story about Trevino’s hustle where he hits all his tee shots with a Dr. Pepper bottle. Trevino’s victims are so distracted by the outlandishness that they do not stop to ask whether they really want to play for serious money while getting only one stroke a hole. That’s before they find out how good Trevino is with a Dr. Pepper bottle.
Both stories courtesy of Sports Illustrated, a long time ago.
I’ll give you this much, Cum-a-lot Harris-Willie-Brown’s “Second Gentleman” certainly knows how to “Put it in the Hole”! Who’s he think he is? AlGore? Next he’ll grow an awful beard to hide his weak chin Oh wait, “Beard”? he’s already got that covered!
Maybe she knows how to write a Sentence?
President Trump is not the greatest player to play the game, don’t be asinine. He has got game, though.
https://golf.com/news/donald-trump-bryson-dechambeau-round-captivating/
Maybe he’s got game, but not a golf game.
(And even if he did, back-to-back eagles is so wildly implausible that it’s just a really weird thing to lie about.)
Isn’t there a dyke you could find to plug your Nazi shit-eating head in?
And just why, AmosArch, do you find my commentary worthy of your attention/derision? Donald Trump is a scoundrel, and I don’t tire of pointing that out. As Louis Brandeis said in 1913, “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.”
I look forward to Trump’s misdeeds being uncovered during the hearings before Judge Chutkan. These hearings will move at a faster pace than a jury trial, and with fewer evidentiary constraints. Chief Justice Roberts wrote a chickenshit opinion, but perhaps it is time to recall the words of Lyndon Johnson: “Son, in politics you’ve got to learn that overnight chicken shit can turn to chicken salad.”
I look forward to you being disbarred and INMATE Chutkan sent to the SuperMax.
Based on what facts, Dr. Ed 2?
Judge Shitkan looks like the maid who cleaned by Hotel Room yesterday, great work, I think allmost all of my stuff was still there when she got done.
Frank “Top Notch! Top Notch! now where’s Porterhouse with my Golf Shoes?”
No the Big Guy is scoundrel. The Democratic party elites with their contempt for democratic processes are scoundrels. Harris is a race grifting clown. A stupid race grifting clown. Worse than Hillary. How did the kackling one phrase it in a recent appearance with an obviously not contrived demeaning accent? “‘We gon’ do it agin in twunny twunny fo!’ I bet many in the party already regretting this regime successor. Good thing you clowns can project.
No the Big Guy is scoundrel.
A stupid race grifting clown.
Bot totally malfunctioning now. Someone should really pull the plug.
‘Bot totally malfunctioning now. Someone should really pull the plug’.
You talking about Biden?
Not specifically. I mean, sure, Biden can pull the plug on Riva, if he wants. But really, anyone can.
It’s not like you’d be pestering him: he’s non-compos mentis, and so COULDN’T be busy doing the things a US President is meant to be doing.
Best to keep him in office for now anyway, though, yeah?
Looks like the party elites took your advice Dave, and pulled the plug on the Biden candidacy. And then installed the race grifting substitute. Go Democracy!
Riva : “Go Democracy!”
Straight to the White House – and won’t the Riva-Bot smoke, fizzle, & fry a circuit then.
Given this degree of whining incoherence, I can see you I’ve really upset you. You should probably go back to your favorite safe porn site and calm down.
Maybe though I misunderstood you Dave. I assumed by Biden you were referring to the Big Guy, but since he’s already been deposed (and couldn’t find his way out of the bathroom) maybe you meant another Biden, his crackhead bag man son? Jill?
What really upsets you clowns is that black voters are starting to wake up to the race exploitation. Hence the audience laughter when President Trump mocked the cackling race grifter in Atlanta.
“Win or lose whatever Trump ends up doing or not doing he’s certainly won the war against against these people who will forever have sacrificed a large chunk of their life being in complete devotion to him.”
Wow, talk about how many accusations are indeed confessions!
The first post in the last open thread was Kazinski; before that, Martinned. The first post of the day overall has gone to Capt for three days with TiSCH; on the 1st, NOVA took it.
I’m not sure if it’s sadder that you’re whining about not getting the first comment or that you feel the need to lie pointlessly to throw shade at NG. It’s not important in any possible sense, but it is kind of pathetic.
On yesterday’s daily OTD thread, you said Josh Blackman signed an amicus regarding a suit regarding Obama. No one found it. Do you have a link?
Yes, ng admits to definite personal political opinion. BUT he tries to be very explicit and fair about explaining legal issues and procedures. Stop whining, Amos
He doesn’t try to be fair. He freely admits he twists things as much as these corrupt judges do.
Any evidence that he “freely admits he twists things?”
Yes a million comments in the past when I’ve dunked on him for being a partisan.
You can ask him yourself. He’ll tell you he is a partisan and not neutral.
His pseudo-intellectual “legal” ramblings is how old TDSers with demntia cope.
I’ve personally schooled the doofus many times. It’s sad. I’m not even a lawyer, and neither is he.
The Dunning-Kruger effect can be a bitch, as JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes illustrates whenever he comments here. He wouldn’t recognize legal analysis if it bit him in the backside.
I was admitted to practice before the courts of Tennessee and the U. S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee in 1987, before the U. S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit in 1988, and before the U. S. Supreme Court in 1991. Since 2017 I have been on disability inactive status, so I am not currently practicing.
JHBHBE, last Saturday you made the bold assertion, “The Democrats will never lose another election again when they are importing amd [sic] registering tens of millions pf [sic] illegal citizens each year.” I twice challenged you as to what facts support your ipse dixit assertion. To no one’s surprise, you ran away like Usain Bolt. https://reason.com/volokh/2024/08/03/today-in-supreme-court-history-august-3-1994-5/?comments=true#comments
Have you looked up what “ELI5” means yet?
Yes I have. Why do you ask?
Glad to hear it.
I hope you won’t make mistakes about ELI5 again in the future.
I don’t know what you are talking about. Care to share with the rest of the class?
Go check that thread again you autistic retard.
FYI, I don’t post on your schedule. I post on mine. Only an absolute idiot believes that everyone else participates on the internet according to your personal schedule.
No, JHBHBE, you provided no facts whatsoever supporting your ipse dixit assertion, “The Democrats will never lose another election again when they are importing amd [sic] registering tens of millions pf [sic] illegal citizens each year.”
Indeed, there are not tens of millions of illegals in the United States at all, let alone “each year.” https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/jun/11/marco-rubio/there-arent-20-million-to-30-million-immigrants-in/
You’re sealioning and moving goalposts.
Have you no shame or integrity?
No, I am not moving goalposts. I said on Saturday and again today that you have utterly failed to provide factual support for your ipse dixit assertion. I now have merely provided additional information bearing on the abject falsity of your “tens of millions” balderdash.
I have no shame (nor hesitation) about calling you out as the inveterate liar that you have shown yourself to be. And I have integrity in spades, thank you very much. That is why I routinely support my factual claims with original source material and my legal contentions with relevant authority. Litigating before actual courts requires that — but that is not something you have the foggiest notion about.
Well because nobody is keeping track it’s pretty hard to say definitively how many illegal aliens are in the US. For the longest time 11 million was the number used and that never changed. Of course no one counts (or does anything to remove) visa overstayers who are also in the country illegally.
No one (who doesn’t call himself JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes) has suggested that there are tens of millions of illegals of voting age, who have in fact registered to vote, at any time.
Which of these facts are false:
– There is an unknowable amount of illegals in this country – There currently is a “whole of government” strategy to register voters per an Executive Order – Citizenship verification is not being done when registering to vote – Illegals are self-reporting as being registered to vote – If you are an illegal and were in the US before the age of 16 and reasonably believed you were a citizen, you are not barred from voting. – Attempts by States or Congress to verify citizenship when registering voters is met with significant institutional resistance. – Many states do not verify citizenship or residency, or even signatures in any reasonable manner. – Many state’s voter registries have active registrations for those who are not eligible to vote. – Attempts to verify voters or to clean voter roles is met by significant and sometimes even institutional resistance. – There are instances of apparently retaliatory government action taken against private organizations that try to clean voter rolls.
Maybe he’s just up at that time. I know I’m out on the West Coast, and the thread usually posts at midnight for me, which isn’t very late by my schedule. Although I have to admit sometimes it keeps me up later than it should.
ON MY MIND: from the Department of Developments which Make Me Regret Having Retired from the Lab: the scientists appear to be closing in on a real-life fountain-of-youth drug.
https://www.drugtargetreview.com/article/151998/restoring-tert-to-attenuate-ageing-hallmarks/
SPEAKING OF WHICH:
Here’s a scientific/current-historical trivia question (for your personal gratification, and ten extra-credit points, since you are all recovering grade-grubbing pre-laws):
Background: In the 1960s, the Main Big Thing in chemistry was steroids; any organic chemist worth his salt was working on methods for synthesizing new steroid compounds, and any university which didn’t have at least one faculty member working on steroids was considered seriously deficient. In the 1950s, it was nuclear chemistry; the chemistry of the trans-uranide elements.
Q: Can you identify the specialty in chemistry which is the Main Big Thing, in the same sense of the term, today? Scroll down for the answer
* * * * * * ANSWER: RNA chemistry.
Seriously, if you have a kid interested in doing chemistry for her/his career (it’s still a glorious field, much more exciting on a boring day than the practice of law is on its most exciting day), try to get her/him to volunteer in a lab studying RNA chemistry.
This biochemical sub-specialty has been emerging as the Big Thing (well, as One of the Biggest Things) of Our Time since the 1980s and is finally starting to mature. Seriously, mRNA vaccines are only the application you have heard of, in a sea of applications and applications-in-development which you haven’t heard of.
See for instance Nobel Prize Chemistry 2020 (CRISPr is an RNA-based technique), Nobel Prize Chemistry 2009 (for detailed study of ribosomes, which are RNA-based catalysts and which translate mRNA sequences into proteins), Nobel Prize Chemistry 2006 (for detailed study of gene transcription from DNA to mRNA) Nobel Prize Chemistry 1989 (catalytic RNA), Nobel Prize Physiology/Medicine 2006 for using double-stranded RNA as a general, versatile tool to suppress expression of selected genes, and (yes) Nobel Prize Physiology/Medicine 2023 (for developing mRNA vaccines; this was conceived and accomplished not by Donald Trump, but by the chemists in the wake of Drew Weissman and Katalin Karikó, who stuck to it over many decades in the face of fierce non-support).
And it (RNA chemistry) actually has relevance to the fountain-of-youth drug I mentioned before, because the target of the drug is an enzymatic sub-unit made of RNA.
Lots more coming soon! Boola boola.
Fascinating. (Edit: on the internet, that appears sarcastic. I mean: genuinely fascinating.)
For us lawyers who never took anything past bio-chem; what are some good overviews, that are aimed at laypeople like me? That’s something I’d definitely add to my reading list.
One of my biggest regrets in life is that, back in 1975, as I was starting to apply for college, I gave up my dream of going into genetics, in favor of computers. Because I didn’t think genetics would be likely to pay well. (Also because I got a chance to learn Fortran over the summer.)
I’d have gone into the field just as genetic engineering was getting going!
You really don’t know as you’re picking your college major what’s going to be hot in four or five years. So, maybe you should just pursue something you’re passionate about.
That said, yeah, RNA chemistry is going to be big for a while, and interventive gerontology is already white hot. It’s a pity Alan Harrington didn’t live to see this day.
Also because I got a chance to learn Fortran over the summer.
That was one of the things that nearly soured me on data processing. Well, that and COBOL.
I liked Fortran. Hated COBOL. Boring language, boring projects.
Really? I thought Fortran was pretty intuitive, actually.
I cut my teeth as a hobbyist writing in structured languages like C, and became accustomed to the power and flexibility of it…and later, object-oriented enhanced languages like C++. FORTRAN is/was just too confined to a smaller set of problem domains (primarily science and engineering applications) for my tastes.
I miss COBOL. I not only programmed in COBOL extensively, I wrote a COBOL and SQL generator worked so well I had to support it 10 years.
What makes COBOL such a great language is well written code is easy to read, especially at 3am.
But I spent my career working on business applications, I can see not liking it much for science and engineering.
I can see not liking it much for science and engineering.
COBOL sucked for pretty much every type of application. It is an overly abstracted language created to be used by programmers who don’t know anything about how computers work. Well written code is a product of competent developers, not ridiculously restrictive languages.
Of course, it was still FORTRAN as late as 1977. Acronyms to name programming languages are due for a comeback any day now.
Forgive me, but I remember these “next big things” as being BAD.
Steroids certainly are — “roid rage” and the rest. And the consequences of mRNA vaccines have yet to be established, but the scientific evidence is where it was circa 1960 and smoking.
“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience;” Cesare Beccaria.
“Roid rage” is a trifling inconvenience compared to the positive medical uses of steroids.
Steroids certainly are — “roid rage” and the rest.
You really need to stop feeling compelled to opine on things you know absolutely nothing about.
When telomerase was first discovered in the mid 90’s I did a paper on the speculative idea that it could reverse aging. I’m glad to see work in that regard continued. Around the same time, Mr. Toad, I’ll have you know I was privileged to attend a lecture by Thomas Cech about his new discovery: Ribozymes (an RNA branch you might want to include in your list).
Also, did you read the NYT article about how they are on the verge of eliminating the aging disease progeria (caused by a single base pair substitution affecting a protein involved in making the cytoskeleton)?
The biggest concern with that use is that it might cause cancer, since overcoming telomere exhaustion (And thus circumventing the Hayflick limit.) is one of the stages in cells becoming cancerous.
But cancer treatment has been improving enough lately that people are becoming a bit less worried about that.
I’ve had some success with using periodic, high dose quercetin to turn some old age skin lesions back into normal skin. So I can personally testify that compounds that cause senescent cells to die have potential.
Back in the 70’s I realized that my ambition of being a crew member on a starship was NOT going to happen in a normal human lifespan, and got really interested in the field of life extension. For the longest time it was a tiny field, widely viewed as quack science.
It’s really heating up now, between bioscience advances that make it feasible, and aging billionaires willing to fund it. A pity I’m probably a bit too old to really benefit from it now, but I’m glad for my son.
Heh. Interesting side note on quercetin. When COVID was first raging, I read a study on a high throughput experiment where they fed the 3D folded structure of the binding portion of the spike protein to a supercomputer to see what molecules in existence could potentially bind with it thus knocking it out. One of the five top contenders was quercetin. So I put on my mask and rushed down to the Vitamin Shoppe. Surely I’m just one of millions who read that report and the shelves would be empty. But they weren’t. I felt triumphant buying that quercetin that day. And I never have gotten the ‘rona’ to this day (probably not due to the quercetin though).
I take quercetin with bromelain. Had been for years.
It’s fairly safe, the big issue is that absorption is really poor, so you need to be taking whole teaspoons of it to get your blood level up to therapeutic levels. In the lab trials it is administered together with Dasatinib, a chemo agent, (Though in much lower than chemotherapy doses!) but that’s not exactly an OTC drug…
Antisenescents, drugs that kill of senescent cells, are one of the more promising anti-aging therapies. The best out there right now is Dr. Fahy’s protocol for reversing thymus involution; The preliminary results have been pretty amazing. But that’s hard to get unless you happen to live in California and have the money to help finance his clinical trial.
The difficult part of his protocol is the human growth hormone, which is a controlled substance due to the overwhelming need [/sarc] to keep bodybuilders from developing prominent brow ridges. I’m trying to figure out whether HGH inducers such as GABA are actually capable of handling that end of the protocol.
Telomerase doesn’t ’cause’ cancer. But some cancers can hijack it to stay alive longer. As you know, cancer is just a bunch of cells that can’t stop reproducing. Each cell division reduces telomere length until senescence. To avoid that cancer needs to hijack telomerase to keep telomeres long and healthy. So I don’t see an issue with keeping telomeres long and healthy and thus halting the aging process. If you end up getting cancer it will just do the same thing. So I say, halt human aging and deal with cancer in some other way if you get it.
If telomere length is what you’re after….try NMN and/or a mixture of nicotinimide riboside + pterostilbene. Elysium Pharma has two products in this sphere (both tested in clinical trials).
It’s not telemere length, although the target molecule is part of the telemerase enzyme. It’s something else the molecule does: it activates a bunch of transcription factors which suppress various symptoms of aging.
The issue is that cancer is a whole suite of cellular adaptations, if a cell has an incomplete set it’s not much of a threat. For instance, unless you’ve got the capacity to induce formation of new blood vessels, the tumor can’t grow to threatening size.
The concern was that resetting telomeres body-wide would in effect promote semi-cancerous cells to full cancer during the treatment, allowing almost cancerous cells that had hit the Hayflick limit to keep growing. And the more they grow the more opportunities they have to mutate into the full suite of adaptations.
True, there is that. So lets run it through pretrials and see what happens, yeah?
When you’re old enough that the trials will be done about the time you’re dead, that sort of caution sounds less appealing.
No…for a few reasons.
1. Much of what you talk about is molecular biology more properly, not chemistry (or at least not synthetic chemistry as you allude to with the synthesis of steroids and elements). Important fields, undoubtedly. But more molecular biology and genetics. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry has a history of rolling biology projects into the Chemistry prize.
2. There’s lag time with all of this. What that means, is by the time you finish studying the field (which from start to finish often takes 10 years), all those advances you mentioned have gone by, and there’s the next big thing. Kariko’s work on mRNA was largely done 10-20 years ago. Start studying the field now, and it’s 20-30 years after it’s invention that you’re ready.
—–So what DO you study—?
Guessing the future is always a difficult endeavor. One of the better ways to do it is, take the inventions that are being made now, and guess how they will be applied to different fields in 10-20 years to advance them in ways they couldn’t be advanced before.
Steroid synthesis was enabled by the invention of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy and it’s application in the 1950’s. Much of the work in mRNA (and genetics) was really enabled by the Human Genome Project in the 1990’s to 03.
If I had to guess, I say the advances in Computer Modelling starting to hit an inflection point (especially with items like AlphaFold 2), and might suggest modelling studies that can accruately predict entire cells at the molecular level in 20 years, including all the associated proteins. A decent chemist who is also a good programmer and modeller would have an advantage then.
Of course, there’s the other way to go with this.
One issue with our current society is that it overvalues “elite” jobs, while undervaluing blue collar jobs. Society doesn’t need 30 Million lawyers. It does need plumbers, electricians, contractors, and more. And the numbers are starting to show that. There’s not work for 30 million lawyers. While pay for solid blue collar professions is rising.
Tell your kid to take up a trade, then start their own business. Enjoy charging several hundred dollars an hour to the the Lawyers with their 7 figure debts who can’t find a job but need to fix their toilet.
We have plenty of issues of credentialism and only a few elite institutions feeding into our nations’ top leadership.
One of my Holiday donations was to the Williamson College of the Trades this year, because we’re losing expertise in some of our great cultural skills of handcrafting things.
But you appear to be taking issue with our labor market itself. Just like you’re also unhappy with the world for not making enough babies.
There is a pattern of weird manufactured crisis because we’re not a 1950s-esque utopia.
The world isn’t making enough babies. Especially in the developed world. But also in much of the third world. Long term fertility is a major crisis.
If you fail to see that, I can’t help you.
Enough for what?
Enough for replacement of the existing population.*
*Technically speaking, it’s at 2.23 children per woman which is “just” above replacement rate. That’s worldwide however, and is kept up by a number of sub-Saharan countries which don’t have full access to birth control. Rates in those countries are dropping rapidly as birth control spreads and it would be unethical to stop that spread. In every other continent, fertility is now sub replacement…Asia, Europe, North America, South America, Australia.”
Why do we need to replace the existing population? If earth’s human population dropped from, say, 8 billion to 6 billion (though lower fertility, not through mass death, I mean), would that be a big deal?
“But you appear to be taking issue with our labor market itself.”
How does the labor market determine how many lawyers we need?
Price signaling. The same way it determines how much we need of any other good or service.
Doesn’t work very well when a profession gains the power to dictate how many members of itself are needed.
That, of course, has not happened. The legal profession isn’t like (my understanding of) the medical profession, in which there are a fixed number of residencies and therefore a capped number of doctors who can enter the profession. There are no caps on the number of lawyers, and the profession does not have any power to dictate such numbers.
One thing that puzzles me about the market for legal services is that they are quite expensive, certainly from the POV of middle-income people, yet there seem to be lawyers who can’t find work.
Is this true? What causes it? Are the operational and startup costs so high that they can only be justified by very large fees?
What I mean is that the legal profession dominates both the area of administering the law AND writing the law, being approximately 100% of judges, and about 40% of legislators. So they’re in a position to make sure people need their services whether or not they want their services.
Are you positing that lawyers coordinate with Congress and agency rulemakers and judges to make sure there’s lots of legal jobs?!
‘There is a pattern of weird manufactured crisis because we’re not a 1950s-esque utopia’.
Weird how the American bullshitter managed to get the word ‘weird’ in there, especially in the context of a comment about a failure to meet replacement and the fundamental dependency upon immigrant outsiders BECAUSE they don’t believe what the locals do about breeding (and as if the system wouldn’t collapse without them)
Keep going high when they go low, Yankee Doodle weirdo!
Why the random capitalization, dumbass?
“One issue with our current society is that it overvalues “elite” jobs, while undervaluing blue collar jobs.”
Why do you hate markets?
” Why do you [conservatives] hate markets? ”
Resentment. Envy. A splash of conservative bigotry, maybe some nonsense-based education and/or a rural perspective. General disaffectedness.
While RNA chemistry may be the exciting field, I can think of hundreds of areas of research that might be less traveled but equally exciting. Things like superconductors, new and better materials for the world we live in, new analytical methods to make cheaper and better measurements of things of interest. Chemistry is a great field, and I would tell someone thinking of a future in chemistry not to limit oneself.
This might be of interest to some here:
An independent review into an Israeli airstrike in Gaza four months ago that killed four aid workers and three British security guards has found that they were not targeted knowingly or deliberately. Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin AC, a former chief of the Australian defence force, was appointed by his country’s government to review Israel’s investigation of the events leading to the deaths four people who had been working for World Central Kitchen — one of them an Australian — and their security team, who were employed by the UK-based Solace Global.
An independent review into an Israeli airstrike in Gaza four months ago that killed four aid workers and three British security guards has found that they were not targeted knowingly or deliberately.
Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin AC, a former chief of the Australian defence force, was appointed by his country’s government to review Israel’s investigation of the events leading to the deaths four people who had been working for World Central Kitchen — one of them an Australian — and their security team, who were employed by the UK-based Solace Global.
https://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/international-relations/special-adviser-public-report-government-israels-response-idf-attack-world-central-kitchen-aid-workers-gaza-monday-1-april-2024
(h/t Joshua Rozenberg)
Joshua Rozenberg’s blog post is here: https://substack.com/home/post/p-147334011
(It includes some more interesting excerpts for those who don’t want to read the whole report but who nonetheless want to have an informed opinion.)
In other words, this was unfortunate but not a war crime.
I don’t think that’s the question Air Chief Marshal Binskin was asked to advise on, or the question that he did advise on. I’d have to think about this more, but at first impression deaths that are caused by negligence or recklessness might still be part of the actus reus of a war crimes charge.
I could see recklessness or negligence being a war crime only if there was a policy to not check targets first.
Yes, for example. If the IDF had a structurally terrible targeting policy that resulted in them frequently hitting civilians negligently, someone might still get prosecuted for war crimes.
Yes. However, keep in mind that the report didn’t say that.
The report noted that there was a communication breakdown between the NGO and the IDF, and within the IDF.
Yes, which is one of the reasons why I wrote “for example”. It was an example to illustrate the more general question of whether “deaths that are caused by negligence or recklessness might still be part of the actus reus of a war crimes charge”.
But having a foe that happens to routinely use innocent shields can’t qualify as a structurally terrible targeting policy.
No. Firing on a human shield when you know it’s there is not negligent or reckless killing of civilians, it’s intentional killing of civilians. But that’s not what happened in the case investigated in this report.
It’s what happened at the US Capitol on January 6th, why hasn’t that fucker Bird been charged yet? I know why, it’s what’s called a “Rhetorical” Question
Another interesting English blog post is this one by ObiterJ, which explains how in 2016 the Riot (Damages) Act 1866 was replaced by the Riot Compensation Act.
https://obiterj.blogspot.com/2024/08/a-note-on-compensation-for-riot-damage.html
And yes, if you’re going to smash up the place, it’s a good idea to where your good underwear: https://x.com/alextomo/status/1820154739964682381
In case of interest, the English courts are going to sit in 24-hour sessions to deal with the large volume of arrests in the last few days, just like they did in 2011: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/24-hour-courts-are-risky-but-right/
“There is disturbing footage on social media that suggests yesterday’s violence was not limited to white thugs, and that supporters of other groups, were seen swaggering about with illegal weapons in their hands. If the perception remains that the white working class is being singled out for conviction and sentence in short order, while others are left unpunished, the results could be ugly. “
“If the perception remains that the white working class is being singled out for conviction and sentence in short order, while others are left unpunished, the results could be ugly.“
Imagine the giddiness of Ed seeing that line!
There is no “if” about it.
It is the Spectator, so they had to both-sides it at least a little bit…
Well, you had a riot, otoh it was prompted by vicious murders, so there are sort of two sides here.
The word “prompted” is doing a lot of work there. Mostly what we have is a bunch of racist thugs who enjoy smashing stuff up and will take any excuse.
The word “raceist” is doing a lot of work there. Mostly what we have is a bunch of race-ist thugs who enjoy smashing shit up and will take any excuse, like the unfortunate death of a Wife Beating Drug Addict Floyd George of a Fent-a-nol overdose.
Exactly.
It’s about rule of law and the social contract. There was a play about that — it was called Romeo & Juliet.
Romeo and Juliet? WTF?
That’s like saying Julius Caesar is about baseball.
JC couldn’t hit Uncle Charley, it’s why they brought up Octavian from Triple A.
In an historic first Belfast Loyalist and Irish Republican gangs have reportedly joined forces vs the Southport attacks. It may not last but it’s an indicator of how unpopular the politically correct DEI officialdom has become.
— wretchardthecat (@wretchardthecat) August 4, 2024
Southport attacks?
It’s mostly an indicator of the fact that there are racist thugs on both sides of the Troubles.
Sorry, I couldn’t hear you properly. Are you inside one of the thousand former child sex houses across Blighty where white British girls were kept as sex slaves, by you know who, at the mo’?
Something something about ANY excuse?
It’s not as if the Rozzers didn’t consciously avoid investigating things last time round, yeah? A big fear, the whole force getting labeled ‘racist’, innit? It’s not as if the communities don’t remember.
” Are you inside one of the thousand former child sex houses across Blighty where white British girls were kept as sex slaves, by you know who, at the mo’?”
Look at this lil’ troll try to walk!
Well, as much of a troll as he is, he’s still right about that: There’s not a lot of reason to trust the British authorities to honestly investigate ethnic minority crimes, after Rotherham.
“ The wave of violent demonstrations began after false rumors spread on social media that the person who fatally stabbed three children Monday was in the country illegally.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/08/04/uk-riots-protests-southport-stabbing-arrests/
It wasn’t the killings, it was the racist lies.
HA! As if you have ANY idea what those people think and what’s actually been happening in their communities.
What a WEIRD thing for you to pretend you know anything about!
What country you pretending to be today?
I have never pretended to be a country, fuckwit.
Still, you can address me as the Duchy of Luxembourg if you wish.
“false rumors”
Like “Hands up, don’t shoot”?
Changing the subject to deflect from white supremacists lying.
Don’t defend white supremacists stirring up violence, for fuck’s sake.
You didn’t care about “false rumors” back then. Now you do. Hypocrite.
3 innocents were murdered. People got angry.
They only set fire to a hotel, you are on record saying arson ain’t no big deal. You convinced me.
Yeah, I believed the eyewitness accounts until the subsequent DoJ investigation.
When the evidence changed, I changed my opinion.
Like a normal human.
Meanwhile, here you are defending clear lies not from eyewitnesses but white supremacists. Because I guess your contempt for due process wasn’t enough, so you’re going further into some bad shit.
“white supremacists”
Not every white person is a “white supremacist”, though that’s your go to way to try to win an argument. A version of the race card.
The hands up story was BS from day 1.
Andrew Tate. Tommy Robinson. English Defence League.
Why are you STILL trying to smokescreen for these lying white supremacists?
Yeah, the more I read about the UK unrest it’s just attempted pogroms against brown people failing over and over again.
Not a thing to defend.
Why are you so worked up over some fiery but mostly peaceful protests?
From the Act: “the person may claim compensation from the appropriate local policing body”. I wonder if U.S. police would tolerate lawless zones less if the department’s budget had to pay for the consequences. A “riot” is defined in the Public Order Act 1986:
Where 12 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using unlawful violence for the common purpose is guilty of riot
Under some American laws a riot can consist of only three people.
That 12 people minimum goes back to the Riot Act of 1714, of “reading someone the Riot Act” fame.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_Act
John, the next section says that the municipality must pay half of the damages suffered.
Meanwhile, it looks like there’s at least one town in Idaho that’s bravely protecting 1-year olds against being morally ruined by Tolkien: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/library-law-bans-children-tiktok-b2590336.html
Meh, while I certainly oppose the book removals based on content going on these days, I’m fine with requiring a parent/guardian’s express permission before letting kids into or check out from any “adult section” of the library.
I’m not sure if I would apply that rule to babies though…
Like I would have been able to read “Tropic of Cancer” if I’d had to get my parent’s permission (so I borrowed my Mom’s copy) and I’m supposed to be the Illiterate Rube at this Sausage Party, how many of you knuckleheads even know the book I be’ talkin’ bout Willis’ without Googling?? (Keep Googling yourself and you’ll go blind)
If you don’t want people at this “Sausage Party” to think you’re an “Illiterate Rube,” all you have to do is stop acting like one.
Well, if the article is correct (and why would the media exaggerate?), then Idaho has officially Gone Too Far.
This isn’t to say that libraries should *promote* bad books (“Banned Books Week – why are they keeping you from reading Fanny Hill?”)
I say that all sorts of books should be available in the adult section of the library, even at the risk that kids may get hold of them – everything from the Decameron to When Harry Became Sally.
The article says there’s a law that you can sue the library if your kids get hold of a harmful book (Again, I’m assuming that the article is fully accurate and not hiding any details).
But how can you keep track of all the harmful books out there? Marx, Nietzsche, and their modern followers? Rousseau?
In older, less-urbanized times before the 1920s, moral panics about sex were more about enforcing religiously-founded moral codes of behavior than they were about enforcing ignorance about sex. In an age when a high percentage of folks grew up on farms featuring barnyard animals, the notion that pre-adolescent children ought to be innocent of sexual knowledge was less plausible. Previously, it would have been harder than it now is to imagine a child reaching the age of 10, let alone the age of 18, without witnessing countless acts of copulation.
My counter-intuitive guess would be that Idaho today is a relatively highly urbanized state, by the way. I think we measure urbanization by the percentage of the population which resides in cities and towns.
On that basis—if decades-old memory still serves—North Carolina was once ranked the least urbanized state in the nation. At the first census, Rhode Island was the nation’s most urbanized state.
In Idaho, folks in the hinterlands are spread thinly, with giant farming operations based on mostly-automated irrigation the general rule. Across its ex-urban settled area, those, plus logging, mining, and government jobs account for a lion’s share of economic activity. Otherwise, the state comprises mostly agriculturally-impossible mountain regions, and deserts, which are barely settled at all. Folks who conflate Idaho with Iowa (comically numerous) have failed to reckon the import of its long southern border with Nevada.
I mention these points with an eye to confound political orthodoxies which insist on a contrast of rural virtue with urban vice. It’s a commonplace generalization which fails surprisingly often in application. One explanation why Deep South red states feature such high per-capita gun crime rates could be that red states are notably more urbanized than their political advocates suppose.
Of course, I take it as self-evident that high gun prevalence creates more social danger the more tightly packed a region’s population becomes. I cannot understand why anyone would think otherwise.
My counter-intuitive guess would be that Idaho today is a relatively highly urbanized state, by the way.
Relative to what? People’s perceptions? Maybe. Other states, no. It’s in the bottom half.
Bottom half, but not bottom third. It’s right next to Montana, which is the fourth from the bottom.
I hope you two realize that a place counts as “urban” if it has at least 5,000 people (or 2,000 housing units) according to the Census Bureau. I don’t know if you’ve ever lived in a 5,000-10,000 person town/area, but they aren’t really “urban” as the vast majority of us would understand the term.
About 1/4 of people in Idaho (20th least urbanized) live in a town/city of 100,000 or more (2020 census). 13% live in Boise, the only town/city of 200,000 or more (and it is barely over 200,000).
By comparison, North Carolina (17th least urbanized) ranks lower in terms of “urbanization” than Idaho, but 26% of the population live in a town of 100k or more which is close to, but still above, Idaho’s number. More to the point, in NC, 22% (versus Idaho’s 13%) live in a town/city of 200,000 or more. Perhaps more importantly, if you measure how close each person lives to a city of at least 200,000 (many of the smaller towns/cities in NC are, essentially, suburbs of bigger city/towns of 200,000+), the numbers become much more stark in terms of North Carolina being much more “urban” than Idaho. And, of course, North Carolina actually has two major metropolitan areas of 1,000,000 or more (Charlotte and Raleigh-Durham; and really Winston-Salem/Greensboro counts too as a more minor metropolitan area of 500,000+). Idaho has none of even 500,000.
In other words, I dispute that the stats you are using to say Idaho is ‘relatively” more urban than states like North Carolina are relevant to what most people think of when they think of Idaho as being rural as compared to North Carolina or wherever.
Oh, I agree with you, but I was using the Census Bureau’s definition since it’s quasi-official and easily checkable.
Fun fact: the feds have never defined “suburban,” and so any sociological data you see anywhere that separates that out is not official government data.
NOVAlawyer — You, I, and Nieporent are apparently looking at different lists. The question what criteria define, “urbanized,” on a statewide-ranking basis have been under constant change.
To put Idaho that far down, however, I think tentatively you would have to be looking at a different kind of data. What I am talking about is ranking of states based on the percentage of each state’s population who are classed as urban residents. On the list I consulted Idaho, Delaware, and Massachusetts were ranked consecutively—all slightly less urban than the U.S. median—which is nevertheless more-urban-than-not almost everywhere.
I have lived in Idaho and Massachusetts, and married into a Delaware family. The notion that those 3 rank (or did rank) at a similar level of urbanization is not one to suggest any similarity of urban living experience shared among them that I would have guessed existed.
I’m using the Census Bureau’s definition and list of states based off that definition. And it matches with those who said Idaho is bottom half (20th least, so it is) but not bottom 1/3 (20th least, so it is in the middle third). It appears everyone (but perhaps you) are using the Census Bureau definition and data off that definition.
For percentage in towns/cities of a certain size, I worked off wikipedia lists of towns/cities in each state.
So, yeah, Idaho is more “urban” than one might expect if one uses the Census Bureau definition. There are 19 less urbanized states, to include North Carolina! But, as I think I was clear, I don’t think that addresses what most of us think of as urban versus rural. Idaho remains a state with a largely rural population.
Nevada, on the other hand, I would say has a much more urban population with roughly half of residents living in a town/city of 200,000 or more. Idaho is not at all like Nevada, which has 94% urbanization and, more relevantly to me, about 50% in towns/cities of 200,000 or more.
“One explanation why Deep South red states feature such high per-capita gun crime rates could be that red states are notably more urbanized than their political advocates suppose.” Seriously, does your Mom let you go out in Public with that Brain? There’s another umm, “Demographic” feature of “Deep South Red States” that may explain such “High per-capita gun crime rates” It’s the same “Demographic” characteristic that explains why Chicago Illinois has higher “Gun Crime Rates” than Des Moines Iowa. I’ve been to 55 of Barry Hussein’s 57 States, and once you get outside the Cities, most of Amurica is open space, even New Yawk and New Joisey (It is the “Garden State”) Seriously, get outside more, just don’t forget your Football Helmet,
I just drove across a major cross section of Idaho in June, and it can’t remotely be described as urbanized.
The biggest city is Boise, which is only 200k, the most you could call even Boise is suburban.
This.
Kazinski — Sure. I know an elevated perch in Idaho from which you can see at a glance an area about the size of Massachusetts (population ~ 7 million). I doubt that Idaho vista contains the residences of even 1000 people.
But apparently when we discuss urbanization in official parlance, we are meant to think in terms of circumstances where people actually live, not what the conditions in thinly-settled (and maybe vast) areas around them are like. To say a political jurisdiction is urbanized is to say its people are concentrated in its more-thickly-settled areas.
And, again, I’m not sure that’s what “we” mean. When we refer to statistics, we commonly refer to the Census Bureau definition of “urban” which is a town of 5,000 or more (or 2,000 or more dwelling units).
While that may be relevant when comparing the change from an agrarian society where there were many fewer such locations and even fewer metropolitan areas, I don’t think that captures what most people think of when they think of urban versus rural populations. People living in a town of 5,000-10,000 (unless it’s part of a suburban area) are generally thought of as and, from my own experience, think of themselves as more rural than urban.
By any common, every day understanding of urban versus rural, Idaho is a rural state with a rural population and consequently their politics/culture is largely defined by rural sensibilities. I don’t think it’s even a close question and I think the urbanization stats that place it as only the 20th least (31st most) urbanized state are misleading. I gave NC as an example that ranks lower in urbanization but which is, unquestionably I think, a much more urban state than Idaho by any reasonable definition (which is to say the definition based on Census Bureau stats is unreasonable). Likewise, Wisconsin and Tennessee which both rank lower in terms of urbanization, but which (while much more rural than New York or California) are, nonetheless, much less uniformly rural than Idaho.
By any common, every day understanding of urban versus rural, Idaho is a rural state with a rural population and consequently their politics/culture is largely defined by rural sensibilities. I don’t think it’s even a close question and I think the urbanization stats that place it as only the 20th least (31st most) urbanized state are misleading.
That is mistaken—mistaken in so many ways it would require a shelf full of books to address them all. To suppose Idaho’s history and present circumstances represent any characteristically rural tradition or way of life is to misunderstand its complicated history. Suffice to say that an era somewhat resembling what you describe did happen as a patchwork, in parts of Idaho, long ago, during the late 19th century, and the early 20th. But even then, the state’s politics were fraught and contested by clashes of opposing forces destined shortly to dismantle that summary view, and replace it with corporate cultural and corporate political dominance perhaps unique among the states.
To get a quick inkling of where you go wrong, note that the current version of whatever it is that you term, “rural sensibilities,” has been on the increase, not on the wane, during a multi-decade interval which has witnessed some of the fastest urbanization recorded by any state. And at the same time, the traditionalist guardians of those, “rural sensibilities,” you mention, have been fleeing the state—while being replaced by a tide of immigrants looking for . . . something else, and bringing with them sensibilities which characterize that quest.
I lived through the climactic phase of that transition, in the 1970s and 1980s. I know what I am talking about. Two of my oldest friends are among the farm-boy refugees who fled, to start farming in distant locations not so affected by the new, “rural sensibilities,” brought by the immigrants to Idaho.
The whole story was much more complicated than you suppose, and it was never, even in the rural heyday during the early 20th century, what you have described. There were too many conflicting forces, not least of which were mining interests first, water development interests second, corporatized ranching interests third, general industrialized agricultural developments fourth, the nuclear industry fifth, plus a smattering of logging interests everywhere and always, and from the beginning, across the southeast half of the state, a culture somewhat supportive of your vision, and somewhat alien to it, in the form of the Mormon movement, which cannot be properly understood under any rubrics except its own.
So where were these patches of rural sensibility, at the outset? Some were in the Palouse country in the northern panhandle region, which is also where they best survive today. Some were in the lower Snake River Valley region, west of Boise, and downstream towards Wieser. And, to be fair to you, across the Mormon southeastern region, during the pioneering era, before mechanized irrigation took over, and massive federal water and hydroelectric projects began to dominate state politics.
The mining, of course, was everywhere. Gold, silver, zinc, lead, copper, uranium, thorium, molybdenum, phosphate, graphite, etc, are all where you find them. In Idaho, gold, silver, lead, and zinc especially were abundant throughout the northern and western parts of the state. Miners, however, are not typically custodians of, “rural sensibilities.” Populist progressive politics, indentured Chinese labor, wide open gambling, whorehouses, violence, unionism, and assassinations (including one ex-governor), attested to that. All during an era when Idaho was far less urban than at present.
Wobblies leader Big Bill Heywood came out of a southwestern Idaho silver mine. Kidnapped in Denver by Pinkerton’s detectives, Heywood was smuggled into Idaho on a chartered train, and tried in Boise on an outlandish frame-up for the ex-governor’s assassination. Before an acquittal won by Clarence Darrow, Heywood’s case commanded massive demonstrations world-wide; it sucked President Teddy Roosevelt into its political vortex. That happened at the beginning of the 20th century.
When consolidation of water interests really got going, and right through the 50s and 60s, nobody paid much attention to, “rural sensibilities,” in the Idaho Statehouse. There was far too much power at stake, literally and figuratively. Giant salmon runs on the Snake and Salmon rivers counted for nothing, when they stood in the way of hydroelectric development. Another old friend of mine, born at the end of the pioneer era in the Weiser area, and once a failed candidate for Governor, described that part of state politics for me, “They won’t stop until they are in fear of their lives,” he said. They haven’t stopped yet.
What had begun in the southeast of the state as Mormon-inflected, “rural sensibilities,” during Idaho’s pioneering days, did not survive in that form. Beginning in the 60s, the advent of mechanized irrigation transformed the region, as you can see with a Google view from overhead. To put together acreage and center-pivot irrigation systems sufficient to make half-mile-wide verdant circles in a former sagebrush desert, underlain by a few hundred feet of basalt rock, it takes more capital than a homesteader’s farm can typically muster.
So across southeastern Idaho, sugar beets, onions, and spuds on an industrial scale became the name of the game, with an ever-shrinking tally of workers necessary to produce them. The, “rural sensibilities,” of that kind of operation took a back seat to schemes of organization so, “efficient,” that you could mine spuds out of the ground in sight of an Idaho supermarket, then ship them by train to Los Angeles, where they would be packed into hundred-pound bags, and shipped back to the Idaho supermarket alongside the potato field, to sell to Idaho consumers at a thousand-percent markup.
That’s if the spuds were not being stored for a year or more in football-field sized potato barns. Those were half dug into the earth, and within them the spuds got moved around by front end loaders driving right over the heaps. All that to manage supply and demand occurrences to advantage the middle men.
That activity could be justified by market principles of efficiency, somehow. A giant Idaho dairy industry was another matter. Even the, “rural sensibilities,” of the most intrepid homestead manipulators—operators sharp enough to turn individually-limited claims into consolidated holdings amounting to dozens of square miles—had a hard time figuring out how to manage dairy operations which lacked local customers.
So the federal government stepped in. To conjure an Idaho dairy industry into existence, it built gleaming, state-of-the-art cheese factories in the sagebrush. Behold! A bounty of, “government cheese,” fermented into existence, to be shipped off for storage who knows where. Admittedly, the Holsteins looked a little odd poking around in sagebrush-surrounded marshes, with views to empty horizons stretching in every direction, but the Holsteins did add visual interest.
About the Idaho nuclear industry I will say less than I know. Suffice to say Idaho is the state where the first generation of electricity for domestic consumption happened. It is where the U.S. Navy sent submarine officers for engineering training. Jimmy Carter trained there. I have read reports that may be reliable which say the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory contains the greatest concentration of nuclear reactors on earth. It seems big enough to do it. Naturally, a thing like that gets its own share of political clout, both in Congress, and in the State Legislature.
This has been too long, but barely scratches the surface. The point is, in Idaho history there is damn little correlation between urbanization trends and “rural sensibilities”—and damned few of those rural sensibilities left now anyway. Idaho is now, and has been for most of its political existence, a corporate-colonized cash cow for the national economy. To whatever extent its population today draws political motivation from their day-to-day experience, that colonized, corporatized circumstance is where the motivation chiefly comes from.
To the extent today’s refugees to Idaho from other states—a large percentage of the state’s population of course—express other political motivations, those they often brought with them, to the disruption of what you apparently consider to be, “rural sensibilities,” native to the state.
By the way, the next time anyone wants to characterize Boise as, “suburban,” take a look at how many major corporations have been headquartered there, or used it as a base for major divisions.
I’ll take 50 boxes of non-sequiturs, please.
Nothing you said changes the fact that Idaho is more rural than urban, much more so than, again, North Carolina or Tennessee or Wisconsin.
You’ve made a point that it has a uniquely mountain/western mix of mining (a rural activity) and dairy/ranching/agriculture (rural) corporatized industries, but haven’t disputed, at all, that most of the people do not live near any urban centers and, in fact, Idaho doesn’t really even have any typically urban areas. Their biggest city is barely more than a town of 200,000 and the vast majority of people live in much smaller communities that are connected to corporatized, but still rural, industries. Yes, it is much different from Iowa in culture and industry, but it is just as rural.
Maybe your point is that things don’t divide neatly between rural and urban. I’ll grant you that all urban areas are not alike and all rural areas are not alike. But I believe you entered the conversation saying Idaho “is a relatively highly urbanized state”, much more so than people realized. But all you’ve managed to establish is that it is subject to heavy federal and corporate influence, not that the people aren’t living in a rural state. They are. Again, they barely even have anything that qualifies as urban, notwithstanding a lot of corporate headquarters that, apparently, still don’t manage to push the population of Boise anything near, say Raleigh, which you seem to suggest has far fewer corporate headquarters or “major divisions” of corporations (which is doubtful), else the number is Boise isn’t impressive relative to the capitol of a state that ranks lower on the “urbanization” list but is, undoubtedly, much more urban.
The discussion was urbanization, not the unique politics of Idaho (which, while not similar to rural states like Iowa, don’t map to an urban state either…..and voting patterns certainly indicate it is much more like a rural, agribusiness (which is all very corporatized now) dominated state like Iowa than an urban state like New York, whereas North Carolina is more purple precisely because there is a mix of rural and truly urban, metropolises, features Idaho simply does not have).
NOVA Lawyer, I think you need to decide whether you mean to focus chiefly on, “rural sensibilities,” or on settlement patterns. I think it could be a reasoning error to conflate them, while at the same time trying to posit that some kind of causal relation exists between them.
My point has been that Idaho history has delivered an unusual juxtaposition of rural-looking settlement patterns, with non-rural or even anti-rural sensibilities among its population, and especially in its politics. All over Idaho, folks get up in the morning in places which are little larger than crossroads settlements, but then drive tens of miles through country which while unpopulated is not the least rural in the typical agriculturally-inflected meaning of that term. They drive not among farms and farmers, but instead across sagebrush steppe, through extensive forests, over mountain passes, or past fenced but unpopulated ranch land—but only rarely through anything comprising a patchwork of rural residences, small towns, and farm fields like you see in Iowa, or in North Carolina, for that matter.
Then those Idahoans arrive at work to do jobs like they might do in New York or LA. They push paper in a government job, or they design microcircuits, or plan massive construction projects on some other continent. Or they jigger logistics for international commodities trades, or organize rafting trips to guide rich tourists down scenic rivers, and promote those trips nationwide.
That, anyway, is the upside. On the downside Idahoans do service work for low wages, like they would do in burger joints in the city, in a lumberyard anywhere, or in any of the nation’s less-elite medical facilities. In short, relatively few Idahoans anymore do the kinds of farm-related work typically associated with, or conducive to, “rural sensibilities.” Nor do many Idahoans live in the kinds of communities that kind of work tends to foster.
Small Idaho settlements tend to better resemble outposts than self-sufficient communities. So much so, that you can sometimes find on a medium-sized globe the world a dot and and a name to represent some Idaho place with a population in 3 digits. Geographers do that sometimes when the chief feature of a settlement is that it exists at all, in so remote a location.
Of course none of that matters unless you begin with a notion that rural living causes a recognizable pattern of values, and you want to hold Idaho up as an example to demonstrate that conjecture. My suggestion is to ask instead whether values some might attribute to either urban lifestyles, or rural lifestyles, are in fact attributable to other causes.
Maybe folks who derive their value systems from who-knows-where, end up sorting themselves into like-minded groups, and afterwards co-locate here or there. For instance, maybe it is commonly true that extremist religious practitioners feel more comfortable when they isolate from from other people.
Maybe it is a red herring to suppose American politics has been purposefully organized and structured by contention among urban and anti-urban factions, as many commenters on this blog seem to insist. What does explain why living patterns, employment patterns, and political patterns in Idaho have not much tracked changes in its statistical character along the urban–rural axis?
I am not trying to make a very large point. Just trying to suggest that if you want to explore notions relating, “sensibilities,” (of any kind) to settlement patterns, Idaho might be a state more likely to deliver exceptions than proofs.
In Iraq, the Court of Cassation is apparently at odds with the Supreme Court. Despite many years of careful US management, they don’t really seem to know which court has authority over what.
https://verfassungsblog.de/taming-the-shrew/
Possibly because Americans have no idea what a Court of Cassation is…
It’s a court that decides law but not facts, usually an apex court. E.g. the Dutch supreme court is a court of cassation (it’s not called that, but “cassation” is what it does).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_cassation
Democratic Party throws stones: it wants the We the People (WTP) party off the ballot, strongly suggesting that WTP is “a candidate campaign committee masquerading as a political party.”
https://ballot-access.org/2024/08/02/democratic-party-challenge-to-robert-f-kennedy-jrs-north-carolina-petition-ignores-history/
https://www.carolinajournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/we-the-people-24CV023631-910.pdf
I was assured that the only purpose of signature requirements was to prevent the ballot from becoming as long as War and Peace, but apparently these laws are designed to make the ballot shorter than Dick and Jane.
Ballot access requirements have been about making sure the major parties didn’t have to worry about competition from third parties for as long as I’ve been politically active. Most of what has passed for “campaign reform”, too, has had that as its primary goal.
Back in the late 70’s and the 80’s, third parties had started to make some visible gains, and the major parties took a scare and ‘fortified’ our electoral system against them in all sorts of ways. I think that’s actually part of why our politics have gotten so toxic: In a 3 way race it’s important for a party to make sure as many potential supporters as possible like it, but if they can reduce it to a 2 way race, all they really need to do is make sure their potential supporters think the alternative is worse. Actually attracting people is seen as unnecessary when they’re voting to defend themselves from the other guys, not because they like you.
To explain: In a 3 way race, any efforts you make to demonize your opponent can end up driving people away from him, and still not get your votes if they end up liking the 3rd guy more. In a 2 way race, you’ve denied them any alternative but yourself.
Nothing says (D)emocracy like tossing a 3rd party off the ballot. That is a totally bipartisan activity. NJ has raised ballot access requirements to an art form.
The advantage I see to 3+ parties is it would force a move toward incrementalism because it would be coalition governments doing the governing, as opposed to a single party.
Back in the late 70’s and the 80’s, third parties had started to make some visible gains, and the major parties took a scare and ‘fortified’ our electoral system against them in all sorts of ways.
I’ll take “bizarre narratives that are true only in Brett’s head” for $500, Alex. Nobody was worried about third parties — which had not started to make some visible gains — in the late 70s or the 80s, except in the narrowest sense that the LP was founded in 1972 and so therefore it did better in the 1970s than it had done earlier.
Already forgotten the way the League of Women Voters got the Presidential debates taken away from them on account of being willing to invite third party candidates? That happened in the late ’80’s.
The LWV sponsored presidential debates just three times ever, and they did not in fact “get the presidential debates taken away from them,” let alone for “being willing to invite third party candidates.” The LVW chose to pull out of the debate process; it was not “taken away from them.” And it was not because of anything to do with third parties (which were not at issue in 1988, when the LWV pulled out). It was because the parties wanted to dictate the debate format to the LWV.
Which format they’d been perfectly content with until the League proposed to include qualifying third party candidates.
Excluding 3rd party candidates was one of the objectives of the exercise.
Once again: the League didn’t propose anything. You seem to have the dynamic completely backwards. You think that the LWV said, “Here’s what we propose, including third party candidates,” and the parties said no and fired the LWV. In fact, that never happened. Rather, the parties talked amongst themselves and said to the LWV, “Here’s what we’ve agreed to as terms of the debate.” And the LWV said, “No we won’t sponsor a debate under those terms. We’re out.” Third parties weren’t at issue because there weren’t any of any significance at the time.
I’m not saying that there couldn’t/wouldn’t have been a hypothetical spat over third parties if there was one that could plausibly have been included. But there wasn’t one at issue in 1988.
In 1980, there was, and so Carter refused to participate in the 1st debate. (Anderson was invited, and Carter didn’t want him there. So Carter didn’t show up. Reagan debated Anderson w/o Carter.) And that illustrates why your story makes no sense: whether a third party is desirable at a debate depends on one’s position in the race at that time. Carter thought it would help Reagan, so Carter didn’t want him, but that meant that Reagan did.
Nieporent, not sure if I am missing something. Are you distinguishing 3rd parties from independent candidacies? Pretty sure that when Hubert Humphrey was running behind George Wallace in 1968, Humphrey was worried about that. Other even earlier examples come to mind.
No, I’m not making that distinction. Sporadically over the 230 years of constitutional America, there have been plausible non-two party candidates of one flavor or another. 1968 was one. 1992. 1912. But none of these ever represented some trend in favor of third parties; they were all just one-off situations. Except, of course, for the Republican Party in 1856.
Well as I’ve pointed out before, Florida had 10 presidential candidates on the ballot in 2000, so they didn’t do a great job of cutting off 3rd parties.
And at least the libertarians and the greens which are fairly fringe, and don’t have much resources other than a committed grassroots seems to be able to get on the ballot almost every where.
The biggest barrier to third parties is they can’t seem to find a candidate anyone wants to vote for.
A quarter century ago, some moron in Florida came up with a ballot which was IIRC illegal under state law, and consequently the two major parties must have preferential ballot access for all time to come.
Speaking of ballot access, what’s your take on the recent decision by the Arkansas Secretary of State to keep an abortion referendum which seemed to have met the required number of petition signatures off the ballot because of an allegation that “certain accompanying paperwork” was “not filed correctly”?
https://news.yahoo.com/news/legal-battle-continues-over-arkansas-090711397.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmluZy5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANZQ4gzbDeukFfGojfLZfHSXjnbHjtDNpij86xmh6UDHkLI5YMoI3gvtHxoFrt7uInkRJu6jGCDyOgddgpOg-Kh0GxMyyl-Ax11wDNaMkMyHhk5dt2VqcShQB67vKt-fxPF_kPwSsnbGnu9YIY3PrSPaeWS1dvBCwR1ATA0dM5WG
Don’t know about the situation; maybe an Arkansan can tell us whether there’s shenanigans involved.
Do you think there should be the kind of restriction on ballot access Arkansas is requiring there? I mean, you don’t live in NC do you, and yet you have an opinion about whether there’s shenanigans going on there?
I suppose you’re looking for some kind of “gotcha,” but direct voter lawmaking is a different issue from choosing candidates. I don’t think I have to explain this obvious point.
States aren’t obliged to have direct voter lawmaking, but they *are* obliged to have a republican (small r) form of government. That is, legislators and the chief executive (to give a nonexhaustive list) must be chosen by the voters.
Signature requirements are in and of themselves “shenanigans.” They interfere with a republican form of government by having state legislators and officials pick the candidates, rather than having the voters pick them.
So, it’s not ok to have signature requirements to keep candidates off the ballot, but it’s ok to have them to keep ballot initiatives off the ballot in states where laws can be made by ballot initiative as well as via the legislature? Are states with ballot initiatives operating as non-republican governments in violation of the Constitution?
Looks as if you’re simply looking to pick a fight.
Assume a hypothetical where the Republican Party tries to keep, say, the Constitution Party off the ballot, in order to improve Republican electoral prospects. Maybe you’d see the problem if that happened.
I’m just asking for clarification of the principle behind this running concern of yours. As you didn’t answer I’ll repeat:
The greater includes the less, a state doesn’t need to have direct voter lawmaking, so if it has direct voter lawmaking it can restrict the practice. I’d rather they didn’t, of course.
The principle I’ve mentioned is in the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause, which attempts to secure a republican form of government to the states.
I’ve heard the argument (which the courts don’t decide because it’s a political question) that direct voter lawmaking *violates* the guarantee clause, but I’m skeptical.
“I’m just asking for clarification”
You’re just asking questions!
Now that I’ve made an attempt at answering your questions, then before you demand I answer some rephrased form of that question (and then another question, and then another), let me ask *you*: Are there any limits at all on the power of the two established parties to keep rival parties off the ballot? What are the limits?
It’s not even the first time you’re hearing it, because that’s not what I’m saying! I’m saying that if, unless you think it’s prohibited by the Constitution, a state has ballot initiative *as part of their republican form of government* then wouldn’t signature requirements be as bad for them as it is for parties or candidates (btw, the guarantee clause doesn’t guarantee *parties* either, they were actually not really in existence when it was ratified)?
I don’t know, and also, I’m not a fan of the Internet rule that if you have an opinion on X, then I can *demand* that you have an opinion on Y, as well.
No one is “demanding” anything, I’m asking a question. And when someone is complaining about signature requirements to keep a party or candidate off the ballot it seems like asking about signature requirements to keep an initiative off the ballot seems pretty germane and related.
OK, but I’ve explained how in my view, those are two different situations.
There’s a difference between “you didn’t answer my question” and “you didn’t give the kind of answer I wanted.”
Yes, you pointed to the guarantee of republican government clause. And so I asked you about that proposed distinction: So, it’s not ok to have signature requirements to keep candidates off the ballot, but it’s ok to have them to keep ballot initiatives off the ballot in states where laws can be made by ballot initiative as well as via the legislature? Are states with ballot initiatives operating as non-republican governments in violation of the Constitution?
I mean, you can’t complain about me asking the exact question again and that I’m going to just rephrase it.
“I mean, you can’t complain about me asking the exact question again”
Sure I can.
“Sure I can.”
Morons can say all kinds of things with no shame.
States don’t have to have voter initiatives at all, but they *must* have elections. There’s an interesting difference for you.
Malika miffed because Margrave refuses to be a parrot. I guess nobody wins this one, eh Malika?
Neither of those seem like requirements of a republican form of government.
OK, maybe not. Perhaps indirect selection (electoral college, legislative appointment) may be acceptable, so long as if you go down far enough, you have voters voting.
Is it? One of the most conspicuous models of a “Republican Form of Government” during the founding era didn’t have an elected legislature at all.
Well if not signature requirements, then what criteria should there be?
There has to be something, minimum of registered party members?
A decent sized filing fee?
The signature gathering should not be too onerous, but it shouldn’t be deminimus either. And it seems well suited for the type of grassroots organization a fledgling political party should be doing anyway.
The states ruined the idea of signature requirements by manipulating them to impose access restrictions. They forfeited any benefit of the doubt.
They did not “manipulate” them to impose access restrictions; that implies some sort of intended or unintended side effect. They enacted them for the purpose of imposing access restrictions. It’s just that everyone except you thinks that this is a legitimate purpose (though obviously any specific rule may be pointless and improper).
“(though obviously any specific rule may be pointless and improper)”
The most accurate parts of your comment are in parentheses.
I am not a NC election law expert, but based on the last time someone — presumably you — brought this up, I looked into it a bit. And as I noted at the time, the issue is that NC makes it easier for actual political parties to get their candidates on the ballot than for random individuals to do so. So (the accusation goes) some random individuals are pretending to be parties in NC when they don’t meet the criteria. Like RFK Jr.
Obviously if one doesn’t believe there should be any rules at all about ballot access, then one would object to any attempt to force RFK Jr. to follow those rules.
“if one doesn’t believe there should be any rules at all about ballot access”
Who believes this? I was talking about signature requirements and how they suck.
It’s a powerful argument against signature requirements that they can be manipulated to require more signatures for independent candidates than for parties.
You don’t believe in any rules that actually function to keep any person off the ballot.
“Manipulated” seems like a dysphemism for “set.” Not sure why you think that’s a “powerful argument.” There are different requirements because a party and an independent candidate function differently. Think of it as two alternate ways to qualify for the ballot: one can collect X signatures, or one can do the work to organize a party, in which case one doesn’t need to collect as many signatures, because doing that organization work also serves to screen out unserious candidates.
You’ve undermined your own argument. If doing the organization work to set up a party “serves to screen out unserious candidates,” then why impose signature requirements on those parties where they’ve done the organization work?
In fact, if you’ve been following the debate, I’ve been advocating that to get ballot access, a party must indeed do the “organization work” of setting up a party committee including a treasurer, and filling out a form (but only with strictly necessary informtion) and paying a nondiscriminatory filing fee (the same fee as the major parties).
(You may have missed my comments on this point, since I haven’t posted as obsessively about ballot access as some commenters post about their favorite topics.)
So what’s with the straw man about “doesn’t believe there should be any rules at all about ballot access”?
I haven’t undermined my own argument, because you misread what I wrote. The purpose of ballot access rules is to screen out unserious candidates so the ballots do not get unwieldily long. There are various criteria one could use for that screening: collecting signatures, paying fees, doing various other organizational stuff. They could be used individually or in combination. NC allows one to either collect a bunch of signatures OR collect fewer signatures+organizational stuff. The organiaztional stuff by itself is insufficient.
And nothing I said about your position is a strawman; you do not support any requirement that actually serves to screen out any candidate. “Filling out a form” is not screening, particularly since you hasten to add that it can’t actually require any effort.
Your position that ballots should have 500 names on them is certainly quixotic.
“The purpose of ballot access rules is to screen out unserious candidates so the ballots do not get unwieldily [sic] long.”
No, the purpose of ballot access rules is to protect the two major parties.
“you do not support any requirement that actually serves to screen out any candidate”
I’m not really sure that’s true; anyway, you’re shifting the goalposts. Your claim was that I opposed *all* requirements. Why not acknowledge you were wrong?
Come on, this is your crusade. There is no restriction that you think is legitimate, so requirements can be only pro forma. Pedantry only underscores your hard line.
You post a new complaint and speculation if bad faith every week. If you are going to go against the world, don’t be a weasel about it.
unwieldily was cool. And spellcheck thinks it’s legit.
“There is no restriction that you think is legitimate”
Again, I’ve explained how this is false. You can say that the restrictions I support are *inadequate* to Protect Democracy or whatever, but you can’t seriously claim I oppose all restrictions.
“You post a new complaint and speculation if [sic] bad faith every week.”
The bad faith is in passing laws arbitrarily restricting ballot access for third-party and independent candidates, then protesting that your only concern is clearing up “ballot clutter.”
You just did a two-step between restrictions and requirements.
I absolutely can say you oppose all restrictions. Pro-forma exceptions with zero functional impact don’t count, even if you want the to.
The bad faith is in passing laws arbitrarily restricting ballot access The problem with being a crusader, is everyone looks like an infidel.
“don’t be a weasel about it”
No, it’s you who want to limit voters to choosing the lesser of two weasels.
I think the two-step is on your part, not mine. “Oh, I meant you don’t support *enough* restrictions, not that you support no restrictions at all, which is what I claimed!”
Have a treasurer, pay a fee. Maybe this isn’t enough to Protect Our Democracy, but talking about weasels won’t distract from your basic wrongness in saying I oppose all restrictions.
“There is no restriction that you think is legitimate” Again, I’ve explained how this is false.
Again, I’ve explained how this is false.
No, you didn’t. You explained that you were willing to support a requirement as long as it didn’t serve as a restriction.
You’re not really instilling confidence in your position by doubling down on your original risible claim. If you need to defend your views with this sort of persistent straw-manning, even after being called on it, maybe that shows your views are wrong.
Here’s the straw man of which I speak, see above:
If intended as a description of my own position, that’s unambiguously wrong.
Not this tripe again.
Margrave, yes, you support ballot access requirements so long as those requirements don’t functionally restrict anyone, essentially. Filling out a form which you specific must be very easy is about as far as you go. This is functionally equivalent to no restrictions. Your whole point, as you’ve explained ad nauseam, is that no one should be restricted from getting on the ballot and you believe any rule which functions as a restriction is just rigging the game for the major parties.
As has been point out to you, ad nauseam, if you can’t get a few thousand signatures, it’s not clear how you’ll get tens of thousands of votes. And states with low or no restrictions have had issues with extremely long and confusing ballots which do more to disenfranchise voters than not letting some local clown put his name on the ballot as a joke.
As Sarcasto points out, you are an absolutist with the zeal of a crusader. But this isn’t all about protecting the two major parties, despite your persecution-by-proxy delusions.
You’re defending the claim that I
“do[n’t] believe there should be any rules at all about ballot access”
– good luck with that.
“Filling out a form which you specific [sic] must be very easy is about as far as you go”
Another one of your terminological inexactitudes.
Oh, I see you’re actually *abandoning* the claim that I want no rules at all.
“so long as those requirements don’t functionally restrict anyone, essentially”
That depends…who are you trying to “restrict”?
Well to be fair in this case his complaint is legitimate, NC officials are tenaciously attempting to keep RFKjr off the ballot to help Democrats.
I mostly disagree with the Margrave because if a bunch of unserious losers like the Libertarians can get on 50 state ballots then it can’t be that hard, but in this case he is 100% right.
The We The People did follow the rules, and they are still trying to keep them off claiming something like they didn’t follow the spirit of the rules.
The North Carolina Democratic Party is contending that WTP didn’t follow the rules. Not that they violated the “spirit” of them.
Well, I believe that, for one. The right to vote is the right to vote for anyone you damned well please. Restrictive ballot access coupled with prohibiting write in voting is a voting rights violation, it’s got nothing to do with the candidates’ rights.
The right to vote is the right to vote for anyone you damned well please
I don’t see why this follows. There needs to be *some* choice, but I you’re drawing a line and then declaring it an axiom.
The point is, why are the major parties curating the choice? This is not beyond you, surely.
I think they are worried about the other party running a “rat fucking” operation to mess things up at the margins, not worried about the third options being viable threats to win themselves.
That’s likely a valid concern sometimes. But I’m also sympathetic to erring on the side of allowing more choice.
Ghost candidates in Florida Republicans helping third party candidates get on ballots to benefit their own candidate Out of links for this comment, but Republicans are working hard to forbid ranked choice voting, which among other things would make these dirty tricks obsolete.
Because of “history and tradition”; For roughly the 1st 100 years of our history, if you could vote at all, you COULD vote for anyone you pleased. The government telling you who you could vote for, (As opposed to just refusing to seat winners who failed the qualifications.) is a relatively new development.
No need for a policy 150 years ago does not make a right.
This is an insane jurisprudence. Discovering rights only if they prevent laws that weren’t needed when America was a premodern backwater.
The Soviets curated People’s Choices. No need to emulate them. This is beyond the Sarcastr0’s of the world.
Which doesn’t make much sense. If a political party decides RFKjr is candidate that adequately represents its views then it’s doesn’t seem like it’s up to state officials to disagree.
Choosing their candidate seems to be clearly their speech not subject to second guessing.
From Friday’s Short Circuit, the description of a case the 6th Circuit recently ruled on: “Ohio school district prohibits students from intentionally using another’s non-preferred pronouns that rise to the level of harassment. Parents with children in schools who believe that biological sex is immutable challenge the policy under the First Amendment.”
So, let’s say a kid goes to an Ohio school. The kid’s name is, oh, let’s say JD Bowman. Later, when his mom marries someone other than his father, he is renamed JD Hamel (taking the mom’s husband’s name). So that’s what he and his parents/guardians want him to go by. However, there are some kids in his class who, like their parents, believe in the Islamic idea that it is haram or forbidden for an adopted child to be given a last name other than their father’s name. So, in line with their beliefs these kids start to intentionally use the name “Bowman” when referring to JD in a way that rises to the level of harassment. Should their behavior be protected by the First Amendment?
Kids love to be assholes. It’s not illegal.
I think it’s a matter of school discipline that’s being challenged.
School marms and masters also can be assholes.
I’m not sure this is an answer. If kids were doing this in school could the school discipline them is the question (schools rightly discipline kids for being assholes in other contexts, right?).
Can the school discipline them? Yes. Is their speech protected? Yes. Are the assholes being disruptive and insubordinate? Yes.
No. As the opinion notes, there are ways to refer to a person without using the name or pronoun that goes against their beliefs.
If you go to a public school, neutral rules akin to rules of polite debate can be implemented. Equal protection and other concerns can be balanced with First Amendment values.
A lower court judge whose religious beliefs oppose the use of certain pronouns, using a woman’s maiden name, or any number of other things need not override a rule that the preferred name and pronouns be used in court hearings either.
General applicable rules can be applied, especially if there is a strong enough reason to do so.
“So, in line with their beliefs these kids start to intentionally use the name “Bowman” when referring to JD in a way that rises to the level of harassment. Should their behavior be protected by the First Amendment?”
Their behavior arguably shouldn’t be protected by the First Amendment from punishment under a neutral harassment policy that don’t ban mere use of the former names.
But policies that apply differently to viewpoints involving what names the kids should be called, or policies that define the mere reference to the kids’ names as harassment, should be found to violate the first amendment.
So you’ve got 25 kids in class, and standard English, which hopefully is still being taught, would say that 12 of them would be referred to in third person singular as ‘he’, and 13 as ‘her’ and then you got one kid that wants you to use a word that’s not even in the dictionary ‘xim’, and you have a lisp and can’t even pronounce it correctly anyway.
And then you get hauled into the office because you don’t care enough to remember you have to address this one kid differently when using third person singular pronouns than everyone else in the class, even though generally when addressing someone directly you use second person pronouns anyway which are genderless.
And now it’s all a federal case.
When I was in school we often called each other worse than that. Somehow the First Amendment never came up.
Instead, a bit intervention by the school tamped it down.
My name rhymes with “fart.” It mattered not what my name was, nor what I wanted to be called. I was called Fart.
Get over it.
All I want to know….where is Kazinski? 🙂
I went to bed early. And was busy this morning.
I’m going to Cambodia for 5 weeks tonight, so I maybe busy, or I may have lots of time on my hands just hanging out.
You have a great trip, Kaz. Be safe, come home healthy.
An intrepid student asked a question that stumped me:
The 6th Amendment includes “to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor” — does this apply to American citizens who are abroad?
It does not.
Even when we have an extradition treaty with the country?
My thought is that the treaty specifies specific offenses only.
It does not, even with an extradition treaty.
Are you asking whether the 6th amendment prohibits extraditing a person to a foreign nation which does not have this protection? Because once the person is in the foreign court, that court is pretty much free to ignore the US 6th Amendment along with all other US law.
What is the scenario you’re envisioning?
Interesting commentary from Garry Trudeau’s Doonesbury characters: https://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2024/08/04
As Mike Godwin has written, Godwin’s Law is about remembering history well enough to draw parallels — sometimes with Hitler or with Nazis, sure — that are deeply considered. That matter. Sometimes those comparisons are going to be appropriate, and on those occasions GL should function less as a conversation ender and more as a conversation starter. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-godwin-godwins-law-20180624-story.html
https://reason.com/2024/08/03/more-than-half-of-americans-think-the-first-amendment-provides-too-many-rights/
Thought experiment: You are Dictator for a Day. You get to change the text of 1A. What do you change it to, or do you do nothing? Why?
1A: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
BTW, I am very much on the 1A does not do enough crowd (meaning, I want much more robust protection of our individual civil liberties).
The exceptions should be written into the constitution, as should the assessment framework.
Article 10 – Freedom of expression 1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
At that point, you might as well finish it with “P.S. This means you can ignore the entire idea because it’s more exception than principle.”
How is that different than what you have now? Under the case law of the Supreme Court there are lots of exceptions that appear nowhere in the text, and the possibility of adding more is constrained by nothing except the adherence of the Supreme Court to stare decisis.
Which exceptions under US law correspond to the holes you open up for “territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals” and “for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary”? The other exceptions you list are also much broader in purpose and presumably effect than what US law currently excepts. For example, “preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence” currently isn’t an exception to the First Amendment; it’s an example of a person waiving specific rights. Formalizing it as you did would, in practice, outlaw a lot of investigative journalism.
You can write in whatever exceptions you want. My suggestion wasn’t to use the same ones. But in a country where aiding and abetting terrorism and incitement of crime are crimes, and where the government regularly censors libraries, I’m not sure why you’re so shocked.
“for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary”
That would be stuff like this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/08/01/trump-gag-orders-heres-everything-the-ex-president-cant-say-in-the-cases-against-him-as-appeals-court-upholds-order/
“preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence” currently isn’t an exception to the First Amendment
Then what did Julian Assange get in trouble for?
Yes, the New York State court system is a partisan joke. And Assange got in trouble for (allegedly) soliciting and/or engaging in espionage, falling under the “interests of national security” bit you already mentioned.
It sounds like you agree that the courts shouldn’t be able to make up exceptions to the right to free speech as they please.
2 is a license for the government to do away with 1. Maybe you are more trusting of the government than I am.
It is not. It specifies certain categories of things the government might nonetheless do, and the conditions under which it may do them, all of which to be verified by the courts.
The “certain categories” utterly swallow the rule. “You have freedom of speech except if there’s a law that restricts that speech that we think is useful” isn’t a rule at all. It’s hard to think of a law restricting speech that wouldn’t fit into one of those exceptions; nobody passes a law saying, “It is illegal to discuss the weather.” Every censorship law ever passed by any government ever was justified based on national security, public safety, prevention of crime or disorder, protection of health or morals, protection of someone else, etc.
Which is why the exceptions clause also specifies that any restriction has to be proportionate. The two work together.
We’ve seen what happens in the European countries that have that kind of clause. The exceptions swallow the original principle.
Ayn Rand accurately diagnosed the vulnerability decades ago. It’s surprising to see people still advocating for emergency purpose and public-morality clauses in core civil rights laws.
I ask again, how is that different from the US? In the US the courts have made up a whole system of exceptions and assessment frameworks wholesale, and in Europe we write it into the constitution from the start. Why would you prefer the former?
Yes, the US has a-textual exceptions, but the textual ones you are proposing would expose a much broader range of speech to restrictions.
Then draft the ones you want and only the ones you want. The point is to have a public discussion about it.
As it is, it makes sense that Trumpists wonder where it says in the constitution that a judge can tell Trump to shut up even outside the court room. It doesn’t say that anywhere one way or another. What happened is simply that the courts decided that the courts are really important, and should therefore be allowed to restrict people’s free speech rights in certain circumstances. And no one else got asked about that idea. That’s not how it is supposed to work.
Oh, are you just arguing that it is better to have any exceptions be textual? On that I agree.
I gave some examples up-thread of how it is different. There are two fundamental problems with the approach you propose, and Europe has illustrated both of them.
The first problem is that, having observed that courts (or the government more generally) will arrogate powers to itself at the margin of what is clearly authorized, you propose to resolve that by … granting them explicit permission in all the areas they have arrogated powers to date. That doesn’t solve the border-drawing issue, it just moves it greatly in favor of government power.
The second problem is that the “necessary in a democratic society” clause, which is your primary limit on those exceptions, has no clear rule of decision. It is subject to whim, evolution, and appeal to authority. In practice, that kind of wording has always led to a great deference to the other (non-judiciary) arms of the government.
The US approach is one of limiting the powers of government, but you propose instead to limit those limits.
“necessary in a democratic society” is the ECHR’s shorthand for the proportionality test.
For a discussion of the four prongs of the proportionality test see this blog post: https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2015/06/27/supreme-court-on-eu-and-echr-proportionality-back-to-basics/
I think you are perhaps underestimating how silly that makes your argument look. You are trying to remove the need for court-developed analytic frameworks by invoking shorthand for analytic frameworks expounded by courts, where (a) the table-setting involves “nearly 20 pages on the general principles” before applying those principles to a case and (b) one of the key _starting_ points is that “EU proportionality is not ECHR proportionality”.
You can look at the results. We have free speech in the US; European countries don’t.
Or you can look at the doctrine. There’s an occasional movement from to move to a sort of interest-balancing test for speech restrictions, but our pro-liberty courts have shut it down pretty resoundingly.
We have free speech in the US; European countries don’t.
If that’s how you understand the world, you’re really beyond any hope of reasonable discussion.
There’s an occasional movement from to move to a sort of interest-balancing test for speech restrictions, but our pro-liberty courts have shut it down pretty resoundingly.
Instead what you have is an endless fight over whether a particular case is black or white in your black & white framework, where the answer somehow always seems to correspond to the judge’s policy preferences.
A lot of Europeans suffer from this kind of parochial blind spot. Fortunately, we’re still able to get most of the smarter and more ambitious ones to come join us in the wider world.
As you point out, the exceptions clause has been unnecessary. Courts have felt more than free to carve out exceptions as they see fit.
No need to give them more encouragement.
The effect of these clauses is to give them *less* encouragement.
That may be the intent, but the effect has always and everywhere been to encourage more exceptions and more “balancing” of interests (in favor of the government).
You could shorten 2) to “We didn’t really mean anything we said in 1)”
It’s wrong from the start. “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.” Not because that is a false statement, but because it implies that freedom of expression is granted to “everyone” by the government, rather being a freedom “everyone” already enjoys.
In contrast, the US First Amendment is right from the start. The US Bill of Rights clearly reads as a powerful limitation on government, “Congress shall make no law…”, based on the revolutionary notion that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”.
Yes, tone matters. This is a Bill of Rights, not a statute. And you don’t need to have lived in several different countries to notice how different those countries are in terms of actual freedom of speech. The US has it; the others only have it to varying degrees.
Moreover, particularly in terms of the Internet, it is almost certain that most other countries would respect substantially less freedom of expression if the US did not exist to offer the “extreme” alternative.
The US’ version is not perfect, but it is superior.
Jesus Christ, if you want your retorical flourishes please go ahead with my blessing. It makes absolutely no difference to my point, which is that the exceptions should be written into the constitution rather than invented by the courts.
I think the First Amendment is good as is and that any change won’t add much. If anything, I might replace “religion” with “conscience” since that word has a broader reach & many Framers used the words interchangeably anyhow.
After:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
I would add in parenthesis:
(Because as the Federalist Papers clearly state, we were never established as a Christian Nation. Which means, for example, that some idiot in the newly establish frontier territory of Oklahoma cannot force all the school children there to study the Bible).
Granted, this new language is inarticulate, but it would stop a lot of shenanigans from happening today
That reads like a presidential signing statement, ha ha. 🙂
Things are officially kicking off in Bangladesh:
– Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has resigned and fled the country, the BBC understands – Hasina, who has led Bangladesh since 2009, is onboard a helicopter heading to the Indian city of Agartala, according to BBC Bengali – Army chief General Waker-Uz-Zaman is set to address the nation, but his speech has already been delayed. He is said to be meeting with “stakeholders” – Hasina’s resignation comes as thousands of protesters have taken to the streets in the capital Dhaka – with thousands more set to follow, a day after clashes between police and protesters left at least 90 people dead – Some demonstrators have reportedly stormed Hasina’s official residence in Dhaka – Some 300 people have been killed over the past month as authorities have cracked down on anti-government protesters – The student protest started last month with peaceful demands to abolish quotas in civil service jobs, but have since transformed into a wider anti-government movement and nationwide unrest, calling for the resignation of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina
– Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has resigned and fled the country, the BBC understands
– Hasina, who has led Bangladesh since 2009, is onboard a helicopter heading to the Indian city of Agartala, according to BBC Bengali
– Army chief General Waker-Uz-Zaman is set to address the nation, but his speech has already been delayed. He is said to be meeting with “stakeholders”
– Hasina’s resignation comes as thousands of protesters have taken to the streets in the capital Dhaka – with thousands more set to follow, a day after clashes between police and protesters left at least 90 people dead
– Some demonstrators have reportedly stormed Hasina’s official residence in Dhaka
– Some 300 people have been killed over the past month as authorities have cracked down on anti-government protesters
– The student protest started last month with peaceful demands to abolish quotas in civil service jobs, but have since transformed into a wider anti-government movement and nationwide unrest, calling for the resignation of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ckdgg87lnkdt
Power in Bangladesh has basically been passing back & forth between Sheikha Hasina and Khaleda Zia since 1991, with the former progressively reducing the scope for further changes in power since winning the election in 2008. It will be interesting to see what’s going to happen next. I gather it’s not a given that the army will take over.
C-XY, I am suspicious that the recent articles in the NYT and CNN that explain that Hamas cannot be defeated is laying the groundwork for Ms Harris throwing Israel under the bus.
How would that work? The “groundwork” part, I mean. How does reporting by the NYT or CNN affect White House policy?
It is conditioning the readership just like every other marketing campaign Already Kamela has signaled displeasure with Israeli war policy.
Are you positing, what, that the Harris campaign and the NYT and CNN are coordinating on this?
You said that. I did not say that. News organizations do have political agendas. No collusion is necessary.
Yes, yes, yes and yes
You mean the same readership who would back her no matter what (because they’re NYT readers/CNN watchers)? If Harris needs to convince a part of the electorate, it’s certainly not the people who read the NYT or watch CNN.
Actually, the aim is to convince Harris and people who fell away from Mr. Biden.
I know that Donald Trump famously got his policy ideas from Fox News, and that Fox News anchors used to talk directly to him to try to get him to do something, but that’s not how the US government normally works. The president doesn’t get his or her policies from the media.
“conditioning the readership?”
QAnon-level stuff right here.
The government might do messaging to lay the groundwork. The media does not.
“The government … The media”
No (D)ifference.
I see you’re fully tinfoil. The decay we’ve witnessed in these comment sections is depressing.
What a typically bullshit comment “QAnon’level” More of you lying conspiracy accusations. “The media does not.” You are also quite the telepath. You seem to know zip about marketing or to understand little outside of you bureaucrat-at- tit bubble.
Who is doing the marketing, Don? You didn’t posit anyone. Just a couple of articles.
If you’re suspicious, it’s not because anything suspicious happened.
Yes, I mean, never mind that senior leadership in Israel (who, if I’m mistaken, have since resigned or made the statement when they resigned) said long before Harris was the presidential candidate that Hamas could not be defeated militarily. We have debated that very topic in these comment threads months ago.
Wait, Don, maybe we the commenters at Volokh Conspiracy conditioned CNN/NYT to accept our view that the goal of defeating Hamas militarily is quixotic so that they would then condition Harris who would then condition the American people and then she would be able to mildly restrict weapons sales to Israel. What a diabolical plan we’ve had and you’ve been an accomplice!
Or, you know, maybe some people just have opinions that are different from yours and they say them, here, in Israel, on CNN, and in the pages of the NYT.
The New York Times is actively engaged in lobbying its readers and influencing others to advance its political agenda. When I wrote them years ago to criticize them for steering a story about which they were reporting, a person on their editorial board wrote me back and confirmed that fact to me explicitly. I don’t remember their exact words were, but it was something like, “We are not here to just be observers of our world, but to shape it.”
No “QAnon-level stuff,” you vacuous twit.
Well if your unsourced persona anecdote doesn’t prove it. Nothing will!
Pretend I make this stuff up. Do you lie like that? If so, then I understand why you think others do.
I didn’t say you lied. I said your anecdote was insufficient to support your claim.
Don’t worry, you’re miles away from Dr. Ed land.
“The New York Times is actively engaged in lobbying its readers and influencing others to advance its political agenda.”
Uh, I don’t think the word lobbying means what you seem to think it means.
Sorry. Influencing public opinion. I thought my point was easy enough to understand. (I think it was.)
I wonder if you didn’t put it like this because it now sounds trivial to anyone with media literacy. Of course any reporting will tend to influence it’s readers.
Well, hamas (the group) can be defeated, simply by killing them. I am fine with that.
Judeocide, which hamas (and palestinians in general by huge majorities) heartily supports, is entrenched in arab culture and thought. That idea cannot be defeated on a battlefield. The NYT and CNN add fuel to the fire.
I am chuckling at the ‘bomb’ theory. Uh huh. That sure is some bomb that left the structure completely intact. Looks a lot like a drone strike to me. And whoever did it is long gone.
I anticipate multiple attacks next Tuesday night, and Wednesday; Tisha B’Av.
Well, hamas (the group) can be defeated, simply by killing them.
You mean just like the Vietcong, Al Qaeda, the Mahdi Army, ISIS, and all the other enemies of the United States that were so “simply” defeated by killing all their members? Perhaps defeating a terrorist group/paramilitary group isn’t that simple, because you can’t really figure out who all of its members are?
Maybe I’m misinformed, but I was under the impression that we were able to defeat both Al Qaeda and ISIS using the same methods Israelis are using against Hamas.
And yet both Al Qaeda and ISIS still exist today.
Well you’d have to kill several US Representatives to get rid of them entirely (and I’m NOT, I repeat NOT, advocating the killing of US Representatives!!!) However, if a Beirut/Terror-Ann Air B&B (Bombed & Blown Up) they happen to be staying in, happens to blow up…….
As minor players in the terror war on the West.
They’ll be minor right up until they’re not. Let’s see what role they will play when World War III breaks out in the Middle East.
“what role they will play”
Casualties.
I would not hope for that if I were you. You’re likely to have it much worse in the UK than in the US
Yes, that’s always the case. Having an ocean between yourself and any war is extremely convenient.
K harris appears to be a closet anti-Israel/ pro hamas /pro plo
https://www.frontpagemag.com/kamala-is-anti-israel-her-husbands-law-firm-repped-the-plo/
1. Representing someone doesn’t mean you’re “pro” them. 2. I’m not sure being a partner at a big firm that represents someone means that you represent that someone. 3. I thought given the Alito and Thomas thing the line was that spouses shouldn’t be criticized for their spouses’ connections?
Transcript of Tom Cotton who served on the Senate intelligence committee with Harris.
“I served with her for four years, not just in the Senate at large, but on the Senate Intelligence Committee. That committee meets several hours every week when we’re in Washington. It meets behind closed doors, where people are a little bit more of their true self than when the cameras are rolling at other committees and I can tell you — Kamala Harris is dangerously naive and weak.
And again, you saw it when Prime Minister Netanyahu came to Washington. She came and immediately condemned Israelis, effectively blaming them for all the civilian suffering and deaths and starvation in Gaza, which is solely the responsibility of Hamas.
I met with the Prime Minister after that. He said this has emboldened Iran’s terror network. And what happened? Less than two days after Kamala Harris used that kind of language. You had Hezbollah blowing up kids on an Israeli playground.
Every time Kamala Harris or Joe Biden comes out and puts more pressure on Israel than Iran, it causes Hamas or Hezbollah to increase their demands for any kind of ceasefire or [to] become more aggressive with Israel because they know that the Biden/Harris administration will put more pressure on Israel to restrain itself than they put on Iran and its terror network to pull in its horns.
You saw another example of that last week. The Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, was killed in Tehran. Rather than rejoicing at the death of a hardened terrorist who had the blood of Americans on his hand[s], whose terror group still holds Americans hostage to this day, you had Kamala Harris and the Secretary of State fretting about what it meant for negotiations about a ceasefire with Hamas since the leader was now dead. Well, Hamas can have a ceasefire any time it wants if it would simply lay down its arms, unconditionally surrender, and return our hostages.
That’s what you’re gonna get though with Kamala Harris — is you’re gonna get someone who consistently puts more pressure on Israel, who looks the other way on Iran funding pro-Hamas, anti-Semitic protests in America and would be, again, the weakest president we’ve ever had.
Even after I clearly marked them JD doesn’t/can’t answer won’t answer my retorts. Just throws something else on the wall, hoping it sticks….
Just pointing out additional info which shows she is anti – Israel
Look Joe, that’s all interesting and whatnot, but you have to concede that Cotton is a strong Republican partisan, so nothing negative he says about Harris can be taken at face value.
I mean, it’s pretty unlikely that he’s going to say something like, “Harris really had a thorough grasp of the issues, and her policy views made a lot of sense,” no matter what.
As for “naive and weak,” well, maybe she thinks Cotton is naive. It sort of depends on their respective views, doesn’t it? If she disagrees with Cotton the state of things, and why wouldn’t she, then he might think she’s naive, but really only because of that disagreement.
And I’m tired of this “weak” crap coming from the GOP. It’s utter BS. Do you think Trump is “strong?” He’s not. He’s a coward who lies about everything he’s ever done because he thinks (knows) his accomplishments are unimpressive. Does a strong person lie constantly, even about their golf scores?
No. They say, “I shot a 102. Big deal.”
Your points are all eminently reasonable. But Trump’s target audience, e.g. Joe, are just the kind of people Trump’s golf scores and Putin’s multiple goals in a game with hockey all-stars is aimed at. They actually do believe it and they actually do think admitting to a 102 or going scoreless against professional athletes would look weak.
It’s a weak person’s idea of strength. That works for Putin. Trump combines it with a dumb person’s idea of intelligence. That’s why it is not just frightening, it’s embarrassing that Trump actually has a shot at winning. Again.
Will she throw Israel under the bus or rather throw Netanyahu under the bus, because the two things are different?
Not for many.
See Tom Cotton’s comment that I posted above:
She will throw both under the bus
She has consistently reflected an anti-Israeli stance in her actions – maybe not in words, but her actions are definitely anti-Israel.
Actions (as apart from words)?
The VP has no real actions here.
You’re silly.
You literally cited nothing but her words.
I cited Tom Cotton’s comments who has first hand knowledge of her skill set, work ethic and biases
You cited a highly partisan opponent on her?
Conclusive!
Someone with real world and first hand knowledge – contrary to most every leftist.
You have no connection to the real world or knowledge of any kind, so I am skeptical that you are a capable judge of either. I am quite positive that you are absolutely incapable of any kind of reasonable conclusion when it involves anything political, as proven by your dipshit remarks and dismissal of Cotton’s clear agenda.
Someone who is automatically going to be critical of Harris, regardless of anything.
There is zero information in Cotton’s statements – zero, nada, nil – because they are utterly 100% predictable. That you think there is does not speak well of you.
Meanwhile, Joe no doubt discounts all the negative things said by his former Cabinet members, VP, aides, and others who worked closely with him. People he chose and said were the best. Those are all partisan sour grapes. But Tom Cotton on Harris? Unadulterated truth.
Joe, relying on Tom Cotton as some sort of authority on Harris’ intellectual or foreign policy chops is embarrassing. Even for you. Be better.
They are different in the long run (maybe by 2025), but not at this moment.
I disagree, the resignation of Benny Gantz from the War Cabinet shows that there is opposition in Israel to Netanyahu’s approach to issues with the Palestinians. And that opposition is now.
Really? The world was supposed to end when Gantz and Eisenkot left. Did not happen. You know, maybe Gantz and Eisenkot were the actual problems.
Israelis seem pretty united on the need to defeat hamas, and that there will be no palestinian state next to Israel, living side by side in peace. The PA just tried to unite with hamas, in a unity government.
When hamas is utterly defeated, and seen as defeated throughout the arab world, peace can happen.
Sure Mr Ganz resigned. That is NOT the point. What is the point is that Israel will continue in its present policies. No influential politician supports the two-state “solution.”
Why do British police escort and protect the roving armed gangs of the Mulsim Defense League as they go around attacking Whites and raping and slaughtering White children?
Is the UK government officially Talmudian or something?
“Why do British police escort and protect the roving armed gangs of the Mulsim Defense League as they go around attacking Whites and raping and slaughtering White children?”
Citation for your claim?
“Is the UK government officially Talmudian or something?” Right. It’s got to be the Jews’ fault somehow. Of course. Fucking loony…
It didn’t say Da Jews writ large, I said Talmudian.
And this current anti-White fervor most definitely is Talmudic.
They tell you in their own words. They only feel safe as a people of Whites are eradicated.
“[Jews] only feel safe as a people of Whites are eradicated.” ??? That sounds pretty crazy. Maybe you should stop listening to crazy people (or at least not extrapolate said crazy people’s crazy attitudes to other (non-crazy) people).
I’d be happy to dismiss some pretty crazy people if they weren’t having such an impact on our world.
hbu? Do you ignore crazy people who are damaging society just because they are crazy?
They don’t.
There are videos of it all over X.
And you believe that British police stand by as people get raped, assaulted, and killed because you saw a video on the internet? It doesn’t seem like a completely irrational thing to believe? You don’t have even the slightest bit of skepticism about it? Just gonna swallow it whole, are you?
If you will believe that, you’ll believe anything. Flat Earth is a more reasonable belief than that.
Kamala Harris achieved what I never expected to see: a US politician making the late Ted Stevens’s “series of tubes” explanation of the Internet seem positively accurate and clear.
https://www.facebook.com/theiowastandard/videos/kamala-harris-explains-cloud-storage/7413910865377222/
Supporters of *Trump* opting to target Kamala for being unclear in speech is going to be fun.
Here is a good example of Kamala ‘s being “Unclear” – its not unclear speech – She is simply “unclear”.
https://x.com/ClayTravis/status/1820104024646959112?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1820104024646959112%7Ctwgr%5E8e786d66ca6bd7f6519ffa79cba71538b4379c32%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F665055%2F
Did she talk about sharks and batteries?
Your eyes are shut and your ears plugged and yet you speak.
…but she knows how to play pinball.
All VP Harris has to do to lose the election is simply open her mouth and speak. She has an abysmal record, with little in the way of accomplioshment. When she gets asked: What have YOU actually done….the silence will be deafening, and then a word salad will be forthcoming.
Because when Kamala speaks, she is unburdened by the past.
https://x.com/RNCResearch/status/1820457755322298405?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1820463835997683883%7Ctwgr%5E13db5c6f331b06a9afa5d2e3fab60d4f55e72944%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F665179%2F
hard to fathom someone this stupid being the best the democrats could find for president.
Tell us about the shark batteries, Joe.
ask malika about shark batteries
First Circuit upholds gun ban for nonviolent felons
The First Circuit upheld a federal law Friday prohibiting nonviolent felons from possessing guns, despite the Supreme Court’s landmark Bruen case that expanded gun rights under the Second Amendment.
Carl Langston, who was sentenced to 57 months for possessing a gun despite a previous criminal conviction, appealed his conviction claiming the statute isn’t consistent with the Second Amendment.
https://www.courthousenews.com/first-circuit-upholds-gun-ban-for-nonviolent-felons/
(From the decision)
In Rahimi, the Court noted that “some courts ha[d] misunderstood the methodology of [its] recent Second Amendment cases “and explained that “[t]hese precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber.” 144 S. Ct.at 1897. It then held that the Second Amendment “permits more than just those regulations identical to ones that could be found in 1791” and thus does not require a “historical twin” to justify a modern firearm restriction.
I agree that if someone is determined enough to commit a felony (non-violent or otherwise), then the restriction should apply.
I also fully agree that there has to be a concrete pathway for the felon to re-establish their 2A rights eventually.
The article references a “public scuffle” outside a bar and that the “totality of the circumstances gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that Langston was about to engage in criminal activity — public fighting, potentially with a gun on hand.”
I think “nonviolent felony” is perhaps overbroad but without more, this does appear to be a reasonable application.
I agree that there should be a pathway as there should be for voting and other rights. A longer period might be warranted for a gun violation but a lifetime ban is problematic except perhaps in extreme circumstances.
That’s the episode that led to him getting discovered with the gun, not the conduct that led to the convictions (which were for theft and drug dealing) that made possessing the gun illegal.
Yes, the first paragraph of my comment is from the 4A claim. Thus, the talk of reasonable suspicion.
The 2A part concerned “previous convictions under Maine law for theft and drug trafficking.”
Which is even easier than the public scuffle. If that is enough, theft and drug trafficking are likely to be too.
I saw a youtube video recently of RFK Jr trying to inexpertly catch a small rattlesnake with his bare hands outside his garage. Surely all of us have seen enough snake wrangling to know how to properly secure a snake. I know all the rubes are RFK Jr.-curious because he’s antiscience. But let’s be honest: between the brain worm and dumping a bear carcass in Central Park, can’t we all agree the man’s nuts?
He didn’t just dump a bear carcass in Central Park; he staged the scene.
At least he’s a man, man. So you’ve gone from claiming to be a Veteran to claiming to be the Crocodile Hunter (didn’t end well for him, did it?) Anti-Science? OK, you’re not a Doctor, so you never took a course in Medical Microbiology, or you’d know Cysticercosis is a real thing, a worm, that can invade the Brain, and mostly contracted from eating infected Pork (explains the Revolting Reverend) and Science? even a Pubic Screw-el Grad-jew-mate like you should know the presence of a Y chromosome is what designates Maleness. Even in a pathetic excuse for a man like you Wow, that wasn’t kind or gentle, the truth seldom is.
He is a belligerent misfit. That appeals to some other misfits.
Sorry Revolting, your Insurance isn’t covering the Praziquantel.
The man has a lot more sense than Ms Harris
My doberman has more common sense than VP Harris.
Mr. Nieporent claims it would be insensitive to celebrate the imposition of accountability on Israel’s theocratic, bigoted, war-criming right-wingers with bacon cheeseburgers. I am open to other suggestions (although Crabmeat Hoelzel may be non-negotiable) — could you recommend another menu to mark the predictable consequence of America’s withdrawal of the political, military, and economic skirts those right-wing belligerents have been hiding behind?
The UK now seems to have an official policy of reverse racism: https://open.substack.com/pub/roddreher/p/a-riot-is-the-language-of-the-unheard
Dreher’s opinion is not worth listening to if you like having a free society.
“It must be said that the rioting and looting by whites is wrong, full stop, and cannot, and must not, be defended….but…If you are following this story on Twitter/X, you will have seen many, many videos of Muslim mobs marauding through the streets, threatening and even beating up white English people. In some cases, the police just stand by. ”
Ah yes citation to twitter anecdotes. Unestablished white grievance by the theocratic authoritarian.
You’re a fan, I take it?
“free society”
The UK? It hasn’t been a free society for sometime.
Teens arrested for calling a cop a lesbian. Arrests for non-threatening blog posts.
Your complaints ring hollow considering how you want criminal law to work.
Those people are not criminals in a free society.
Those people. You mean “white English people?”
When did you throw in with UK Stormfront?
It can be assumed that Harlan Thomas votes as he does because of all the dough, but what if Crow and Leo had him compromised during one of his tropical junkets (ala The Firm)? Eh? Ever think about that?
Am I the only one who wants to see this Algerian Dude who’s been beating up women get his Ass kicked by a real dude? And despite the 50 networks covering the Olympics, I missed the women’s high jump, won by the You-Crane current World Record Holder, Yaroslava Oleksiyivna Mahuchikh (Say that name 3 times fast) clearing a nice round number 2 meters, (a whole 3.9cm less than her Record Jump last month) Oh, and if you’re wondering, she would have finished behind the 24 Competitors in the Men’s High Jump at this year’s NCAA Track & Field Championship. Actually would have finished behind even more, it’s just only 24 make the finals. Seriously, I think any random Women Roller Derby Jammer could beat this Algerian Poofs Ass like a red headed stepchild….
Well, the boxer in question has been defeated by more than a handful of women boxers.
The right truly seem to have trouble with the ‘what is a woman’ question.
Well I’m Lefthanded, so I really hate this whole “Right” thing. So did you have to repeat 10th grade Biology or they just passed you along? He doesn’t look like a woman, even an ugly one, he has a Dick, a “Y” Chromosome, and the fact some nameless Algerian Clerk marked “Female” on his Birth Certificate doesn’t change that. You want to talk Birth Certificates? Cums-a-lot has her Mother’s race listed as “Caucasian” which is actually accurate if her Mother was Indian (I know alot of Dot-Heads (I’m a Doctor, watta ya gonna do?) they certainly don’t consider themselves “Asian”
Someone might want to read Bernstein’s books or Posts.
That might be difficult for Drackman, who obviously has never progressed beyond middle school.
LOL!
“LOL” like “OMG” should only be used by pre-pubescent girls, or fags, Oh, my bad, “Please Continue” (HT Barry Hussein)
Explain why XY chromosomes and a high level of testosterone and and incompetent midwife make for ‘trouble.’ The boxer is male and was banned by the IBA for that reason.
I thought we were supposed to identify men and women by their private parts?
Don, this you? He has XY chromosones. Whether his dick has been amputated was not reported.
Kinda sounds like you’re an ignorant shit on this issue.
So his dick was amputated?
Where do you think they get the Donors for the Add-a-Dick-to-me Surgeries?
Sarcastr0 23 mins ago Flag Comment Mute User “Don, this you? He has XY chromosones. Whether his dick has been amputated was not reported.
Kinda sounds like you’re an ignorant shit on this issue.”
Sacastro – the guy is male – that is not in dispute – except by those such as you that are not only ignorant of biology and seriously infected with Woke BS.
Sacastro – the guy is male – that is not in dispute –
It is in fact in dispute. The notion that she has XY chromosomes comes only from a corrupt and opaque IBA process from last year.
No it is not in dispute – The guy is male.
No. What’s not in dispute is that you’re getting crazier by the day. But you cannot will facts into being merely by asserting them as if you had any knowledge or expertise, when you don’t.
It’s possible the woman is one of the infinitesimal percent of the population that are truly intersex (which is not, of course, the same thing as trans).
Did you flunk biology
What you stated is pure woke bull S-
Further – you know it pure woke BS
the party of “science” has become the party of stupidity!
Sacastro and DN have become the presidents of the party of stupidity
He is NOT intersex. He is not XXY, He is reported to be XY with high testosterone level. What is it with you wanting to women get beat up by a man?
Don, you are assuming facts not agreed upon.
We don’t know if Khelif has XY chromosomes. We don’t know what Khelif’s testosterone levels are. We don’t know if Khelif has a disorder of sex development (DSD). We do know she was assigned female at birth (likely based on visible genitals) and identifies as female. As such, referring to her as a man/him is not called for, even if she should be barred from women’s sports.
Additionally, I think some DSDs for XY people are considered intersex conditions, such as 5-ARD and Swyer Syndrome. The former results in high levels of testosterone, the latter does not.
He is reported to be XY
Great use of the passive voice. But the only source for that report is from the IBA from last year.
He is NOT intersex. He is not XXY,
We don’t actually know whether he’s XXY, but since that — Klinefelter — is not normally considered intersex, I don’t know why you bring that up. There are several flavors of intersex.
“corrupt and opaque IBA process ”
The IOC is also corrupt and opaque.
No you are ignorant. Was the dick amputated at birth? You do not know. Or is you telepathy that fine-tuned. And event if it was that does not make him a woman. You are the ignorant, ideologically fixated one. Now if a trans man wants to compete in men’s boxing, I am all for it.
There is no evidence that anything was amputated.
That’s not what your wife says
This is not the kind of thing normal people blithely speculate about.
Don’t be weird.
Why are people using the word “weird” so much lately? Seeing you do it too suggests to me this must be another one of those team efforts. What’s the code?
1. Been using it for a long time. The national party only just now got on board.
2. Hit dog hollers.
3. Randomly speculating ‘Was the dick amputated at birth? You do not know” is at baseline weird thing to do.
The boxer is male and was banned by the IBA for that reason.
The boxer was banned by the IBA because the IBA is corrupt. (So corrupt that it was stripped of its authority, for reasons unrelated to this boxer.)
She is not trans. That should be obvious, because she’s Algerian — not a country famous for its wokeness.
We do not actually know, David. But I will say I am greatly troubled by the negative social media avalanche happening to her. The IOC issued a very strong and forthright statement.
One note: A genetic test answers the question, definitively. Not hard to do.
The fact that the relevant test is so cheap and easy, and they haven’t reported the results yet, is sufficient basis to presume that the boxer is actually a “he”. Because if they thought the result would be XX, they’d break the sound barrier getting that test taken and reported.
Simple case of woke idiots parroting the latest woke BS.
A woke person not even trying to be honest, just bat-sh__ crazy.
Uh huh. How did that argument work out for you with Obama’s birth certificate? Oh yeah: it made you look so dumb that you had to come up with a second, even more ridiculous conspiracy theory that Obama deliberately held back his birth certificate as part of a 15D chess strategy to make Republicans look stupid.
In light of human chimeras, it’s not even certain that a genetic test would definitively answer the question of XX versus XY.
Right, she is not trans. She is a man.
Trump said s/he “transitioned”, which is false.
Everything else is speculation at this point. But, you go girl!
You stick with the IBA’s Russian clowns, Don Nico (and other clingers). You’ll feel just as confident with them as you do with Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, Marjorie Taylor Green, Lauren Boebert, and the other MAGA dipshits.
The IBA specifically said they did not test for testosterone. You are just spreading misinformation. Be better.
” The IBA specifically said they did not test for testosterone. ”
The IBA reportedly also repeatedly referred to high testosterone levels. That’s the type of conduct — especially from a Putin front organization — that appeals to people such as Don Nico, XY, Bellmore, Roger S, Bob from Ohio, and a bunch of disaffected right-wing law professors (and a former law professor who is now a right-wing mouthpiece for hire).
This has been a very revealing thread.
The usuals on her have shifting criteria, and are in a better to be sure than correct mode re: the facts.
This is not in keeping with having a particular idea about gender or sex or biology. It is in keeping with wanting to attack an outgroup.
[I like the idea of hormone levels being the discriminator in professional sports. Not chromosomes or genitals or gender identity. That’s still not an easy criteria, still.
But step one is to have a process. Not whatever this angry mob of weirdos is.]
this angry mob of weirdos is
A very accurate description of all the people in these comments that are absolutely sure the Algerian boxer was born with male genitalia. And, in echoes of Trump, essentially takes Russia’s word for it (the IBA being a Russia-directed organization).
Maybe it’s okay, even on the internet, to have some humility about what the facts are. And to recognize that there are, in fact, complicated issues of gender that don’t easily fit in a binary system. (And I agree with bernard, gender segregated sports do require some sort of transparent, respectful, objective test.)
They are science-disdaining dopes, disaffected right-wing culture war casualties, superstition-addled bigots, antisocial misfits, and Republicans. What would you expect from them?
piece of shit being edgy again!
Senate Judiciary advances appellate judges as GOP fumes over White House negotiations
The Senate Judiciary Committee, the first line of defense for White House court nominees, for years followed a longstanding tradition which gave home state senators the opportunity to object to would-be federal judges with jurisdiction over their constituents. The process, known as blue slipping, was designed in part to encourage compromise on nominees.
Under then-President Donald Trump, however, the Senate’s Republican majority stepped away from the blue slipping process for appellate nominees — advancing several circuit court judges with no Democratic input. When Democrats seized control of the Senate in 2020, they signaled their intent to continue that trend while still honoring blue slips for lower court appointments.
https://www.courthousenews.com/senate-judiciary-advances-appellate-judges-as-gop-fumes-over-white-house-negotiations/
#ETTD
“I know we don’t have a blue slip for the circuit court,” [Marsha Blackburn] said. “I’m not asking for veto power or to handpick a candidate … what we have asked for the basic courtesy of providing that advice and consent of working with the White House.”
Eh, this is show outrage. See also GWB.
McConnel was awful and good at his job.
Quick question.
What do you call someone who keeps people prisoner against their will, and against court orders, in legally substandard living accommodations, while having these people do manual labor at wages that a pittance (and well below the minimum wage, less than $1 an hour).
And when the court orders these prisoners release, this person and their officials argue “We need the super-cheap labor these people are providing, we can’t let them go”
What would you call such a person?
I would call them, the current Democratic Nominee for President. It’s 1852, all over again. Some things never go out of style for the Democrats.
You folks are going to go at Harris for being too mean to convicts?
I mean, infidelity might be better!
That’s just Armchair. He’s in a perpetual state of just discovering our criminal justice system is bad.
Though calling Harris a slaveowner is one of his stupider takes.
What else do you call someone who keeps prisoners in substandard accomodations against their will, and against court orders for their release, while demanding they work?
If the shoe fits….
Substandard accommodations!
Yeah, you don’t really know much about California’s prison crisis, that’s been going on for decades.
I’d say maybe check into the actual facts (https://calmatters.org/justice/2022/12/california-prisons-reform/) is a pretty readable source). But being well informed has never been your thing.
Same as J6, and Kelley, and all sorts of other criminal law in America stuff that you get mad about; you *never* call for systemic reforms. Just special pleading and attacks on liberals.
You walk up to actual problems and then at the last minute look away so you can punch left. That sucks. You’re just a bad faith machine looking for outrages at this point.
Got it. You’re pro-slaver Kamala.
Great jerb reading and responding to my comment. What a serious person you are.
The thing that makes this obviously insincere is that the convicts in question were all guilty; the order for them to be released was to lessen prison overcrowding. And Armchair is pretending to be upset. But when there are actually innocent people in prison, you don’t hear him getting upset.
This new conservatism is amazing to me. Taking up the Democrat mantle of the middle class; Joe Sixpack Union guys; now prisoner rights? What’s next? Pro-abortion?
Don’t forget the discovery of due process when the billionaire President is on trial!
Irrelevant to the Harris offense. She was a shitty AG.
HOW many drive-by comments to shit on Harris have you done this thread?
You really hate her.
She was a s—- AG She is a S___ VP She is a crappy border czar.
Tell us what she has actually accomplished with resorting to woke talking points.
Never seen this passion about Trump. Or Biden. Or Obama. Or anyone else.
resorting to woke talking points. See, what the fuck is this?
Your complaints are quite general, and yet you have a special issue with her. Might it be your fears about her position re: Israel?
You give him too much credit. This is all just hysteria because Trump looks much less likely to win than he did a short while ago.
Trumpkins forgot that Trump was a very unpopular President and remains underwater on approval. It wasn’t that people supported Trump, it was that they supported Trump more than the equally-unpopular Joe Biden.
They seem have mistaken “I prefer Trump to Biden” for “I like Trump” and so are shocked that, when given someone else, they aren’t dependable Trump supporters.
But it helps explain why they will, once again, lose their minds if he loses for a second time.
Drive-by, *yawn* I don’t hate the woman. I did not think she is competent to be president. I think it was Nixon who said that you can’t hate someone that you don’t respect.
Sure *yawn.* You just posted lots and lots of short shitposts with contentless bile about her this morning.
Normal stuff.
I did not think she is competent to be president.
And yet, you’ve also said that you would support RFK Jr., who is manifestly unqualified to be president, so it’s hard to credit your assessment of Harris. Trump is unfit, of course. And while I like what I know about Chase Oliver, he’s not a serious candidate. Nor, obviously, is Jill Stein or Cornel West.
So Harris — as unimpressive as she has been, and I agree that she’s not all that much — clears the low bar of being the only plausible choice.
And you’re in a perpetual state of not caring who is making it bad, if they happen to be Democrats.
Just non-violent convicts. Those are the ones she can get cheap labor out of.
The violent convicts…too hard to prosecute. Can’t put out there doing yard work.
I don’t get it, maybe because I haven’t had to speak Ebonics for a while. So what does her Mean personality have to do with the possibility of her being convicted in a court of law? For what? I’d start with “Accessory to Murder” in the murder of Laken Riley (“Lincoln Riley” in Joe Biden-ese) I’m not saying Cums-a-lot fucked Laken’s Murderer, and played a role in his being released twice from Custody, that’s for the Jury to decide. A Prosecutor would never bring such a case and a Grand Jury would never Indict? You don’t know North Jaw-Jaw
No people are going after her for involuntary servitude. Plus her response was grossly offensive to the rule of law.It is amazing that you defend the indefensible.
Kamala Harris’s views on the criminal justice system are abysmal. But to the extent that she was involved in mitigating the damage from Brown v. Plata, that’s one thing she did right, and trying to mendaciously attack her from the left is bad politics in service of bad policy.
In other words (and I say this as someone who is about to vote for Trump for the first time because we really have no other choice): please, please stop helping.
we really have no other choice
This is nonsense, surprising coming from you. You may consider Harris incompetent to be President, but that doesn’t justify voting for the incompetent, completely dishonest, ignorant, bigoted, would-be autocrat, sack of shit that calls itself Donald Trump.
THIS ISN’T ABOUT DONALD TRUMP!!!
It is for you. But can you grasp that, for many others, it isn’t?
I’m not sure what the “THIS” is supposed to refer to. The election obviously is about Donald Trump. And Kamala Harris. And the conversation obviously is also about Donald Trump, because the person bernard was responding to — Noscitur a sociis — said, “I say this as someone who is about to vote for Trump for the first time because we really have no other choice.”
The election, for Democrats, is about Donald Trump. For people voting for Trump, it’s mainly about Democratic policies.
Haha you have it reversed. But then you’ve been shy-but-MAGA since you started here.
Have you read this blog? Or the Internet? The right’s been obsessed with Biden, and are now pivoting to Harris.
Tellingly, the right hasn’t settled on what exactly about Harris they don’t like, and it’s all personal stuff. She’s a DEI hire? Or maybe a slut? Or she didn’t solve the border crisis. Or I guess she’s a Communist? Or maybe hates Israel. And she changes her race to hustle the woke. Policy…does not come up much. Unless you count the folks who yell DEI and Marxism like they’re on a street corner. The right *only* makes it personal.
Meanwhile re: Trump, it’s things he did. Crimes, attempted coup, etc. And specific things he plans to do. Target immigrants, raise tariffs to rates that will wreck the economy, abuse his power for revenge.
Contrast all this with Noscitur, who says he’s voting for Trump but is basing it on policy. I *strongly* disagree with him on both the cost-benefit and on criminal justice. But note how he contrasts with literally everyone else here re: Harris.
And then consider your original thesis.
“someone who is about to vote for Trump for the first time”
I have to be honest with you, I thought about this all day today and it was seriously depressing and distressing. For a number of reasons I view you as one of the more reasonable individuals in this deranged space. Bracing to think about.
Well, all the usual suspects are in fine fettle this morning.
Yeah, we have fun.
Just like you do always posturing like you’re above all this useless posting. Right before you become one of the emptiest name-callers around here.
Bumble is short and to the point. And you, not.
Donald Trump has unilaterally “terminated” his participation in the presidential candidates’ debate which is scheduled for September 10 on ABC News. https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112896042195717073
I can understand why a career perpetrator is reluctant to debate a career prosecutor.
…of course the venue has nothing to do with it. Can’t blame Trump for not wanting a network that features George Fullocrapolous to host a debate. Why did the career prostitute reject Fox as a host?
Can’t blame Trump for not wanting a network that features George Fullocrapolous to host a debate.
Setting aside the juvenile name calling: then why did Trump agree to it a few months ago? Was he so senile that he had forgotten that George Stephanopoulos worked there?
Sorry to have upset your delicate sensibilities by accurately describing the Democrat sycophant posing as a journalist. We did Harris dismiss a debate hosted by Fox?
“why”
[Why] did Harris dismiss a debate hosted by Fox?
You mean why did Harris not let Trump unilaterally set all the terms of a debate — venue, moderators, rules, format, etc. — after he backed out of one planned according to the terms he had actually already agreed to? Gee, that’s a tough one.
“why did Trump agree to it a few months ago?”
To debate Harris? When did he agree to that?
Trump agreed to debate Biden. Not Harris.
False. He agreed to debate anyone and everyone who met the formal criteria.
Trump’s response was: “I accept the ABC News Debate against Crooked Joe on September 10th. Thank you, DJT!”
That might have been what Trump tweeted. Or whatever silly name Truthsocial uses for tweeting. But that was an announcement, not the actual negotiations. The actual negotiations were done by the campaigns, and were formal and had an entire set of rules agreed to.
Here are the parameters from ABC. No candidates are mentioned by name
https://abc.com/news/adaaae86-2621-41c7-b8f3-33a5215783f2/category/1138628
Right. It does not say anything about Trump having agreed to those terms.
What are you talking about? You believe that Trump didn’t agree to the rules for a debate he agreed to do? How does that work?
At the risk of doing other peoples’ homework, why do those terms carry a date which was after Biden announced he was withdrawing from the 2024 race?
That’s when the story was published, not when the agreement was reached. The agreement was reached back in May.
“The actual negotiations were done by the campaigns…”
It sure sounds like you’re saying that the Trump campaign made an agreement with the Biden campaign.
Are you contending that the Trump campaign didn’t have the authority to speak for Trump?
Sigh. No, I’m saying the opposite. With whom are you contending that Trump made the agreement, if not Biden?
CNN and ABC.
“Career prosecutor”
Not really. Unless ≈3 years of chasing minor cases constitutes being a “career prosecutor” these days.
Is that as true as everything else you have said, tylertusta?
After graduating law school in 1989, Kamala Harris went to work in 1990 for the Alameda County District Attorney’s office. In February 1998 she moved to the San Francisco District Attorney’s office, where she served as chief of the Career Criminal Division, supervising five other attorneys, where she prosecuted homicide, burglary, robbery, and sexual assault cases. In 2004 she took office as District Attorney for San Francisco, where she served until taking office as Attorney General of California in 2011. She held that position until becoming a U. S. Senator in 2017.
You mean where I’m right more often than not?
Kamala worked as an actual, honest-to-god prosecutor from 1990 until 1994 when she was appointed to the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and the California Medical Assistance Commission for a few months. Then she was appointed to the Medical Assistance Commission for a 4-year term.
In 1998, after her stint on the medical board she was hired by the SFDA to head up the “Career Criminal Division” where she supervised other prosecutors. She was only there for two years but there is no evidence that in her position as a supervisor that she ever took a case to trial herself.
Two years after her departure she ran as the SF DA herself and won, but did not bring cases to trial herself. She later became the AG of California.
Most of her career as a prosecutor was either management or as an elected official.
Her experience as an actual, honest-to-god line prosecutor that brought cases to trial was just three years, and she likely only prosecuted minor cases or was supervised by a more experienced prosecutor.
So, no, Trump isn’t worried about a “career prosecutor” that spent most of her career not personally prosecuting anyone.
Do you claim that supervising other prosecuting attorneys, investigators and support staff is somehow not prosecuting?
That is just absurd. Criminal prosecution includes much more than in court work.
In the context of your statement about Trump being reluctant to debate a career prosecutor, she is woefully under-experienced based on her career history.
Put Trump against a 20+ year line prosecutor and he might actually be worried.
Criminal prosecution includes much more than in court work.
Indeed it does. In Harris’s case, that work includes banging her patron and collecting a salary from the hook-ups jobs he got for her.
“20+ year line prosecutor”
Why? Its a different skill set.
Absolutely.
Someone who has a limited experience as a line prosecutor like Harris isn’t anything special. She’s a politician first and foremost so she’s no different from anyone else that Trump has debated.
Except that she may have an overly-inflated ego from being a “prosecutor.”
He’s waddling scared of her for some reason…
Ng, That could be true but also it might not. Supervising good scientists does not necessarily make one a good scientist. Yes, it could, but it need not.
That’s a bullshit interpretation of what happened here. The accurate characterization is that Joe Biden unilaterally terminated his participation in the presidential candidates’ debate by dropping out of the race. Trump never agreed to a debate with Harris on this date and this venue. A different debate opponent changes things. Harris has rejected Trump’s invitation to a debate. Why don’t you mention that?
Who said “anytime, anywhere?”
It’s kind of a waste of time if you guys just switch candidates every time you lose a debate.
A) Why would it be a “waste of time” to get two hours of free national tv airtime to get his own message out to voters? Would it take too much time away from his busy schedule of playing golf and lying about how he did?
B) Once she’s formally nominated — which would be long before the second scheduled debate — state laws would make it almost impossible to simply choose to switch candidates.
How does the new debate opponent change things?
He’s scared of this one.
keep telling yourself that. But he should debate both Harris and RFK on the same stage.
Joe Biden, who the right claims has had dementia his entire Presidency, wiped the floor with Trump in 2020.
I don’t see Trump doing any better this time around given his obvious mental decline, forgetfulness, and hostile relationship with facts.
Unless the rules say he can interrupt, continue talking over her, etc.
What do you think, Don? That he’s eager to debate Harris on equal terms?
I don’t. All that crap about it not being Biden so it doesn’t count is bullshit. The guy is afraid to debate Harris, or probably anyone else, period, and came up with some nonsense to dodge it.
I can understand his fear. He did a truly crappy job in the Biden debate, and was only saved by how badly Biden performed. In fact, you don’t have to be any kind of great debater to trounce him.
Bernard, I think that the two should debate with Mr Kennedy on the stage. The highly democratic efforts to keep him off the ballot are unacceptable.
Deflection.
Trump never agreed to a debate with Harris on this date and this venue. A different debate opponent changes things.
1) No, it doesn’t change things.
2) That’s not in fact what Trump agreed to. Trump agreed to a certain set of ground rules for the two debates. The ground rules specified criteria for candidates to participate. (In theory, RFK Jr. could also have qualified; nobody else could realistically have done so. One had to qualify on a sufficient number of state ballots and poll at a certain level.) Trump assumed (as did we all) that Biden would be the other candidate that would qualify, but of course Biden dropped out and no longer will; instead, Harris is the other one who qualifies.
Harris does not qualify under those rules. She has not appeared on state ballots as a presidential candidate.
She has not appeared on state ballots as a presidential candidate.
Um, nobody has, yet. The ballots haven’t been printed. But the Democratic Party has secured ballot access in all 50 states, and she is the nominee of the Democratic Party.
Maybe Trump should wait to see whether Harris also drops out.
“and she is the nominee of the Democratic Party.”
Not yet.
“That’s not in fact what Trump agreed to. Trump agreed to a certain set of ground rules for the two debates.”
Cite? Who’d he agree with?
CNN, and then ABC. Someone here already posted a link to the ABC agreement in this thread.
There’s a link to ABC’s candidate requirement, but you’ve failed to produce any evidence that Trump agreed to debate everybody who met the requirements.
The most likely explanation is that there isn’t any.
You mean, he agreed to the terms but he didn’t agree to abide by those terms? What on earth are you trying to argue here?
Harris has agreed to debate JD Vance, however. It sounds like she’s going to chicken out of that arrangement.
“Donald Trump has unilaterally “terminated” his participation in the presidential candidates’ debate which is scheduled for September 10 on ABC News.”
Wow. The left is getting more dishonest than Trump. It was Biden that terminated his participation, not Trump. We all saw his speech.
Biden terminated Biden’s participation. Trump terminated Trump’s.
That’s going well…
Smotrich: Might be ‘justified and moral’ to cause 2 million Gazans to die of hunger, but world won’t let us
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/smotrich-might-be-justified-and-moral-to-cause-2-million-gazans-to-die-of-hunger-but-world-wont-let-us/
You may not like this, but seiges are ordinary tools of war, and have occurred many times in the late 20th and 21st century. Sieges were employed in the Gulf Wars, in Afghanistan, in Ukraine (by Ukrainians as well as Russians), and elsewhere.
Gazans are not special people somehow exempt from the ordinary usages of war and the ordinary consequences of attacking another nation. What is ordinary and customary when other nations do it remains ordinary and customary when Israelis do it.
Dare I point out that Western countries have aresenals of nuclear weapons? What do you think those weapons would be used for, and what do you think would happen if they were used?
War is hell. People get killed. If you don’t like the ordinary and customary consequences of war, don’t start one.
The people of Gaza didn’t start any war, Hamas did. And either way, violations of the laws of war are neither ordinary nor customary, nor should we tolerate any claims to the contrary.
Yes, they did. The people of Gaza are more than willing participants; a strong majority supports Judeocide. And we should not tolerate any claims to the contrary.
The *babies* in Gaza are more than willing participants?
“a strong majority supports Judeocide.”
Holy crap, you don’t consider yourself a libertarian do you?
Round up the babies and take them to orphanages in Tel Aviv and raise them as Jews.
Then kill everyone else.
Pretty much what we did in Japan — and it worked.
Even substituting other names for “Tel Aviv” and “Jews”, that has absolutely no resemblance to the occupation of Japan after World War II.
Once Dr. Ed found out that we nuked Japan, it gave him a hard on that still hasn’t subsided; you couldn’t expect him to read anything beyond that.
David,
It’s very clear that Dr. Ed is psychotic. I mean really psychotic. He is a murderous fool (fortunately he actually lacks the ability to murder anyone) who is out of touch with reality.
When he’s not calling for mass murder he is making up “facts.”
Eh, it’s the Internet. Who is to know. I read him as being obsessed with getting a reaction, which makes him *act* psychotic.
But none of us has the expertise or frankly the information (VC is a narrow aperture) to really know what’s up with the guy.
Something’s up for sure, though.
Dr. Ed 2 is pretty much Cliff Clavin from Cheers with anonymity encouraging him to talk murder.
And yet, the really sad thing is that he may not be among the ten worst commenters here.
Babies get killed in all wars. What the hell are you arguing for? Oh, I know. Jews are forbidden to defend themselves. Fortunately they know what “never again” means.
…and just what is Hamas? Seems they were elected by the people of Gaza to govern.
With a *plurality* of the vote.
*of the vote of the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank.
They only won in Gaza, with a plurality.
Look, they are in control of Gaza effectively. They launched a murderous attack on Israel. Israel is justified in their goal of eliminating them.
My only qualm is, just as if a terrible guy was holed up in his house with his kids, wife and dog I think law enforcement has a duty to take all available, reasonable steps to avoid harming the latter in apprehending the former, so does Israel (and the US, or France or anyone else) have the same duty in eliminating Hamas. This can be mediated by Hamas’ terrible combat behavior, but it cannot be *entirely waved away.*
If said terrible guy is killing people in the neighborhood and can’t be stopped from doing so?
No, they’d level the house. Or block.
Remember Philadelphia and MOVE back in the ’80s? Or the FBI in Waco?
Yes, everyone agrees that we should do more to emulate what happened at Waco!
The 1985 MOVE bombing was an even worse model for police action: excessive force and constitutional violations.
Like the current governments in the UK and France?
Don’t even get me started about the UK’s terrible election system. I complained plenty about that on this blog after the election.
And in France they’re still trying to figure out how to put together a government that is supported by a majority of the electorate.
Martin, they are French. They have a glass of wine and kvetch a lot. What did Macron expect?That
No they were not. Hamas took over control of the Gaza strip in a coup in 2007, because they didn’t like the previous democratically elected coalition government with Fatah.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_government_in_the_Gaza_Strip#Takeover_by_Hamas
“Fatah”
Another terrorist organization.
The people of Gaza vote for terrorists any way you slice it.
Hamas is the democratically-elected and popularly-supported government of Gaza.
No it is not. It might be popular, but it’s certainly not democratically elected.
You mean like the PA in the West Bank and Maduro in Venezuela? Are you saying the 2007 election wasn’t democratic?
The 2007 election was as democratic as it was ever going to be, but it’s not the reason why Hamas rules in Gaza today. They rule in Gaza because they have lots of guns that they are more than happy to point at the civilian population, just like Maduro in Venezuela.
So they are illegitimate and should not be recognized or supported in any way?
Indeed, which has been the policy of the US and the EU since 2007. In fact, in both countries Hamas is on various terrorism lists.
In the last election that Gaza held, Hamas won.
Literally democracy.
An illiberal shadow of a democracy perhaps, but given Hamas’s ongoing and steady popular support in Gaza, I see no reason to doubt the outcome.
Leaving to one side that that’s not true (see above), that’s not how democracy works. You don’t get to have one election and then stop.
As I just said:
That is because there neither Hamas nor Fatah believe in democracy
Is what Israel is doing to Gaza different than what the Red Army did to Germany?
Is this sarcasm or do you want the model to be…the Soviets?
I, for one, think too much of Israel for that.
The Israelis aren’t raping as many civilians. But I’m not sure why you think that’s relevant. Lots of things happened during World War II that we all decided, afterwards, shouldn’t be legal going forwards. Hence the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
You could just as easily say that the people of Germany and Japan didn’t start a war, the Nazis and the Emperor did.
Sorry, it just doesn’t work that way. You claim to be a state, you take state-like actions like waging war, you get treated like a state. You can’t suddemly claim not to be a state when it’s inconvenient.
As with the Nazis in Germany, Hamas was elected as a minority government. The fact that, as with the Nazis in Germany, Hamas subsequently took over the whole thing by a coup doesn’t change the fact that it’s the government of Gaza. You can’t keep quoting the “Gaza Ministry of Health,” for example, and then try to pretend that it isn’t part of Hamas.
This idea that unless a government is strictly democratically elected, it somehow gets to avoid the consequences of losing a war is pretty lame stuff. Do you claim that, because Putin wasn’t democratically elected (he keeps jailing and assassinating his rivals), that means Russians have no responsibility and Ukraininan all attacks on Russia that kill civilians are unlawful genocide? Of course you don’t.
Yes. And their respective armies. Which is why the laws of war allow you to shoot at the enemy army, but not at civilians.
None of this is complicated, at least not at this level of abstraction. Why are you pretending that I’m trying to persuade you of something really strange?
What “army” was Churchill aiming at when he ordered the fire bombing of Dresden?
For the umpteenth times: We changed the law after World War II because we all decided that things like the bombardment of Dresden were barbaric and shouldn’t be tolerated in the future.
There are no laws in war except the ones the winner decides on.
Correct.
There are just customs. No Arab army or group obeys these customs. No need for Israel to do so.
See how that “we will do whatever the fuck we want” attitude works out for you after a decade or so of Trumpism has run the US economy into the ground and burnt all its bridges abroad. There was a time when the Dutch and the British used to go around the world blowing things up whenever they wanted to. But they (re)discovered the merits of a rules-based international community right quick in the 20th century.
Yes, the legally elected government of the Gaza strip started a war. When people choose a government and support it (maybe even with a gun to their head), they get what they get.
support it (maybe even with a gun to their head)
Wait, what?
they get what they get
No. Neither in a democratic country nor in a dictatorship do you get to shoot at the civilian population, no matter how much they support their government.
This is not hard people!
Uh, yes. The gazans elected hamas. Hamas dragged their sorry asses to war. They willingly participated in the pogrom, and glorify it to this day, and gleefully assert they’d help hamas do it again.
They made their choice. Now die with it. Or surrender.
As a reminder: hamas can end this war today by releasing the hostages, and surrendering. As you say, it is not hard.
So you can shoot at the civilian population…
How can you tell if they’ve surrendered?
No one is deliberately shooting at civilians otherwise there would be twice as many casualties. However, civilians are used as human shields and regrettably many get killed. The thoughtless application of the UN decisions after WWII would mean that no country gets to defend itself. If we are to believe the Gazan Ministry of health only 1500 people have been killed in Gaza in the past several weeks and clearly (sarc) none of those are Hamas combatants. You do just get to say, Israel has to stop shooting; you have to say what happens after that. And we all know that the Palestinian position is no Jews in Palestine. Point to a sufficiently well know and popular Palestinian leader who admits that the Jew get at least the land of the 1948 partition; tell us how this fellow accomplishes this “solution.” Then we can talk. The big difficulty is that there is no common ground for talking except by people who don’t live there.
So the only immorality at Mai Lai was the VC’s fault?
That wasn’t as clear cut as it seems — there WERE VC there who fled.
Blah…blah… blah It was called a massacre.
Gazans are not special people somehow exempt from the ordinary usages of war and the ordinary consequences of attacking another nation.
They are also not exempt from the protection of the laws of war.
It’s interesting how many of the hard-core supporters of Israel’s current/recent government’s actions like to scream anti-Semitism while seeming to hold Palestinian lives very cheaply, at best. Accusations and confessions?
Keep your eyes and ears shut, it improves your posts.
It’s a shame that no solution exists to make yours worthwhile.
…and neither are Israelis.
Indeed. Which is why, for example, the prosecutor of the ICC is trying to prosecute three Hamas leaders.
Well they’d better hurry before the Mossad does it for them.
Terrorists come under their own rules. Like rabid dogs, they are not protected — the official term is “unlawful combatant.”
And a 3 year old can be a terrorist — and often is. “Here, go give those soldiers this grenade…”
“And a 3 year old can be a terrorist — and often is”
Above you advocated “rounding up the babies” but I’m gathering from this comment you don’t think that 3 year old children should be spared? In your murderous fantasies what would be the age cutoff? 18 months?
Setting aside whether blowing up soldiers is actually terrorism, and also setting aside whether it is proper to describe someone with no mens rea a “terrorist,” is there evidence that this has ever happened, let alone that it “often” happens?
Ottoman Turkish law of real property, which the British kept in Mandatory Palestine and which Israel inherited when it became a country, emphasizes record title and does not have a concept of adverse possession or customary posession as Anglo-Aerican law does. As was the case in England during the era of the Inclosure Acts, a significant number of inhabitants held land without record title. In addition, a large numbef of Arabs who fled the 1948 war settled in various parts of the West Bank, including abandoned/conquored Jewish settlements and empty land, again with no formal title to the land they occupied.
The Israeli courts have, in general, been enforcing legal, record title, which many of the Arab inhabitants do not have, applying Ottoman law.
It seems to me that this situation has to be discussed with a certain amount of neutrality.
On the one hand, it it is understandable that the Israelis take umbrage at claims that they are “stealing” land; they are simply applying the existing law of the land, by which many of the Arab inhabitants of the land are, as that law sees it, squatters, with no legsl claim to the land they are occupying.
On the other hand, modern sentiments have generally not regarded the Inclosure Act era in England as particularly fair or just. From the late 17th into the early 20th century, land long held in common by peasants by customary law was assigned formal record title, which generally worked in favor of the local gentry, resulting in many peasants being dispossessed of land their families had occupied and worked for generations.
At the same time, it would be an extreme exaggeration to say that England committed “genocide” against its peasants. While it forced many to move to cities, it didn’t exactly kill them off.
Moreover, while the Inclosure Acts represented new law, a change in the law, Israel is applying existing Ottoman law, the law of the land, law that had been on the books for centuries but that the British and the Jordanians had tended to ignore.
The situation has to be described, I think, without hyperbole or intense ideological zealotry. By Anglo-American norms, with the concept of adverse possession tending to disfavor absentee record landlords, what the Israelis are doing would not be considered just. But the Israeli right is nonetheless correct in saying that what it is doing is perfectly legal, and that, by Ottoman law with its emphasis on record title and no adverse posession concept, many of the current inhabitants are legally squatters. Moreover, from its point of view , courts applying long-established law not of the Israelis’ making is neither theft nor genocide.
It seems to me that this issue has to be discussed without exaggerated hyperbole on either side.
*perfectly legal under Israeli law. Which they can change, and may have to in order to comply with international law.
in order to comply with international law
You must be kidding… As Prof. Blackman recently explained: “[T]he primary effect, if not purpose, of international law, is to use lawfare to punish Israel…”
If Blackman explained it, you know it must be wrong.
Article 17 1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
Alright, I want to own Trump Tower. I walk up to it, find a nice suite with an unlocked door, and occupy it. If the police kick me out, are they violating my “human right to own property?”Is the American law that says I don’t own it not in conformity with “international law?” Am I being “arbitrarily” deprived of “my” property? It’s certainly understandable that I would argue this. It’s also understandable that if you really, really hate Trump, you might look at my argument in a more favorable light than if I did this to someone you liked.
I think you need to start giving more nuanced answers. Spouting slogans and very high-level aphorisms just isn’t going to work here.
If the police kick me out, are they violating my “human right to own property?”
Given that nothing in your hypo involves you owning anything, I’m not sure why you think that’s a difficult question.
But yes, sometimes it is difficult to delineate the right to property. The same is true for other human rights. That is why we have (international) courts.
You don’t seem to have gotten the point. The decision to retain Ottoman law was inherited from the British mandate, which was set up under international law. I don’t think you grasp that the claim to legality is a serious one. You are spouting rhetorical answers rather than thinking seriously.
Moreover, if the British and then Israel had introduced a concept of adverse possession rather than sticking with Ottoman law and its focus on record title, that could have:
1. Increased civil unrest and strife by encouraging rather than discouraging people to use adverse possession to create “facts on the ground.” 2. Been just as likely to work in Jewish settler’s favor as Palestinian Arabs.
This is not as easy or as facile a situation as you are making it out to be.
Israel also retained the Ottoman millet system for family law.
Which has the effect of preventing Jews from marrying non-Jews, which is also all sorts of iffy.
They can go overseas [usually Cyprus], once they do, its recognized.
And now Zoom marriages.
Everything the Jews do is iffy to you, for some reason.
@Bob: Hang on, so you’re saying that if Zoom marriages had been available in the 1960s, Loving should have lost in Loving v. Virginia?
“In 1959, the Lovings were sentenced to prison for violating Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which criminalized marriage between people classified as “white” and people classified as “colored”.”
Which is a million miles away from just not allowing marriages IN Israel.
Otherwise, good comment!
You’re conflating entirely different things. In Virginia, the Lovings’ marriage was not unrecognized; it was illegal. They could be arrested, prosecuted, fined, or imprisoned for being married. (Indeed, they were, though they were given the choice of exile instead.) Zoom — had it existed — would have done nothing for them.
In Israel, interfaith marriages aren’t illegal; there’s just no way to enter into them within Israel’s borders (subject to the Zoom exception) because the concept of civil marriage doesn’t exist. But Israel recognizes marriages that were legal where they were entered into.¹ So gay marriages, interfaith marriages, and just plain ol’ civil marriages are fully recognized in Israel. Many people used to hop over to Cyprus, get married, and come back and have their marriages recognized — it’s only a one-hour flight — but now they can just get virtually married w/in Israel by someone in Utah and that’s also fine. ¹I assume there’s some sort of public policy exception so that someone who comes from a place where one can marry 5-year olds can’t have that recognized.
I’m not making anything out to be easy or facile. You posed a hypo, and I answered it. But it wasn’t a very good hypo.
In Massachusetts once title to a property has been determined in Land Court it becomes “registered land” and can not then be lost by adverse possession.
Title normally traces back to a grant from a sovereign. Are West Bank settlers and Jews in Israel claiming title based on a grant by Israel which considered the land unowned as of c. 1947 or 1967?
Israel is the occupying power in the West Bank, not the sovereign. So it’s not up to them to declare land unowned or not. (And I don’t understand ReaderY to be saying otherwise.)
Israel is the occupying power in the West Bank, not the sovereign. So it’s not up to them to declare land unowned or not.
Well, I don’t think anyone thinks the Ottoman Empire should have any say in the matter.
The Ottoman empire still has a great deal of say in quite a number of subjects. Israel applies Ottoman law on a number of subjects. The system of having religious groups responsible for things like marriages and divorces comes directly from the Ottoman millet system. There is an official state Rabbinate recognized as the sole authority for Jewish marriages and divorces. But there is also an offical state Sharia court system for Muslims, and ones for certain Christian denominations and some others. Jews that the Rabbinate doesn’t recognize as Jews aren’t the only ones who can have difficulty getting married. For example, if you belong to a Christian denomination that isn’t one of the officially recognized ones with its own state court system, you will also have difficulty.
Several former Ottoman territories retain versions of the system. For example, Greece retains recognized Sharia courts for its Muslim minority under a treaty that ended its conflict with Turkey a century ago.
ReaderY : “The Ottoman empire still has a great deal of say in quite a number of subject”
Two Points :
1. As I’ve noted before, Israel has total control over a large section of the West Bank. In that area the Israelis issued just 33 building permits for Palestinians between 2017 and 2021. The Ottomans can’t take the fall for that one; the Isreali government doesn’t want Palestinians building anything, not even families who have lived on the same land for generations. Therefore they weaponized government to achieve that objective.
2. As for the parallel case of evicting Palestinians off land likewise long-inhabited, I really, really suspect the same is true. And there is a test: There were Jews living in the region before the formation of Israel. Large numbers of them probably had inadequate documentation per later laws. What are the odds their cases were treated the same as Palestinians?
I freely confess I don’t know. But I’d gauge the odds somewhere between zero and zero.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/defense-ministry-33-palestinian-structures-given-permits-in-last-5-years/
“So it’s not up to them to declare land unowned or not.”
In fact it is. Its Judea and Samaria, part of Eretz Yisrael, no matter what the UN or ICJ or international “law” might think.
Not even Israel is claiming that the West Bank is part of Israel.
Basically, the current Israeli government is regarding West Bank land which was owned by or reverted to the Sultan under Otoman law as land owned by the state, and the descendents of Arabs who fled.Israel in 1948 and settled there as squatters.
I think the best claim of people like Martinned2 is that Israel shouldn’t be doing that. Just as Hamas is acting like a sovereign when convenient and then claiming not to be one when convenient, the current Israeli government is conveniently acting like a sovereign here by in effect claiming to be a successor to the Sultan and able to dispose of the Sultan’s land as it sees fit, while disclaiming sovereignty in other ways when that’s convenient.
On the other hand, Israeli courts have regularly enforced Palestinian land claims when they have record title.
Israel should mind the shop and avoid creating faits accomplis on the ground.
https://www.icrc.org/en/document/ihl-occupying-power-responsibilities-occupied-palestinian-territories
Though the laws of occupation are contained in various IHL instruments and sources, occupation law rules generally share the same reasoning, which is based upon four basic, general principles: First, the Occupying Power does not acquire sovereign rights to the occupied territory. It therefore may not effect changes in the status and intrinsic characteristics of the occupied territory. Second, occupation is a temporary situation. In this regard, the Occupying Power must maintain the status quo ante and must not adopt policies or measures that would introduce or result in permanent changes, particularly in the social, economic and demographic sphere. As a result, the rights and duties set forth in occupation law of the Occupying Power are also temporary – they are limited to the duration of the occupation. These rules essentially require the Occupying Power, during the temporary period of the occupation, to maintain as normal a life as possible in the occupied territory and to administrate the territory for the benefit of the local population, while taking into account its own security needs. Third, the rules of occupation law that govern the exercise of powers by the Occupying Power, always require it to take into account, and balance, two interests: its own military needs and, simultaneously, the needs of the local population. This balance should be reflected by the Occupying Power in the way it administers an occupied territory and more generally in all the actions it takes and the policies it implements in that territory. Importantly, while this balance may sometimes be decided in favour of the security needs of the Occupying Power, the rules of the law of occupation never allow the Occupying Power to completely discount the needs of the local population in the actions it takes. Fourth, the rules of the law of occupation generally do not allow the Occupying Power to exercise its authority in order to further its own interests (other than its military interests), or with a view to using the inhabitants, the resources, or other assets of the territory it occupies for the benefit of its own territory or population.
Though the laws of occupation are contained in various IHL instruments and sources, occupation law rules generally share the same reasoning, which is based upon four basic, general principles:
First, the Occupying Power does not acquire sovereign rights to the occupied territory. It therefore may not effect changes in the status and intrinsic characteristics of the occupied territory.
Second, occupation is a temporary situation. In this regard, the Occupying Power must maintain the status quo ante and must not adopt policies or measures that would introduce or result in permanent changes, particularly in the social, economic and demographic sphere. As a result, the rights and duties set forth in occupation law of the Occupying Power are also temporary – they are limited to the duration of the occupation. These rules essentially require the Occupying Power, during the temporary period of the occupation, to maintain as normal a life as possible in the occupied territory and to administrate the territory for the benefit of the local population, while taking into account its own security needs.
Third, the rules of occupation law that govern the exercise of powers by the Occupying Power, always require it to take into account, and balance, two interests: its own military needs and, simultaneously, the needs of the local population. This balance should be reflected by the Occupying Power in the way it administers an occupied territory and more generally in all the actions it takes and the policies it implements in that territory. Importantly, while this balance may sometimes be decided in favour of the security needs of the Occupying Power, the rules of the law of occupation never allow the Occupying Power to completely discount the needs of the local population in the actions it takes.
Fourth, the rules of the law of occupation generally do not allow the Occupying Power to exercise its authority in order to further its own interests (other than its military interests), or with a view to using the inhabitants, the resources, or other assets of the territory it occupies for the benefit of its own territory or population.
Nobody cares.
Martin, All that you claim was offered by the UN in 1948. Arabs rejected that offer. As for the land that you call the West Bank, that was ruled by Jordan and was lost in a war. Now Jordan does not want it back. It was never governed by the so-called Palestinian entity. Now after the PLA rejected multiple land for peace offers, you can call Israel a squatter on abandoned land, but that is about as much of a legal claim that Abbas gets to make.
I said nothing about the legal powers that should or should not belong to anyone or anything other than the Israeli government. As you say, that is to be decided in a future peace agreement.
Yesterday thawed out some Costco tuna steaks and marinated them in soy sauce and lime juice. Grilled to medium rare on white-hot cast iron stove-top grill pan. Topped with a fruit salsa of tiny dice cantaloupe, mango, peach, pineapple, jalapeno, red onion, cilantro, lime juice, olive oil. Fiesta rice had sauteed fresh corn niblets, red bell, jalapeno, red onion, cilantro. Oh man…this was freaking delicious
” Grilled to medium rare on white-hot cast iron stove-top grill pan. ”
How do you address your smoke detector?
Thank you.
They were removed immediately upon move-in…the annoying, useless fucking things
You intend to reinstall them when you have children, though?
Never had ’em, never will. I already pay enough just supporting Drackman’s brats
Let’s see, you’ve pretended to be a Veteran, a Snake Handler, and now you claim to pay Income Taxes? But even if I accept a person as totally devoid of talent as you gets paid to do something (my Brats(not arguing, it’s an accurate term) fly F-16/ FA-18/737, what do you do? Oh, and you’re welcome for the freedom you enjoy thanks in part to them
That does sound good, though I prefer my tuna with a rare center.
So, DS Llyod Austin under pressure nixed the plea deal with the 9/11 defendants in the Guantanamo Bay prison. The plea deal would have given the defendants a life sentence and brought closure to the case. Now, the defendants have a life sentence because they will never be tried. Only thing lacking is closure.
Yes, that’s what I said last week. It doesn’t really seem like the detainees really got anything out of that deal. Though it is ironic that they already had all of their other rights violated, so it’s fitting that they’re now having their plea deal arbitrarily revoked.
They might be able to force the government into accepting the terms of the deal anyways.
How?
Edit: to be a little more substantive: in civilian prosecutions, a defendant is generally only entitled to specific performance of a plea agreement if they can establish detrimental reliance, which seems almost inconceivable here given the timeline. I am not an expert in military tribunal law, but it would be somewhat surprising if they had a more defendent-friendly rule for this scenario.
“all of their other rights” means what?
Every single right?
I think “closure” is something for both sides.
BTW, where would they have served their sentence if the deal (which still might be made eventually) was completed? Would the state of their detention change any?
Under pressure from whom? Who thinks it is a good idea to prolong this sad, foolish, counterproductive misadventure?
What should we think about Nancy Pelosi proposing that Joe Biden be added to Mount Rushmore? The (de-)merits of the idea are clear enough, but why would she bring it up at all? Is the whole Democrat leadership going the way of Biden and Dianne Feinstein?
Perhaps they could add his butt cheeks on the other side
It sounds as crazy as the recent GOP introduced bill to put Trump on the $500 bill.
I actually support the proposal to put Trump’s name on a federal prison.
Hear, hear!
You made a typo. You wrote “on” instead of “in”.
First, who gives a fuck what you support, Second, there are plenty of Prisons named after Peoples, Sirhan Sirhan is in the “Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility near San Diego (if I had to go to prison, make it one near San Diego) along with the Menendez Brothers, Surge Knight, and former Manson Family Member “Tex” Watson. So name it after “45/47” maybe they can throw Mullah Ill-hand Omar and Priapism Slap-a-Jap in there before their Execution for Treason (after 40 years of appeals of course)
“Sirhan Sirhan”
Oy, this again.
And you left out the best example: the Bernard Kerik detention center in lower Manhattan (aka the tombs). Of course the name was changed back to something generic once Bernard himself was housed there for a time. I’m not positive since I don’t live there anymore— but I believe they are in the process of dismantling it.
Right by chinatown. Vietnamese food in Manhattan is pretty mid but if you have to have it— there are a few acceptable places on that block.
Speaking of Bernard— do you think Jenna Ellis has any receipts on him? I’m certain she does on his former boss. Can’t wait to find out— we are blessed to live in interesting times!
I think we should have a $500 bill in circulation. If the price of having one is Trump’s face, I can live with that.
Well it would make it easier to fill up or buy groceries with this transitory inflation.
As crazy as the trillion dollar coin?
It would be an acceptable bill if they just deleted the words “notwithstanding section 5114(b) of title 31”.
The better course might be to pair Obama and Biden at a single spot . . . the final spot.
THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY RACIAL SLUR SCOREBOARD (Northern California Edition)
This white, male, conservative blog with a misappropriated academic veneer — dedicated to creating and preserving safe spaces for America’s vestigial bigots — has operated for no more than
SEVEN (7)
days without publishing at least one explicit racial slur; it has published racial slurs on at least
THIRTY-FIVE (35)
occasions (so far) during 2024 (that’s at least 35 exchanges that have included a racial slur, not just 35 racial slurs; many Volokh Conspiracy discussions feature multiple racial slurs.)
These numbers likely miss some of the racial slurs this blog regularly publishes; it would be unreasonable to expect anyone to catch all of them.
This assessment does not address the broader, everyday stream of antisemitic, gay-bashing, misogynistic, immigrant-hating, Palestinian-hating, transphobic, Islamophobic, racist, and other bigoted content published at this faux libertarian blog, which is presented from the disaffected, receding right-wing fringe of American legal thought by members of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies.
Amid this blog’s stale and ugly thinking, here is one of the best guitar figures you could find — on a current coast-to-coast tour, for example.
Turning to the new top American tour, you missed the Winterland show, but you can catch the magic soon in the states, in Canada, and in Europe.
Today’s Rolling Stones gems:
First, a snappy pop hit you might not have heard before . . . but it crackles.
Next, the Stones’ creative process from another perspective.
(Which comes first . . . a new album or the European tour announcement?)
…and for those of you who aren’t into the Stones, something else for your mid-day enjoyment:
Earl Scruggs and the boys “Foggy Mountain Breakdown”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQIJuu3N5EY&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2F&source_ve_path=OTY3MTQ
…and yes that is Steve Martin sitting in.
I pointed to that one already. Try something original, clinger.
Since I usually ignore your comments I guess I missed it. It is still worth another listen. As for “original” you might try incorporating it in your comments since the ones I have looked at seem awfully repetitive.
Much like Mark Knopfler or Mick Taylor, Earl Scruggs stands placidly while his hands produce more (and better) than the average glam metal thrash hair guitarist, writhing and grimacing mightily while milking an E minor baby chord, could imagine.
Speaking of Earl Scruggs and Mark Knopfler . . .
Did anyone see that coming?
Some people are complaining that forgiving student loans is just a handout.
It’s not. People actually have to perform public service to have their loans forgiven.
Maybe we can’t afford to expand student loan forgiveness, but the receipients aren’t deadbeats who want money simply for breathing!
https://studentaid.gov/manage-loans/forgiveness-cancellation/public-service
Most of the people complaining about student debt forgiveness take handouts from better Americans every day. Educated, modern, reasoning Americans residing in strong, educated, successful communities have been subsidizing the inhabitants of our superstitious, bigoted, half-educated, desolate rural and southern backwaters — in myriad ways — for decades.
As a conservative, I don’t have much of a problem with student loans being wiped away following a tenure of public service.
What I have a problem with are all of the ones who don’t do public service and still want their debt forgiven.
That’s fine as long as it was part of the deal going in. “You take out these loans, and if you work in X jobs after you graduate, your debt will be forgiven after Y years.”
But I don’t think it’s equitable to reward people after the fact for having fortuitously chosen jobs that later came into favor.
I won’t argue with that. I don’t like it when government picks winners and losers this way.
What do you think about the United States government using money from educated, skilled, productive residents of educated, modern, strong, diverse communities in Connecticut, New Jersey, and blue state SMSAs to subsidize poorly educated, superstition-addled, indolent, economically inadequate, bigoted residents of shambling, eroding red state backwaters?
“public service”
Working for left wing NGOs is not public service.
I agree.
Regardless of that negligible difference, student loan forgiveness is an indefensible and terrible policy. It should never have happened.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-07-24/ty-article/israels-far-right-minister-ben-gvir-endorses-trump-says-biden-bowing-out-no-big-loss/00000190-e4c5-d469-a39d-e4d7a8270000
Another good reason to vote for Harris. Trump can get all the endorsements he likes from right wing Israelis, Putin, Xi Jinping, and Kim Jong Un and he will still not get my vote.
I expect better Americans to hold Israel’s right-wing jerks to account for a number of transgressions.
That Israelis — who have been operating and hiding behind American skirts for decades — have elected corrupt right-wing assholes; engaged in theocratic, bigoted government and commit war crimes; made support for right-wing belligerence a left-right divider in American politics; and aligned with the losing side of the American culture war is inexplicable. But I support the right of Israelis to make those calls.
It’s their funeral.
How long till better Americans hold you accountable for helping to ruin their country, AIDS…?
If the international system survives this new cold war, which seems increasingly unlikely by the day, do you think American liberals and progressives will be held accountable under it by the new global leaders?
If instead that system fails and America loses, do you reckon that American liberals and progressives will be held accountable Nuremberg-style (ie via the winners’ EX POST FACTO rule making and AD HOC courts?)
America’s liberal-libertarian mainstream has shaped for decades, and predictably will continue to shape, my nation’s progress against the wishes and efforts of deplorable, ignorant, superstitious, bigoted right-wing culture war casualties.
The conservative roadkill that huddles for warmth at the Volokh Conspiracy will get to whine and whimper about it as much as they like.
Until replacement.
You’re afraid.
You’re afraid of the global situation, its ramifications, and its possible/likely outcomes. That’s why you can’t respond to it and just talk about the domestic conflict instead.
Good.
Domestically, by the by, your fellow Americans are likely going to slaughter you and your loved ones. You’ve given them every reason to do so, after all.
The Associated Press latched onto this paragraph in the appendix to the government’s reply brief in the TikTok divestiture case:
One of those tools allowed ByteDance and TikTok employees in the United States and China to collect bulk user information based on the user’s content or expressions, including views on gun control, abortion, and religion.
This reminds me of the time a Chinese group was accused of harvesting resumes from LinkedIn. Somebody read the resume you posted! Aren’t you happy?
The docket is at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68506893/tiktok-inc-v-merrick-garland/
An Australian woman, a refugee from Afghanistan, has been sentenced to prison after ordering her daughter to marry a man recommended by a matchmaker. I gather the case was only prosecuted because the man later killed her daughter. The death is legally irrelevant because the crime was complete when the couple were married.
In Australia a “forced marriage” as defined in Division 270 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 is illegal.
A marriage is a forced marriage if one party to the marriage (the victim) entered into the marriage without freely and fully consenting: (a) because of the use of coercion, threat or deception; or (b) because the party was incapable of understanding the nature and effect of the marriage ceremony.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-07-29/shepparton-forced-marriage-mother-sentence/104153804
Interesting. But I’m not convinced that this is a very sound basis for finding “threat” in the case of a 21-year old woman:
The court heard Ms Haidari did not want to go through with the marriage but was told, “I can make decisions for you … no matter what, you need to listen to me”. Jan’s lawyers said she suffered “enduring grief” over the death of her daughter but continued to maintain her innocence. In sentencing remarks, Judge Dalziel said Jan had “abused” her power as a mother. She said Jan’s daughter was given an ultimatum to get married or face being kicked out of home.
The court heard Ms Haidari did not want to go through with the marriage but was told, “I can make decisions for you … no matter what, you need to listen to me”.
Jan’s lawyers said she suffered “enduring grief” over the death of her daughter but continued to maintain her innocence.
In sentencing remarks, Judge Dalziel said Jan had “abused” her power as a mother.
She said Jan’s daughter was given an ultimatum to get married or face being kicked out of home.
(Presumably it was a jury that made the finding of fact, so we’ll never know exactly why they believed that “threat” was proved.)
Superstition and ignorance are a bad — but natural — combination.
If the mother had any decent character she would have killed herself by now. Instead, she whines about imposition of accountability.
‘If the mother had any decent character she would have killed herself by now’.
I was just going to say the same thing about you, AIDS. Weird!
Speaking of weird . . . is it true that when people find coins in their couch cushions it generally demonstrates that J.D. Vance is a great tipper?
Whatever you’re referencing is lost on me there. Is Vance a cheap Jew or something?
What’s weird is that you think people would still have change to lose. What are you, like 80?
Ask one of the other knuckle-draggers to explain it for you.
At least you’ve admitted you’re a knuckle dragger…
Time for your afternoon nap and a cleaning out of your colostomy bag?
You seem unfamiliar with standard English.
Standard English is for Standard peoples, I thought you Homos believed in “Evil-lution”? well Languages Evolve, even if Species don’t, that’s why nobody goes around saying “Thou” or “Forthwith”(except for me, I love that word) anymore
It’s called ENGLISH, not Yankee Doodle dipshit, for a reason.
“If the mother had any decent character she would have killed herself by now. Instead, she whines about imposition of accountability.”
Right back at you, Arthur. No mention of accountability for the murderer, you sexist fuck?
And what’s she accountable for? She’s entitled to express her opinion to her daughter, and she’s under no obligation to house a 21-year old.
I see that you hate Muslims in addition to Jews.
Here’s another article about the case which gives more details, but doesn’t really answer your question.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victorian-bride-forced-to-marry-stranger-wanted-to-be-free-friend-tells-court-20211209-p59g2d.html
The daughter was age 20, which makes her an adult but not necessarily all that mature. Her family may not have seen any need to teach her the skills required to survive on her own, expecting her to live with them until she was married. So it’s possible that she felt that the threat to kick her out of the house if she didn’t get married left her no alternative to getting married.
Why is Whiteness bad and why should it be eradicated?
And what’s the difference between White and Whiteness?
Don’t forget White-adjacent and White presenting/passing.
JHBHBE, I have an honest question for you (based on your comments above and elsewhere): Are you not able to simultaneously hold two thoughts: 1. It is wrong (evil) to proclaim that “whiteness” is bad and must be eradicated. 2. It is wrong (evil) to incessantly rant about the Jews (or “international Zionism” or Protocols of the Elders of Zion or “Talmudic conspiracy,” etc, etc).
Ed,
If there are ideological activists out there trying to shape the world in a manner that you disagree with and believe is harmful to you and your kind, is it wrong to shine a light on their work?
Or is it only wrong because some of them happen to be Jewish?
FYI, the only people who seem to be saying that the claim of “Whiteness is wrong” is when some Leftist wants to silence criticism. These people with their genocidal rhetoric are practically mainstream and have institutional support.
And listen, I have changed my rhetoric to be more precise. I stopped ranting amd raving about Da Jew writ large, and have instead been more precise. The secular Globalists, many of whom are Jewish, and the Talmudic Zionists are bad people who are actively doing bad things.
I don’t harbor any grudge for any person for who they are. I harbor grudges for the evil shit they do.
And someone being Jewish doesn’t become immune from criticisms of their bad behavior just because they are Jewish. That’s just a Jewish trick. These Talmudians historically always the villians because of their vile, society harming behavior. Then the Shoah happened and they somehow manage to leverage that into some absurd perpetual immunity from any criticism.
Thus the Nazi Child….
I’m sorry for hurting your delicate Talmudic feelings. Would you like me to find some White Christian child for you to sacrifice to Moloch? Would that make you feel better?
Hi Jesus,
Several questions for you, if you’d be so kind.
1. Do you support the normalization of the teachings and followers of the warmongering illiterate pedophile prophet Mohammad (PHUH) in the West? (See also the last line in question 5.)
2. Given the collapsing ratios of whites to the groups in the world, do you think it best to try to fix those ratios? If so, then shouldn’t you support the Zios—unless you don’t consider them to really be white, that is?
3. You seem disinclined to support them because you suggest that the Talmud Kikestinians are ‘always’ the bad guy. How can that be so, in the face of the jihadis and their interactions with the Jihadis? (So, the Arab conquests of the 7th century onwards, including the theft and colonisation of Kikestine. The Turkish theft of Byzantine lands and colonization of SE Europe. The Persian empires and the Mogul colonisation of India. The Islamic slave trade of Black Africans and of Hindu Indians. SURELY the Muzzies were the villains in those contexts, not the Talmudic kikes they oppressed, whose narrative and Bible characters they culturally appropriated. (None of that’s to say that the Jews warrant defending—certainly not the American ones. It just appears as though you’re missing the forest for the trees. Please do elaborate, though. It would be very helpful.)
4. In that vein, the secular globalist programme is CLEARLY an Anglo-American one. It’s an Anglo-Saxon liberal project, a secularised version of Protestant Christianity, to remake the world and have a globalised civilisation. Surely, you recognise that, yeah? (One can do so without committing to some full-blown Carroll Quigley conspiracy narrative, surely, too.)
5. Isn’t ‘whiteness’ just DEI bullshit? Why would any Englishmen or Scot actually consider the Irish to be their equal—especially in the face of all the evidence that the latter is not? Why would or should Western Europeans consider the Slavs and Southern Europeans to be their equal? Surely it couldn’t be based on any achievement, any cultural value, right? The National Socialists wanted to eliminate the Slavs, after all, and create a lebensraum for Aryans in Eastern Europe. Why would those people, who identity as ‘Aryan’ want to treat untermenschen as now somehow being equal under the reclassification as ‘white’??? (Do the Arabs, Turks, Persians, or North Africans count as white?)
Let me consider your thoughtful questions for a bit, and later this afternoon I’ll provide you an answer as best I can.
In the meantime, why do you capitalize every race or demographic group but White?
Thank you. I appreciate that, and look forward to your considered responses.
As you might glean from my questions, I personally don’t accept ‘white’ as a valid category because it is over-inclusive. A good European would never, and could never, accept the Irish or Eastern Europeans as somehow being equal. In other words, I treat whiteness as basically being DEI for the Irish, Slavs, and Southeastern Europeans.
>1. Do you support the normalization of the teachings..
So, that’s a great question and I don’t have a fully developed answer. Clearly there seem to be some Mohammedans that can integrate into civilized society, but as time passes those seem to be the exception and not the rule. It could be the case that those are only playing nice because they don’t have political power and once they do, their inner evil surfaces. As we are seeing today in Europe and in some parts of North America, once a civilized society starts seeing the child rape gangs, the Muslim Defense Patrols, calls to prayer fives time a day, burka impositions, and other cultural blessings then it’s time to eject them back to the Stone Age deserts they come from.
>2. Given the collapsing ratios of whites to the groups in the world, do you think it best to try to fix those ratios?
Yes of course. In my social circles, large, intact White families are the norm.
>If so, then shouldn’t you support the Zios—unless you don’t consider them to really be white, that is?
I absolutely do not support them, and I still can’t get over the fraud they perpetrated on many American Evangelicals. The Talmudians are a vile, cunning bunch and what we’re seeing today are efforts going back to before the Scofield Bible bearing fruit. It’s mindblowing to see people who truly believe modern day Israeli’s are God’s Chosen. People who curse Jesus and Christians 3 times a day as part of their prayer’s are not God’s Chosen. People who are genetically European and not even genetically semitic are Canaanites and not Israelites. Us Christians are God’s Chosen. We are the Church. Not these Moloch worshipping Canaanites.
>SURELY the Muzzies were the villains in those contexts, not the Talmudic kikes they oppressed
Surely they can both be bad, no? What does history tell us about these two kind? The Moslems rule viciously through conquest. The Talmudians are sneaky and infiltrate and disrupt from within. They’re the termites in your home, not the viscous predators at your gate.
Is one bad and not the other? I’d say atleast the Moslems aren’t sneaky kikes befriending you as they steal your children and undermine your culture from within. They’re in your face about their conquest.
Which is harder to defend? The barbarians at the gate? Or the filthy big-nosed Talmudian who’s taking over your institutions from within? I’d say the conniving Jew is worse because he’s a sneaky immoral snake, but both are bad.
>In that vein, the secular globalist programme is CLEARLY an Anglo-American one…
Three points: – Jews aren’t Anglo-Saxons, Globo-homo has roots in Marxist Jewish thought. ESG, DEI, SDG’s, CRT, SEL and all the other NeoMarxist garbage are Jew ideas or directly flow from secular Jewish thought. – It isn’t uniquely Protestant to try and remake your community (small and large) to be a better place as one sees it. – I also don’t think eradicating the Nation State is a Protestant belief either.
>Isn’t ‘whiteness’ just DEI bullshit? Why would any Englishmen or Scot actually consider the Irish to be their equal—especially in the face of all the evidence that the latter is not?
Well, I guess this is where our backgrounds inform our beliefs differently. My pure White bloodline goes back to this nation’s founding. On both sides. Americans absolutely did have the tendency to build communities around others from similar cultures and had clear in group/out group confrontations or difference, they still had common cause. The Europeans who immigrated to America came here, likely, because they were genetically predisposed to want freedom, liberty, and opportunity. They were genetic risk takers and entrepreneurs. They didn’t have the stock to be some European serf. Sure, they didn’t want to blend into some homogeneous singularity like the Talmudians are trying to promote and wanted to preserve their identity. The Whites in Europe don’t have common cause. They have been distinct nations since forever. They need it. They’re under assault from the Mohammedans, the Zionists, the Globalists, and the traitors within their borders. They need to unite. The one thing that binds them is their Whiteness.
>(Do the Arabs, Turks, Persians, or North Africans count as white?)
I don’t think so. I know before the Zionist led Brown invasion of Europe that the Slav’s were like the Mexicans of Europe… some underclass who’d work for pennies on the dollar, but I don’t believe they were ever as rapey as the browns or as criminal as the blacks. I could be mistaken though.
Thanks very much for your thorough reply. I’ll just say this in reply for now.
‘Is one bad and not the other? I’d say atleast the Moslems aren’t sneaky kikes befriending you as they steal your children and undermine your culture from within. They’re in your face about their conquest’.
From a European vantage, it’s very difficult to frame the latter group as SOLELY exhibiting the latter tactic.
Second, a lot of ‘whites’, as you call, them, were SENT to America as indentured servants. Further, the Irish were sent over there due to the famine, NOT due to a enterprising, liberty-loving ethos. Indeed, their first acts in the New World were to corrupt and subvert the Anglo Protestant institutions. So, I’m sorry to say, with respect, that your narrative about the enterprising spirit of those who sailed for the new world simply isn’t credible to the Old Worlders—and for very good reasons.
Third, the Judeo-Bolshevik globalization programme is as you describe. However, the programme implemented across the English-speaking world, by contrast, simply cannot be attributed to the Kikes. They never had the power in most of those places to implement it. You MIGHT think they did in America, and that case is arguable; the case is obviously false, however, in England, South Africa, etc.) Further, the ruling class of America, the old Anglo-Dutch elites, WANTED this for your country. They weren’t and aren’t ‘Talmudic Jews’ or any other form of Kikestinian. It was their idea to flood America with the trash of Europe, after all. Britain didn’t and wouldn’t have tolerated that for her children (at least not en masse) till after WWII.
I feel like I owe an apology to Vladimir Putin. Is he an authoritarian murderer who hates liberal democracy and is a threat to it around the world? Yes. Does he long to re-create the supposed glory days of the Soviet empire? Uh huh. But he’s not this batshit crazy. Theendoftheleft is not a paid troll; he’s just mentally ill.
I wondered if this guy was an asshole putting on a gimmick. No, he’s for reals thinking hard about Race Science and the Jewish Question.
I know you well enough now to appreciate that you’re a parochial American ideologue who knows nothing about the world. So, obviously, your judgment means nothing to me. You aren’t equal.
If you want to nevertheless take up the bets offered to you, I would be happy to take your house from you.
Everything is spin for you, Sarcastro/Somin. Do you even remember the last time you didn’t try to spin things?
Why’d you become an academic when the truth is your kryptonite? As a vehicle to advance your totalitarian Tankie values?
Oh no! Please don’t out me to everyone as Prof. Somin!!
your judgment means nothing to me. You aren’t equal. Word.
“Why is Whiteness bad and why should it be eradicated?”
It isn’t and it shouldn’t. This has been another episode of obvious answers to stupid questions.
By the by, why do you think Jewishness is bad?
I don’t think Jewishness intrinsically is bad.
I think Talmud believers are bad because the Talmud is bad and practicing adherent will do bad things because their belief system compels them to. I think secular Jews who are trying to bring about a Neo Marxist revolution are bad because Marxism is bad and creates human suffering on a massive scale.
It’s the behavior people exhibit and the effects of that behavior that is bad and that is what makes those people bad.
Morally there is nothing wrong with my stance. What is wrong is to say people who believe in bad things and do bad things because of those beliefs can’t be bad because they happen to be Jewish.
Which is what many of you try and argue and even legislate.
Just as a follow-up to this:
However shite the ‘Talmud’ may be, it is important to note that the majority of your American Kikestinians reject it.
It is worth your while to learn about their far more pernicious belief systems—especially the ‘reform’ denomination’s ‘tikkun olam’ doctrine. That is basically a pathology whereby adherents believe themselves to possess special knowledge to go about ‘healing the world’, to transform society (and, indeed, the globe), despite having no real, credible, empirically-grounded-or-tested special insight, knowledge, or skills for doing any such thing.
They are a product of the Protestantization of certain segments of Talmudic jews. Just like Luther et al purging the doctrines of Rome, these Kikestinians expressly abandoned the Talmud in order to have create a more ‘progressive’, free-floating Judaism.
I would add that, the American founding experience gave religions special standing BECAUSE of the European experience, because of the victory of the Protestant Reformation, and because of Protestant sects seeking religious liberty in the New World. But in this present-day society, the idea that a religion must be free from critical or political scrutiny is being challenged. Your American blue team drones prattle on about Christianity. However, they profess hatred of ‘Islamophobia’ despite knowing next to nothing about that faith or the sociological practices on the ground in various Islamic societies.
Soon, however, the boundaries between religion and ideology will be blurred in America. So it will make perfectly good sense to criticize people simply for being members of a given religious faith.
Gorsuch blandly said people should be careful when they discuss reform. On some level, who cares? It sounds like pablum. It isn’t the same hard opposition that Alito expressed.
The current Supreme Court should be careful as it squanders public support; veers further from the modern American mainstream; flouts ethics to protect ideological allies; and flatters a partisan platform built on superstition, bigotry, ignorance, and backwardness.
Who is the posturing meant to convince, outside the USA?
The current American SCOTUS is preventing your blue team totalitarians from giving up the pretense of the rule of law altogether in your country. Your entire blue team ‘jurisprudence’ is about saying whatever you need to say to obtain the policy preference of the moment. At my previous uni, people regularly made fun of the Yanks for not having the rule of law at all.
Superstitious nonsense: people are equal. Cultures are equal. Multiculturalism can and will work out. People have fundamental rights.
Bigotry: we hate half our country and their values. However, other cultures that harbour essentially the same norms that we explicitly hate about our countrymen (and, indeed, harbour far worse ones, ones that are a direct threat to our core norms), are nonetheless to be protected and celebrated. Criticism is to be dismissed as a form of phobia! INCLUDE. INCLUDE. INCLUDE!
Ignorance: we haven’t the foggiest how to bring in the world’s various cultures and peoples, especially the poor ones, and make a new civilization—but we’re going to take a suicidal plunge by experimenting with the mass importation of millions of people! Also, we don’t breed. (We don’t understand why. Others try to tell us its a function of our core values, but we don’t understand that and so just accuse them of being haters.) Nothing bad will or could come from that, right? Especially if we want to perpetuate our values, our economy, our social welfare systems, and our foreign influence, right?
Tick tock, tick tock…
I am still undecided concerning the Volokh Conspirator responsible for this Ilya Snowman sock puppet. So many candidates . . .
You’re seemingly perturbed.
If so, good.
Let it be a catalyst for you to ACTUALLY think for the first time in your parochial American life.
Don’t just cloak yourself in the language of reason, of logic (of which you know scant little), etc. Critically scrutinise your own core beliefs and assumptions, to the extent you can.
You might then be able to see why many/most of us in the rest of the West look DOWN on you Americans. We know well your pretenses and conceits. We also consider you, your values, and your culture to be patently inferior to ours. It’s not attributable to jealousy, to ressentiment, or any petty quality at all.
You can also assess whether there really are serious, solid grounds to deem your culture, and your institutions, to be in mortal peril DUE TO your ideological commitments. (Don’t take my word for it, of course, but it’s easy for anyone who’s globally connected to know that the belief that serious such grounds exist is widely held across the world.)
It could be eye opening for you, Arthur.
Can anyone determine which of America’s global adversaries — China, Russia, Iran, Belarus, Syria, the Netanyahu government, Afghanistan, North Korea, ragtag terrorist groups, Iraq, Yemen, Cuba, the worldwide alt-right, Saudi Arabia — is responsible for this Ilya Snowman character?
My comments have indeed perturbed you, AIDS.
Have you had the slightest sense that your values really might be dying? That you’re REALLY LOSING the global culture war presently, and that we, your economic and military allies in the rest of the West, won’t defend your imperialist structures and project?
Besides, YOU are America’s biggest adversary. You’re part of the cheerleading squad that is rushing to rape and murder your country’s foundational norms in order to impose, via totalitarian tactics, a comprehensive social re-engineering programme. You’re the one whose superficial, self-contradictory, evolutionarily garbage, ideology is helping America to crash and burn.
I am not from, am not paid by, and am wholly unaffiliated with any of those regimes (or comparable ones).
I’m a proud Westerner and a supporter of Western civilisation. We don’t want authoritarianism or totalitarianism. That’s part of why we don’t want to be like you, AIDS, and it’s part of why we look down on you.
And there’s no such thing as the ‘wordwide alt-right’. What would that even mean for the peoples of Western Europe, the Gulf, Central Africa, East Asia, etc? Somehow the post-humanists, the fascists, the Islamic traditionalists and fundamentalists, the Trumpians, the traditional (pre-Thatcherite) British Tories, the Catholic social conservatives, etc, all formed a network and alliance??? Amusing.
Real, traditional Americans are trying to save their country from you now. Let’s see if they succeed. Regardless of how they fare, you are doomed.
Choose reason, AIDS. Choose it! ACTUALLY think, for the first time in your fucking life.
Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland : “…for this Ilya Snowman sock puppet.”
Someone suggested he’s that twit who always pretended to be from some mysterious distant country (as he posted from his mommie’s basement). Something, something “free”, as I recall.
As this bozo’s B.S. has roughly the same reek, it’s quite possible.
If it is someone posting from a foreign country . . . maybe Prof. Kontorovich? Is he still residing in an illegal settlement populated by theocratic, bigoted terrorists on misappropriated land?
Are you talking about America, AIDS?
Wrong on all counts. Guess again.
Looking more like Kontorovich with every comment.
I’m not the Kike you seem to see in my words. (And certainly would never be foolish enough to consciously choose to live in a suicidal situation beside barbarians.)
But I’m glad to have deeply perturbed you, AIDS. An intifada from your ideological slumber is long overdue.
Even so, very soon, your fellow Americans will reach a breaking point. They will pull you out of your home at night, with you kicking and screaming, and blow your brains out in the street.
Are you ready? Because it’s only a matter of time now before they decide to come for you.
75 million American ‘far right’. Hundreds of millions of guns. Scores of millions of people who are distressed, alienated, extremely agitated, and fearful for their children. People who credibly believe that their country is being completely ruined by totalitarian twits—including by one MORON who repeatedly and explicitly writes on the VC about their ‘replacement’ as a point of pride.
Carry on, AIDS, till your fellow Americans Breivik you.
You recall poorly.
What’s so beautiful, of course, is that your liberal American culture is SO distrustful, SO reliant upon lying, and you are such bullshitting morons, that you could never seriously consider or discern that I’m neither American nor in America.
🙂
Keep telling the rest of the world how we ought to be like you, and that you’re progressive AND have the knowledge and skill set to make a more progressive world all you wish. NO ONE on this earth believes you anymore. No one in their right mind, no one who cares about knowledge and facts, COULD believe you.
Good luck keeping your family alive during your country’s decline and the seemingly collapse of its empire. You’ll need all the luck you can get. But you if you try to flee here, know that you will not be tolerated.
Rasmussen Reports Unemployment Update Rasmussen Real Unemployment Rate: Still Almost Double the Official Rate Friday, August 02, 2024
National unemployment was 8.4% in this month’s Rasmussen Reports Real Unemployment update, up from 7.9% last month and starkly different from the 4.3% officially reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics today.
,,,and on a related note the stock markets have been taking a hit.
Using a different metric will get you a different number: Film at 11.
You want to talk about that number, then use that number *consistently*
This is not doing that, it’s just bullshit.
Rassmussen is propaganda, including their polling.
Finally had to into the office?
Quit speculating about my professional life, please.
No.
Yeah. Unemployment. Who cares that the number of jobless people has gone up substantially? Who cares that the number of people willing to work has gone down substantially? We’re doing good, because there’s plenty of jobs left for the few people who want them.
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, miscellaneous welfare benefits…they’ll take care of everybody (with more payroll taxes from whom? AI bots?).
Keep sharpening your pencils, and telling your stories about what really matters. The “Unemployment Rate” is low. We’re in good shape here. Bidenomics. The Progressive Project.
Switching from one measure to a different measure is not either measure going up.
We know there is a structural baseline of about 3% in the usual metric. What is it for another measure? We don’t know.
Getting mad at an economic number with no baseline really shows how good the economy is, and how much that frustrates partisans who wish for misery if it’ll get their guy an advantage.
Rasmussen? LOL! Looks like their analysis is as undependable and inaccurate as their polling.
Look like they’re using one of the other unemployment measures like U6 or U8 to basically fool people.
Some of the less economically literate here have fallen for it.
From a quick google, it does not appear that they’re doing that. Rather, they have invented their own measurement.
LOL. Never doubt Rass.
Olympics Talk!
First, a fun fact. Apparently, the Olympic Swimmers all pee in the pool. More reporting needs to be done on the divers.
Next, we have both weightlifting (Aug 7) and breakdancing (?!?, Aug. 9) coming up. In my experience, weightlifting is a lot of fun to watch. And I’m down with the weird sports.
Finally, let’s all have a moment of silence for the pole vaulter who was eliminated because his … um … pole hit the bar. Look at the bright side, my friend. You might not be the winner in the Olympics, but you will be the winner of the Olympic Village. Ahem.
When you do the math for how many gallons of water are in an Olympic pool(over 600000 gallons), you could have every Competitor in every event piss in it and you wouldn’t be able to tell. Ever swim in the Ocean? Wait till you find out where the fish piss and shit
I AM AN ATTORNEY!
… no one told me there would be math.
Then how do you bill?
Whimsically, like all lawyers. Make up a number and then add 3 zero’s. That’s what they teach in 1L.
…egregiously?
Bumble wasn’t satisfied with you already having taken yourself down a notch. So you took yourself down one more.
Good comeback. Maybe it’ll be enough for him this time.
But see W.C. Fields on not drinking water (fish f*** in it).
“Finally, let’s all have a moment of silence for the pole vaulter who was eliminated because his … um … pole hit the bar.” Should have “tucked” or may worn a jock strap.
It appeared his shins struck the bar first . . . and his midriff was certain to follow, one way or the other. That may not be the ticket to success at Olympic Village.
“First, a fun fact. Apparently, the Olympic Swimmers all pee in the pool.”
Not just Olympic swimmers. I’ve always said that when you’re in 250,000 gallons of chlorinated water, your sixteen ounces of wee-wee ain’t going to make a difference.
Finally, let’s all have a moment of silence for the pole vaulter who was eliminated because his … um … pole hit the bar.
Medaling isn’t the only way to come away from the Olympics with bragging rights.
The real big question of the day is:
Who is the Rev. gonna vote for in 2024? The ticket with the IDF veteran? Or the pro-America one?
Could you imagine the mental anguish Rev. is gonna have voting for and IDF soldier?
At what point will better Americans stop enabling Clarence Thomas and Harlan Crow to flout legal and citizenship obligations ranging from disclosure and ethics to taxes and other taxes?
At what point will lesser Americans — such as those who operate and adore the Volokh Conspiracy — stop trying to cover for Thomas, Crow, Alito, Singer, Leo, and likely others?
Hey, did you see Shapiro was in the IDF? lol I guess he’s one of your Better Americans who goes and slaughters Palestinians…
lol
I doubt Gov. Shapiro slaughtered — or would slaughter — Palestinians. He seems a better person.
I also doubt he is a Likud asshole or a fan of Netanyahu, Ben Givr, or Smotrich.
What was wrong with supporting Israel before the theocratic, bigoted, uneducated, right-wingers controlled Israel and turned it into a conservative, war-criming international pariah?
What a neat cognitive parse!
Yeah Reverend, he was in the IDF when it was the Good IDF!
lol good one
Your efforts to smear Josh Shapiro are noted and disdained.
Dude, whatever your betters tell you believe, you believe uncritically. Even if it’s contradictory.
He was in high school at the time; he was interning with them, not serving in the IDF.
Here comes the lying Talmudian to gaslight the goy!
Right on cue!
Profs. Bernstein, Blackman, and Kontorovich, and former prof. Volokh, will issue a pass to this right-wing bigot with respect to his vivid antisemitism because . . . well, there are plenty of likely reasons, but the only one that counts is that clingers gotta cling together at a polemical, partisan, white, male, bigot-hugging, right-wing blog.
Is there a single Volokh Conspirator who can muster the courage, character, or decency to say something — anything — about the multifaceted right-wing bigotry that is an everyday, signature element of this white, male, movement conservative blog?
Just one of you?
Better people (educated, reasoning, modern, inclusive) are going to start to think — with ample justification — that the Volokh Conspirators are a bunch of shabby cowards and bigoted losers.
You rail against the Talmudians all the damn time you harmless little doofus.
Hey Bernstein and XY —
I think one of your fellow clingers is talking to you.
It’s as if, when you speak, you imagine that others care.
You’re like three notches beneath Drackman, and you still think you got something. (I won’t say how many notches are on the scale, because I don’t want to inflate Drackman’s standing.)
“You know that trashy right wing Volokh blog? I spent years of my life as an unimpressive troll there. So, like…I be da man.”
It wouldn’t be as fun without you around here, Arthur. It wouldn’t be as fun. And it wouldn’t be so easy for so many people to say to themselves, plausibly, “I’m not too bad a person. I’m not that bad.”
You, Arthur, make everybody feel better about themselves. I don’t see much recognition of that. You go Arthur! You go!
You go off on RAK but not the antisemite he replies to?
Huh.
From your perspective, I am to the Volokh Conspirators and their disaffected fans what the Volokh Conspirators and their disaffected fans are to the modern liberal-libertarian American mainstream?
I enjoy kicking around antisocial right-wing misfits. I also believe conservative dipshits and their ugly, obsolete views are entitled to no free swings at the marketplace of ideas. And calling a bigot a bigot is always the right thing to do.
Enjoy the rest of the culture war, clinger. I know I will.
I am not familiar with this publication, so I can’t vouch for everything being correct, but here is some on topic info: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/josh-shapiros-israel-army-volunteer-work-scrutiny-harris-vp-decision-looms
There’s always something new when you deal with a lifelong criminal like Trump. Has anyone been following the Egyptian story? A timeline:
1. Two months before the ’16 election, Trump meets with the president of Egypt, Sisi. Since he took power by coup, the U.S. was keeping him at arm’s lenght – but Trump gave gushing praise of the Egyptian leader.
2. In the last weeks before the election, Trump’s campaign was low on cash and his people were urging him to put some of his own money in the race. He resisted until October, then gave his campaign 10 million dollars.
3. Trump wins and Sisi is one of the first foreign leaders to visit the White House. Sanctions and halts in military aid are removed.
4. In 2019, there was an intelligence report that the Egyptian government gave Trump a secret payment of 10 million dollars. Attorney General Barr named a Trump appointee, Jessie Liu, to review the allegation.
5. The FBI eventually suceeded in getting Egyptian bank records by subpoena. That established a shadowy group with connections to Egyptain intelligence had withdrawn $9,998,000 in U.S. dollars in early January ’17. The money was in cash, loaded in two bags weighing 200lbs total.
6. That money was traced to a bank account in Shanghai. Three days later, the account was shut down and the trail lost.
So the underlying theory is simple: Sisi promised Trump cash and was rewarded. With 10 million promised, Trump transfered the same amount to his own campaign. Aside from a well-placed snitch, the only way to prove it would be to trace the 10 million to Trump’s hands The investigators asked for permission to subpoena a range of his banl accounts, but Barr denied the request and shut the inquiry down.
So it will probably be years and years before the truth of this is established. But Trump’s meeting with Sisi is established fact. The change of U.S. policy is established fact. The gift of 10 million to his own campaign is established fact. The 10 million withdrawal from the National Bank of Egypt is established fact. The intelligence report is established fact.
Just think if the Right ever had something this strong on Hunter!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2024/08/02/trump-campaign-egypt-investigation/
Sounds like Trump must be a member of the Biden Crime Family!
I give you credit for pulling this one together.
You crazy Blue-Anons lol wtf will you conspiracy nuts come up with next?
“…..But Trump’s meeting with Sisi is established fact. The change of U.S. policy is established fact. The gift of 10 million to his own campaign is established fact. The 10 million withdrawal from the National Bank of Egypt is established fact. The intelligence report is established fact.”
Apparently reading comprehension is not emphasized at young Nazi training school.
Oh you!
“Aside from a well-placed snitch, the only way to prove it would be to trace the 10 million to Trump’s hands ”
What does that part suggest? Do you recall your education from your time in that kibbutz?
But they only withdrew $9,998,000. Where’d the remaining $2,000 go?
Don’t try to mess with me. I’m like a sniffing dog all over this stuff.
Welcome to four years ago:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/14/politics/trump-campaign-donation-investigation/index.html
Yes, it was so strong that after 3 years of investigation during the Trump admin, and another 4 years of a Biden administration during which the investigation could have been reopened and pursued, nothing came of it.
Again, what if this were Hunter?
It wasn’t that long ago that congressional representatives were waving a pile of wire transfers – including one sports-car-sized amount – as indicative of Hunter’s being on the take, sufficiently so to implicate Joe. By that standard, it’s obvious that Trump took a bribe and shut down the investigation into it. Biden’s decision not to pursue the case may have simply reflected a desire to avoid immediately re-launching a politically sensitive, criminal investigation of Trump (remember that it took years for Smith to get involved on his cases, and you numbnuts have been caterwauling ever since) that would have geopolitical ramifications for the US’s relationship with Egypt (a partner in Biden’s policy on Gaza/Israel).
After the election, when both are looking to cash in their modest celebrity while they still can, J.D. Vance and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. should market a pay-per-view weird-off.
The artwork for the poster has already been composed.
I guess I will make one politics post. I saw this headline-
RFK Jr admits dumping bear carcass in New York’s Central Park
And I was like, yep. That tracks. At this point, after the brain worm and everything else, I don’t think there is any headline about that guy that would surprise me.
I might vote for the nut after all. Imagine the hijinks!
I had to check to see if you were pulling my leg.
If anything, Loki’s summary excessively downplays the bizarreness of the story.
Here is a reasonably anodyne summary (including a link to Bobby Juniah’s twitter/X video):
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/rfk-jr-preempts-new-yorker-article-by-revealing-wild-bear-carcass-story/
The fact that he [ETA: Bobby not Loki] thinks this video show the story to be a big nothing-bear-burger speaks volumes of his addled state.
I mean, can you imagine being the parking lot guy at Lugar’s… and having some dude pull up with a dead bear in the backseat of his car?
I may also be taking the whole story too literally but: Central Park is not on any plausible route from Williamsburg to any of the three airports. Prospect Park, Flushing Meadows is at least sensible, geographically.
My sister pointed out he could have been flying private out of Teterboro which could plausibly take him by Central Park. But then why be in a rush? Maybe he was hitching a ride from someone else.
Entertaining story, in any event. Condolences to mama bear.
The EPA destroyed thousands of pools in the vicinity of Austin, Texas. Reducing the number of coal power plants reduced the supply of fly ash, which is an ingredient in concrete. The price of fly ash went up. It is thought that Austin-area suppliers of concrete cut down on fly ash in their mix. They might have gotten away with it if not for pools. Warm, wet environments are the most likely to cause concrete failure. It is also thought that something in the local sand might be to blame. There is precedent. Thousands of building foundations in northern Connecticut failed because a local quarry provided sand with too much iron sulfide. Maybe a combination of inadequate fly ash and contaminated sand caused the problem.
If you are a fan of the EPA you could instead blame capitalism. Blame God for creating chemistry. Yell at clouds, it will do just as much good. It looks like most potentially responsible parties are going bankrupt. They are not insured for this level of exposure. The homeowners with “lifetime warranties” are paying out of their own pockets to dig up their failed pools. Only the lawyers will get anything out of this mess.
Connecticut offered financial assistance to people whose houses were affected by iron sulfide contamination. I don’t expect Texas to bail out pool owners.
The article from the Austin American-Statesman is readable in my news feed but is paywalled when I go on the web. Search for “concrete cancer” to find a copy.
It is thought that Austin-area suppliers of concrete cut down on fly ash in their mix. They might have gotten away with it if not for pools. … There is precedent.
So not really on the EPA at all. Not capitalism, or chemistry, just some companies cutting corners when they should know better.
Fly ash would only be added to concrete to get rid of the waste and stabilize it in a matrix. If pool are failing it is likely a shady contractor is more to blame.
What Is Fly Ash and How Is It Used in Concrete?
No, it actually can be a beneficial component of concrete.
The price of fly ash went up. It is thought that Austin-area suppliers of concrete cut down on fly ash in their mix.
So the EPA didn’t destroy any pools. The contractors did, by being unwilling to pay the higher price for fly ash and building defective pools.
I think you can blame this on greed, not the EPA.
If you want to blame greed, blame greed. Blame climate change for making Texas hot. Maybe no one factor on its own was enough. If the pH of local sand had been right or fly ash was cheaper or the companies hadn’t tried to save a few pennies by using less or the summers had been cooler. Or there could be a contaminant nobody knew about until it was too late. In contract claims fault doesn’t matter. I bought a pool, you owe me a pool.
Everyone is blaming the companies here, except for you.
How much would a round trip private jet for two people from Hawaii to New Zealand cost? Asking for a friend.
It depends . . . for some people, in certain circumstances, it don’t cost nuthin’.
Well, not until the IRS completes its investigation.
I love being able to afford accounts with the MSM (re actual investigative journalism). It puts me hours/days ahead of the rubes. Because right now they’re just scratching their supraorbital ridges wondering what I’m talking about
Six figures.
How many more times will Thomas revise his disclosures with respect to Crow? Honestly why would he even bother? We’re never going to get the full picture.
He can parallel park that RV like a champ though!
How many more times?
As many times as better Americans uncover yet another case of Thomas lying about gifts from his benefactors, political sponsors, and fellow clingers.
The most hysterical thing to me in this whole sordid series of revelations of affairs between Thomas and his various well-heeled benefactors is how well this priceless quote has aged:
“I don’t have any problem with going to Europe, but I prefer the United States, and I prefer seeing the regular parts of the United States […] I prefer the RV parks. I prefer the Walmart parking lots to the beaches and things like that. There’s something normal to me about it. I come from regular stock, and I prefer that — I prefer being around that.”
I mean— L to the fuckin OL!!!! Clarence doesn’t like the beach! What’s the parking lot at Bohemian Grove look like anyways?? Waaaaaank.
Someone should ask him about the concept of revealed preferences.
There’s a reason Harlan Thomas did not engage in presentations before him all these decades. Nor ask any questions. His mind has always been purchased to be made up prior. In a sane country he’d be gone with a 100-0 Senate vote
Will Cassidy Hutchinson be referred for a perjury prosecution?
https://pjmedia.com/victoria-taft/2024/08/05/new-secret-service-inspector-generals-j6-report-suggests-this-little-lady-may-need-a-lawyer-n4931357
If they break the law in the name of Saving Democracy, no one will do anything about it.
She could call Tony Ornato to testify if he told her Trump tried to grab the wheel. Mr. Ornato has denied saying this, but I don’t recall if he has done that under oath. Cassidy Hutchison did not say Trump grab the wheel she said Mr. Ornato reported that to her. I think Mr. Ornato is the person to explain things here.
As I just mentioned below, Ornato has never in fact formally denied that he said it. There was a ton of secondhand bluster after Hutchinson’s testimony that Ornato would contradict her testimony, but he never did, and here when given a chance to formally do so, he instead said he didn’t recall.
I can’t help but think that Tony Ornato was trying to chaat up Cassidy. To make himself look better in her eyes he embellished the story. He needs to come clean. To admit telling a whopper to an attractive young lady.
It’s also plausible — particularly in the chaos of that day — that there was miscommunication. One person may have said, “Trump wanted to go to the Capitol but the Secret Service wouldn’t let him; he was so mad that he was practically ready to grab the wheel,” and through a game of telephone it turned into “he tried to grab the wheel and had to be held back” by the time Ornato told it to Hutchinson.
The wingnut “report” underlying that comment proclaims that there was never a Trump plan to take the mob to the Capitol, a claim vividly refuted by the email trail. There was a plan and it was aggressively concealed from federal authorities by the Trumpers.
No, she will not be, since nothing in there remotely suggests, let alone proves, that she lied. The Pjmedia piece pretends — as MAGA has been wont to do since she testified — that her testimony was that this happened. But she wasn’t there and didn’t claim to be; her testimony is that she was told that this happened. And the actual report bolsters that, since the person who she says told her — rather than denying it — said that he “didn’t recall” doing so (and “didn’t recall” the incident happening). That’s often the hallmark of a witness coached to avoid perjuring himself. (Of course, it’s not uncommon for people to legitimately not recall stuff. But not recalling something this consequential seems a bit implausible.)
And the Pjmedia author shows herself to not be reliable in other ways. For instance, she writes that the J6 committee “ignored normal legal rules and welcomed the uncorroborated hearsay testimony.” But that’s a combination of falsity and attempts to sound knowledgeable by using legal jargon picked up from watching Law & Order. This wasn’t a courtroom, and the Rules of Evidence don’t apply, so there’s nothing to “ignore.” Ther’s simply no “normal legal rule” that was ignored. Nor was or is there any requirement ever in history that testimony be “corroborated” in order to be admitted into evidence or considered. TL;DR: No. Not in a zillion years.
I completely agree with this analysis however I emphatically do not agree with your conclusion and answer to the question as asked.
Why did Trump get rid of Jeff Sessions?? Trump has promised revenge prosecutions. People like John Yoo have endorsed the idea. Why is it so hard for lawyers to wrap their minds around the possibility that… he means it.
Elite lawyer brain on display.
I understand what you’re saying, but
(a) firing someone is very different than prosecuting that person, for several reasons, including the fact that one doesn’t need grounds to fire someone and the fact that Trump can fire someone on his own but he needs an attorney to prosecute someone; and (b) Hutchinson isn’t important enough for Trump to go after.
Trump got rid of Jeff Sessions because he wouldn’t engage in revenge prosecutions.
As for needing an attorney— do I really have to point out portions of the immunity decision just handed down? Let’s be honest— if Trump wins it’s probably going to be Jeffrey Clark— the guy who wanted to cast doubt on the results of the last election, from within DOJ (!!!!) on the basis of rumors about thermostats changing votes. What qualms do you think a person like that would have about initiating perjury prosecutions? “Well, Pat, that’s what the insurrection act is for.” The guy is a Trumpist shitweasel, like John Eastman, and that’s the least of it.
Finally, she absolutely is important enough to publicly punish. A young woman who publicly testified against Trump and broke the omertà?? This is exactly the kind of person who gets made an example of.
And on a psychological level I just wonder who you have been watching these last several years. Because I see a thin-skinned vindictive asshole obsessed with revenge.
If I were her I’d think about getting out of dodge. And start gofunding a legal fund.
Also, Peter Szrock, Lisa Page, Michael Sussman are all holding on line 1 for you
Your dedication to a false narrative is … very much in character.
” But not recalling something this consequential seems a bit implausible.”
Not recalling something this consequential is implausible if it actually happened.
It’s actually quite normal, though, to not recall consequential events that didn’t happen. Because there’s nothing to recall, in such a case.
Sigh. That was the fucking point, Brett. It would be implausible that he wouldn’t remember it if it happened. Therefore, if it didn’t happen, he should have been able to say, “It didn’t happen.” But he didn’t say that. He said, “I don’t recall.” Which I infer means it did happen, but he didn’t want to admit it (because it would make Trump look bad) and he didn’t want to deny it (because that would be a felony), and so he took the ‘safe’ way out.
If I asked you, “Brett, have you ever beaten a hobo to death with a shovel?”, you would not say, “I don’t recall.”
That’s because I’m not in a position where somebody is likely to invent a story about me beating a hobo to death with a shovel, and find people willing to perjure themselves testifying that it happened.
Yes, he took the safe way out in phrasing his denial. But I think you’ve misidentified the threat he secured himself against.
All the national Republicans GOTTA say ‘I can’t recall’ to heinous shit because of all the perjuring libs out there!
You really do live in a wild political thriller world.
She could have her pick from dozens of former Trump attorneys
Degenerate Marxist-Leninist extremist Jackie Rosen want to legalize infanticide in Nevada.
Supporting facts, NvEric?
Unlikely to be forthcoming. Of course— Trump spoke about post-birth abortions at the debate and that bare assertion may be enough for some.
Still waiting for supporting facts, NvEric.
I promise that providing such facts will not break your keyboard.
Google found guilty on anti-trust violation. Judge says they’re a monopoly. Haven’t found much else on this . https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/technology/3111157/federal-judge-google-violated-antitrust-law-landmark-case/
I haven’t read it yet either, but here it is: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.223205/gov.uscourts.dcd.223205.1033.0_3.pdf
Usha Vance turns out to be an unprincipled political hack ready to kiss Trump’s ass every bit as quickly as Ted Cruz was.
Her efforts to be recognized as an honorary MAGA hillbilly are doomed, however, by several of her personal attributes.
Jenna Ellis, constitutional law advisor to Jesus, reportedly has flipped on the other un-American election subverters being prosecuted in Arizona.
Perhaps it is time to convert the Arizona prosecution’s “unindicted co-conspirator 1” to another defendant?
Iran has directly attacked US military personnel at an Iraqi base, with US casualties. Biden is a cognitively diminished, weak POTUS. POTUS Biden’s weakness emboldens our adversaries, and costs American lives.
POTUS Biden is neither respected nor feared.
But he may be a better bet to be around in a few years than some of your bigoted, theocratic, parasitic right-wing pals are.
Any menu suggestions yet for the accountability celebration, clinger?
Arthur, are you channeling your inner Arthurdamus, again? For a smart man, you really step in it, sometimes. Sounds like you are making a prediction. I quake in terror of your prognostication powers. 🙂
Now, on the accountability celebration, I have to confess to some schadenfreude when Ismail took the one-way paradise train and transitioned into Wasmail. Upon hearing of his transition, I poured myself a tumbler of Elijah Craig and toasted the IDF. I’ll say an extra Al Chayt this year.
Oh, where are Lapid? Gantz? Eisenkot? Barak? (hint, hint…the left wingers). That is right, they are completely irrelevant, on the outside looking in. They have marginalized themselves with their behavior. Israel has decisively rejected any idea of two-state, it is dead.
Keep making predictions, Arthurdamus. Do you want to root for the Iranians now?
Israel seems destined to survive precisely so long as modern Americans continue to elect bigoted, superstitious, half-educated, obsolete right-wingers. Otherwise . . . accountability may become an existential problem for a bunch of theocratic, bigoted, indolent, parasitic, right-wing war criminals and terrorists.
After that . . . bacon cheeseburgers (unless you have a better menu proposal, which I would welcome).
How do you like your burger, you bigoted, superstition-addled, worthless right-wing stain?
I was right, you are having an episode and Arthurdamus, one of your multiple persona, is here. I am trying not to laugh too hard.
If the burger is not ground chuck or brisket; medium rare. 😉
Cheddar, American, or something else?
Two slices of bacon, or four?
There will be no skimping at this party. I may break out one of my remaining bottles of Samuel Adams Triple Bock.
We were around millenniums before your Whore of a mother inflicted you on this Moral Coral, we’ll be around for millenniums after you’ve been “replaced” hopefully by someone with a more modern Defensive Scheme, and lesser predilection to Buggery Frank
You will be around, which is as it should be . . . just not in Israel. That bridge has been burned.
CXY, you might take a moment to reflect on Iran’s response to Trump’s assassination of Soleimani, before you confidently assert something like this.
Seems like Iran is less afraid of the US under ??? (whoever is in charge) than it is of Israel.
Um, what? Iran has repeatedly attacked Israel, directly and/or through proxies, since 10/7. How does that suggest that Iran is more afraid of Israel?
Who did they just attack???
US shipping in the Red Sea?
I was referring to the missile attack in Iraq. Hadn’t heard of a new attack in the Red Sea.
The Houthi attacks in the Red Sea have been ongoing, because it turns out that dropping bombs on a country that’s already been bombed to smithereens for much of the last decade doesn’t stop them firing rockets at ships.
What I reflect on more and more, SimonP, is the utter lack of competence or deterrence that POTUS Biden brings to the table. His foreign policy is a disaster; Afghanistan, Ukraine, Iran are three notable examples (all on his watch).
If POTUS Biden can’t run for POTUS, he should not be the POTUS.
The only problem is Kamala is even more incompetent.
Biden has done well with Ukraine by keeping the NATO alliance together. Trump would rather have us leave NATO and let Putin win. Putin waited until after Trump left to invade because he was hoping to take over Ukraine in an easy victory after the US left NATO.
Yes, Biden effed up the execution of withdrawal from Afhganistan. But, it was Trump’s deal and Biden wanted us out too. Trump’s claim that he would not have withdrawn is just garden-variety BS coming from the sociopathic narcissist.
Whatever other things one can complain about Biden, his handling of the Ukraine war has been masterful. When Russia invaded, everyone expected the Europeans to fold like a cheap cliché. They’d put a few symbolic sanctions on Russia, maybe provide some humanitarian aid to Ukraine (if it lasted long enough), and furrow their brows. Even if the U.S. wanted them to do more, they’d resist. After all, in addition to having limited military capability, they were also dependent on Russian oil and gas.
Instead, Biden got them all on board by not making it all about the U.S., not pushing them too hard or too fast (and, of course, not verbally attacking them as parasites and losers). Ultimately he even expanded NATO as a result. And — despite the caterwauling of the haters/Putinites/bedwetters — he did it all without starting WWIII.
This minute in alternate history proudly brought to you by David Notimportant. The first thing Biden proposed when Russia invade Ukraine was to fly Zelenskyy out of the country.
Getting Europe on-board was a good thing, but you left out how he was slow to approve F-16s, ATACMS, and still won’t allow Ukraine to attack inside Russian territory beyond a few specific areas.
Those decisions have cost and will continue to cost Ukrainian lives.
I think you are overly generous to claim he’s done a ‘masterful’ job.
Getting Europe on-board was a good thing, but you left out how he was slow to approve F-16s, ATACMS, and still won’t allow Ukraine to attack inside Russian territory beyond a few specific areas. Those decisions have cost and will continue to cost Ukrainian lives.
If all we were trying to do was defeat Russia as quickly and decisively as possible, we could have sent U.S. forces to Ukraine. But the U.S. has three primary objectives: (1) help Ukraine resist Russian aggression; (2) keep the Europeans on board; and (3) not start WWIII. Now, I don’t personally have either the facts or expertise to know what actions would have what consequences, but based on what I’ve read over the past few years, the U.S. was concerned that moving too fast and too aggressively risked #2 and #3.
Yes David, the empty headed vessel has managed UKR brilliantly….by helping them lose 20% of their territory. Brilliant!
Your brilliant comment brought a smile. 🙂
Whenever you remark upon the Ukraine war, the adults in the room laugh at your ignorance.
In two+ years of the situation, you have not made a single remark about it which has been accurate or informed.
I think you meant, “helping them keep 80% of their territory.”
Yes, Commenter XY, completely ignoring that Trump/Vance will surrender 100% of Ukraine to Russia. He may even get from Putin more than the $10 million Egypt reportedly wanted to (and may have) given him. But probably less than the $1 billion Kushner was picked to manage as thanks for all his work rehabilitating MBS.
That you think anyone in the international world has any respect for Trump says everything that needs to about your understanding of foreign relations. No one respects him. Only our allies fear him. Our enemies know he is easy to manipulate and has no interest in strengthening democracies and containing authoritarians.
Complaining about Biden’s weakness when you support Trump is rich.
UKR would not have happened under POTUS Trump. In fact, nothing like that happened under POTUS Trump. He was feared.
The empty headed vessel is neither respected nor feared. This gets Americans killed.
If the empty headed vessel cannot run for the job, he cannot do the job. And we are seeing this play out. Biden is incompetent and dangerous.
“UKR would not have happened under POTUS Trump.” That’s an unfalsifiable statement.
“If the empty headed vessel cannot run for the job, he cannot do the job.” You keep repeating this as though it’s true, when in fact it’s a non-sequitur.
As I said earlier, “Trump would rather have us leave NATO and let Putin win. Putin waited until after Trump left to invade because he was hoping to take over Ukraine in an easy victory after the US left NATO.”
So no, Trump is not feared. He is a Putin stooge.
And for upmteenth time, not being able to be a candidate because of cognitive decline does not imply you aren’t up to the job as of right now. The two require different levels/types of cognitive abilities.
Yes, Putin is so afraid of Trump who stood in front of the world and took Putin’s side over that of the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. Putin was shaking in his boots as Trump was pleading with our allies to let Russia back into the G8 without giving back Crimea. Putin nearly wet himself when Trump told everyone Crimea really belonged to Russia anyway. And Putin was in tears as Trump said NATO was useless and the U.S. should get out.
Yes, that’s strength that had our rivals quaking, afraid to do anything aggressive.
The idea that Trump is strong can only be appealing to an incredibly weak human being who has no concept of what strength actually is or looks like.
Strange, people thought Ike Turner was a monster when he beat up women (is there a cooler voice in the history of music than Ike’s Acapella “Rollin on the Riv-ah…” at the beginning of the Ike & Tina Turner Revue’s Version of “Proud Mary”? Beats those CCR fags version as bad as Ike beat Tina
Frank “Workin for the Man”
These right-wing bigots are your people, Volokh Conspirators . . . and the reason your colleagues provide plenty of space for you at the faculty lounge, even when it is otherwise crowded.
Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit.
Again with the “Permitting” “Bettors” “Klingers” and you’re the one who supports the Algerian Poof getting his rocks off beating up girls, you know who didn’t beat Tina? David Bowie, oh is his “Chy-Na! Girl” not politically correct? A world where David Bowie isn’t allowed is a world I won’t miss (will there be Bangles? There should be Bangles)
Don’t worry about this fluffy little critter. He’s all bark and no bite.
As much as he rails against the IDF, he’s gonna vote for an IDF vet. Just like his masters tell him to. lol
How about that Kamala Krash today? If you like what Democrats did to your 401k, just wait until they ban your healthcare freedom!
It was so bad Dank Brandon made a public address direct from his studio near the Oval Office.
https://twitter.com/MidnightMitch/status/1820596032704549049
She could “Suspend” her Cam-Pain like McCain did in 2008, but that would be the right thing to do (don’t hate me because I’m richer/better looking/smarter) than you, but McCain would have been worse than Barry Hussein, even though I liked his consideration of Joe Lieberman as VP, his choice of Sara Palin should have been probable cause for a 96 hr commitment (because I would let her suck my cock doesn’t mean I want her appointing the head of the Fed(would she give the head of the fed head?)
Here is that Raskin fella accidentally confessing to treason and planning an insurrection.
https://videy.co/v?id=zHbQsK3i
Where is the DOJ? lol don’t answer, we already know, sending armed marshals to shadow conservative politicians and entrapping regular old dudes, and bury evidence of Democrat crimes.
That’s a little unclear about exactly what he envisions going down.
Of course, he’s wrong about the Court depriving Section 3 of all force. They laid out exactly how to enforce Section 3 against Trump: Charge him with insurrection and convict him!
Raskin’s problem is that he didn’t want to have to prove Trump guilty of anything in a felony trial to disqualify him.
Thanks for telling us all Raskin’s secret thoughts.
Always with you.
They laid out exactly how to enforce Section 3 against Trump: Charge him with insurrection and convict him!
Is that the same Court that’s just decided that the President is immune from criminal prosecution for pretty much anything he might do?
No, that Court only exists in your imagination, and admittedly, in the imagination of a few justices annoyed at being in the minority.
Well, Harris has announced her VP pick, Tim Walz.
This is sort of an anti-life insurance pick, if you ask me: He’s vastly more qualified to be President than she is, even if I don’t like a lot of his policies.
“vastly” is doing a lot of work here. He is as much of an imbecile as Harris and has led to a failing state with net outmigration.
I don’t get the impression that he’s an actual idiot, but rather a previously at least somewhat more conservative guy who wasn’t able to stand up to the pressure from the national party to move left.
For instance, he was at one time fairly pro-gun, but more recently became a gun controller.
But his actual experience as a state governor is better qualification for the office than having been VP. Frankly, were he at the top of the ticket, Trump would be in real trouble.
Trump would win in a landslide if it were Waltz for Pres. This is the guy that let Minneapolis burn during the George Floyd riots.
The lefties on other fora (the ones who aren’t tankies) are all pretty stoked.
I don’t know any of the candidates. Only thing was Shapiro delivered a state, but might have alienated the left.
Seems she went with someone she could work with, not the purely mercenary pick.
Anti-life insurance pick as a narrative strikes me as putting a down payment on some future conspiracy theory.
I mean nothing more by it than that, rather than picking somebody people would be terrified to see take the place of the main candidate, as Biden did, she picked somebody who nobody would be scared to see take her place.
I don’t think she actually needs any life insurance, unless the SS’s recent incompetence is less focused than I find plausible.
picking somebody people would be terrified to see take the place of the main candidate, as Biden did Who was terrified?
So merely NOT a life insurance pick, not an anti-life insurance pick.
Ugh now everyone is making Wall and Balz puns.
Essentially a dead thread but FWIW the Dems have picked a ticket of Dumb and Dumber. Harris picks MN governor Tim Waltz as running mate.
Please log in to post comments
Mute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?
Charles Oliver | 8.7.2024 4:00 AM
Jacob Sullum | 8.7.2024 12:01 AM
Robby Soave | 8.6.2024 5:04 PM
Emma Camp | 8.6.2024 4:20 PM
Jim Epstein | 8.6.2024 4:04 PM
And get unlimited access to everything at reason.com.
