Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Jeff Buchanan]

In the ME, it's pretty clear Hamas isn't going to negotiate a cease fire. The reason for that is that according to ISW, they still have an operational military capability in Gaza, are reconstituting it and have made efforts to reestablish political control of sectors the IDF has withdrawn from. Working against Netanyahu's stated goals of eliminating the military and political capabilities of Hamas is Hamas' successful disinformation operation that is resulting in political pressure on the Israeli government to end its campaign directed against Hamas. To me, this looks like a costly stand-off within which Israel cannot obtain sufficient advantage to force negotiations on their terms. US prestige and power on the global stage is going to be harmed. Russia, China, Iran, NK and a good part of sub-Saharan Africa + are all in with this foreseeable outcome.

[Jeff Buchanan]

In Ukraine, we seem to be back to incremental but not significant gains on the ground for the RA. The current #1 Russian objective is to Push Ukrainian forces back from the international border with Belgorod Oblast and approach to within tube artillery range of Kharkiv City. Russian air power continues to target Ukrainian infrastructure and is operating unopposed from inside Russian airspace in doing that as I described in a post up thread a few weeks ago. That has shifted the momentum in the conflict towards Russia. Still, Putin, without implementing a very unpopular draft, lacks the man-power and resources to over-run Ukraine. ISW assesses that Putin has shifted his long term focus to the economy being put on a war footing. The purpose is to sustain a very long war in which Russia outlasts the West

In response and over the last few days the G7 has focused on mobilizing it's membership for a long term plan to support Ukraine's territorial integrity preventing the RA from obtaining it's objectives, short term, in eastern Ukraine - that would be control of the several Oblasts that Putin declared as part of Russia 2 years ago. But the NATO leadership envisions supporting Ukraine in a long war with Russia. Two big issues have come up during this week's G7 meetings: (1) The use of the interest on frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine has been agreed upon. This is a long term plan for financing not only Ukraine's short and long term defense but also reconstruction after the conflict is concluded (outcome unknown). Note that actually transferring those assets to Ukraine, previously considered, is fraught with legal problems. This approach isn't. (2) There appears to be an emerging strategic plan for Ukraine to weaken Russian air defenses within occupied land, e.g., Crimea. The widespread use of HIMARS and ATACAMS to target Russian S300/400 SAMS has had a negative impact on Russian ground based air defenses. ISW assesses this is a part of long term plan to leverage weakened Russian air defenses as the 100s of promised fighter jets start arriving in Ukraine. Russia's current air superiority is going to be challenged, likely reduced, which should allow Ukraine to deploy aircraft in direct support of ground operations under Ukrainian airspace. That's a big deal that could change the momentum in this conflict toward Ukraine although it is a long range strategy that won't be fully undertaken during the second half of 2024, more likely to start to have an impact in 2025.

It is less likely that US prestige and power on the global stage will be harmed by it's support of Ukraine compared to that harm that might come from US support of Israel. In fact, I'd assess that while supporting Israel's war v. Hamas is important in that regard, a negotiated settlement in that conflict short of obtaining Netanyahu's objectives would be a neutral outcome. OTH, letting Russia overrun Ukraine would be a disaster for US strategic interests and the West as a whole.

[iam416]

My personal view is:

(1) On Israel-Hamas there is absolute moral clarity. I don't see much of an additional cost to the US in supporting the right side.
(2) On Ukraine-Russua, there is absolute moral clarity in that one country was invaded. In order to actually repel the invastion, the cost to the US is tremendous. In order to make it so that Russia has to experience significant pain to achieve their objective, the additional cost is modest -- aid. And at this point it seems clear that was the strategy -- the deterrence effect of making this process extremely painful.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Decisions today

1) Bankruptcy case that no one cares about
2) Immigration case involving removal notices and what constitutes "proper notice" in removal hearings. Gorsuch joined the liberals in dissent.
3) Overturns Trump's bump stock ban. Bump stocks are not machine guns under existing law and only Congress can redefine them that way. Not the President or ATF.

[iam416]

Alito's concurrence -- roughly 2 paragraphs -- in the bump stock case summarizes the position perfectly.

Sotomayor's "if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck" then it must be a duck even though it's clearly defined as not a duck -- that analysis fails.

I mean, from a statutory construction perspective this is not much different than the case where they held that Title VII "because of sex" language included sexual orientation. There, the literal meaning carried the day and ordinary meaning lost. In that case, though, as Thomas notes -- there wasn't a specific defition.

In any event -- Gorsuch and Roberts -- those are the four that were 100% consistent in both cases. ACB didn't decide first case. And I could definitely make the case that Kav, Thomas and Alito are fundamentally consistent. But for SS and EK to fall back on "ordinary meaning" is entirely inconsistent.

[Jeff Buchanan]

(1) On Israel-Hamas there is absolute moral clarity. I don't see much of an additional cost to the US in supporting the right side.

Certainly there's "moral clarity" in the minds of rational thinkers. The problem for Israel and it's American ally is that it seems the global perspective, skillfully molded by Hamas disinformation, is that the killing of 32K Palestinians, attacking hospitals and schools to kill Hamas militants and reducing large swaths of Gaza to ruble is viewed as amoral - to such an extent that the cost of destroying Hamas overwhelms the concept of perceived morality in doing so.

Agree entirely with your view of the Russo-Ukraine conflict if you're talking about the western alliance making it "extremely painful" for Putin to achieve his objectives. It works the other way too, I would think. Its a conflict involving two nuclear powers to see who blinks first.

It's also worth noting that Putin would probably agree to a truce immediately if Ukraine and it's supporters agreed to cede the Ukrainian Oblasts Putin's army occupies, partially controls, and has already claimed are part of Russia - Kharkiv, Luhansk, Donetsk and Zaporizhia. That's a chunk of economically vital land to Ukraine and, so far, international pressure on Zelenski to agree to that kind of settlement has been ineffective. It goes on.

[iam416]

Agreed.

Yeah, I mean -- it's been obvious from Day 1 that the West doesn't actually want to defeat Putin. Too high a cost to incur. But, at the same time, they don't want to go Neville Chamerlain. I sort of think they've got it more right than not.

And, 100% re Israel-Hamas.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Alito's concurrence -- roughly 2 paragraphs -- in the bump stock case summarizes the position perfectly.

Sotomayor's "if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck" then it must be a duck even though it's clearly defined as not a duck -- that analysis fails.

I mean, from a statutory construction perspective this is not much different than the case where they held that Title VII "because of sex" language included sexual orientation. There, the literal meaning carried the day and ordinary meaning lost. In that case, though, as Thomas notes -- there wasn't a specific defition.

In any event -- Gorsuch and Roberts -- those are the four that were 100% consistent in both cases. ACB didn't decide first case. And I could definitely make the case that Kav, Thomas and Alito are fundamentally consistent. But for SS and EK to fall back on "ordinary meaning" is entirely inconsistent.

Two specific things Alito says in that brief concurrence. The first is that he thinks the 1934 Congress that wrote the law would see no material difference between a "machine gun" and a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a bump stock. But the text is what it is.

Secondly, he certainly sems to think Congress can constitutionally ban bump stocks and may have even already done so if the administration hadn't been so impatient back in 2018.

[iam416]

Right. The language is absolutely clear. The reality is absolutely clear. The process is absolutely clear. He is absolutely clear.

Again, if you want to revisit this issue in an entirely different context read the T7 case on discrimination based on sex as including sexual orientation. Read the opinion and dissent and ask yourself how you'd expect those justices to rule on the bump stock case in a vacuum.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Also, back in 2017 Paul Ryan and the NRA were urging the ATF to take action rather than Congress. I think it's fair to say they knew how a conservative Supreme Court would view that down the road. They chose a short-term defeat for a long-term victory.

Siding With NRA, Paul Ryan Calls For Regulation -- But Not Law -- On Bump Stocks | HuffPost Latest News

[Dr. Strangelove]

Right. The language is absolutely clear. The reality is absolutely clear. The process is absolutely clear. He is absolutely clear.

Again, if you want to revisit this issue in an entirely different context read the T7 case on discrimination based on sex as including sexual orientation. Read the opinion and dissent and ask yourself how you'd expect those justices to rule on the bump stock case in a vacuum.

I get that Gorsuch and Roberts were consistent but I may have misread you. Do you think Alito and Thomas really were?

[AlabamAlum]

Bump stocks are silly. You can get the same effect with a shoe string.

[Da Geezer]

FWIW the sort of creeps vandalizing Jewish homes in NYC probably aren’t voting Biden in November. They’re either staying home or voting Trump out of spite. It’s why it’s dumb for Biden to bother pandering to these people.

And your evidence of this is .....?

Just more gibberish from a progressive true-believer.

[iam416]

I get that Gorsuch and Roberts were consistent but I may have misread you. Do you think Alito and Thomas really were?

I didn’t say they were. I said there’s a distinction between the two that can reconcile the position—the specific definition. The liberal justices don’t even have that as a fallback.

The term at issue in the T7 case wasn’t specifically defined. So it was a literal vs ordinary battle.

The term in this case was specifically defined so there’s really nothing to do. Nothing except talk about ducks.

[Jeff Buchanan]

While war continues to ravage Ukraine, Gaza, and to a lesser extent Russia and Israel, interesting political dances are underway. In the ME, it's dancing about with a blame game. The US says Hamas is holding up a cease fire and road-map to peace; Hamas says it is Israel. One major sticking point is Hamas' role in post-war governance of Gaza and the larger Palestinian territories including the West Bank. Netanyahu has made it clear he will not sign any agreements that keeps Hamas in a governing role. IMO, Hamas is being opaque about how much of a role in governing they want. In the same way, Israel, with some basis, is accused of being opaque about what parts of the peace proposals on the table that they agree with or don't agree with.

Netanyahu is in a tough spot with Gantz resigning from the War Cabinet and the subsequent dissolution of that body by Netanyahu. To keep Bebe's government in power he has had to respond to the demands for total victory over Hamas by Israel's hard right wing. Biden is in a tough spot. After 9 months of solid support of Israel's goals in Gaza, the US finds itself walking a tightrope of offering solutions for step by step negotiations with Israel's enemies - using Arab intermediaries - by continuing to commit to the right of Israel to defend itself against an existential threat to their existence.

This conflict is a tough one to resolve because we aren't talking about a conventional war against a conventional adversary. It's hybrid warfare with multiple players having stakes in the outcome. The battle field is extensive and includes varying types of conventional maneuver warfare being fought by uniformed soldiers facing combatants who do not, in any way, conform to established rules of warfare (and they don't care about that either). There is "moral clarity" when the conflict is viewed through the lens of Hamas' brutal invasion of Israel and the rape and murder of Israeli citizens and what many, including me, consider as an appropriate military response guided by appropriate Israeli war time goals and objectives. Problems with that "moral clarity" arise when the entirety of what is considered a more than 1/2 century failure to recognize legitimate Palestinian complaints wrt lands claimed by Israel. Hamas identifies this as the fundamental (yet infinitely more complicated from a Palestinian POV) reason for their attack on Israel last October.