Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

Football coach who prayed on the field after games wins his case.

Other than that, the most interesting thing from today is probably Thomas' dissent in the SC declining to take up a defamation case involving some churchy group and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Thomas reminds us that besides the three decisions he already mentioned, he would also love to overturn New York v. Sullivan and make it easier to sue for libel/defamation.

Oh and the Court still hasn't said that they will take up the North Carolina "independent state legislature doctrine" case. Couple guys I follow think this raises the chances a denial of cert is coming. If the SC eventually hears a case built on this legal theory, and they approve of it, state legislatures would have almost total control over running elections and state executive and judicial branches would be almost completely cut out.

[Da Geezer]

Now there may be details in some of them that the Court would throw out but to say that under no circumstances, never, no way, can a judge order guns be “temporarily” taken away from someone? Rubbish. Should a trial need to be conducted before a judge can even issue a search warrant? That’d be ridiculous. A warrant is an infringement of your 4th Amendment rights. If you’re comfortable leaving that decision up to a judge alone, why’s that not good enough for temporary removal of guns?

I know it’s a common argument on the right that these people receive NO due process but I’m extremely skeptical about that. Every one I’ve looked into required a judge’s approval. I can’t rule out there are examples of going too far but opponents of the laws exagerrate how unfair it all is.

First, I never said anything close to "never, no way" can a judge take away guns from people. I simply said that I wanted an adversary process wherein the person to be censured is able to confront (Sixth Amendment) those who triggered the red-flag listing. Remember, actions anticipated by most in regards to red-flag laws are under the rubric of criminal law. They should require a high level of proof. Otherwise, you will have one side or the other listing all members of the Proud Boys or all members of Antifa.

Strange, like most Progs, you invert the process in criminal law. A person has the right to a firearm just as he has the right to free speech. The "listed" person does not have to prove to a bureaucrat or a judge that he has the right to a gun. The state has to prove that he doesn't have such a right, preferably using objective criteria, as Talent pointed out.

There is also the matter of notice. An adversary proceeding gives actual notice to a potential listee. I would want to avoid a situation like the no-fly list in which lots of totally innocent people had to prove their innocence in order to get removed from the list.

[Tom W]

Wrong again. According to AOC, its "mensturating people".

Speaking of D nutjobs, our illustrious Governor used that term as well.

And you would think that our state would be better than Talent's state on this matter- because, well it's better across the board. But, NO. As my wife pointed out to me, "what's wrong with the way things are now? Why do they have to change?" They really don't need to change, and via the mechanisms set out for governing the state, the lack of transition can be seamless. There is no reason why a law from 1931 should not have been considered, and prepared, for revision. Unless, of course, there's a fear that most voters actually want that law.

But Whitmer just sees this as yet another source of political ammunition.

[Mike]

Meanwhile in Chicago, mayor Lightfoot, who previously pushed a "call to arms" over the Dobbs ruling, addressed a crowd at the pride festival in Chicago over the weekend and shouted "Fuck Clarence Thomas!" to the enthusiastic crowd. These are usually the same people that have the "hate doesn't live here" signs on their property.

[lineygoblue]

Football coach who prayed on the field after games wins his case.

... and was FIRED for praying on the field after games.

The Court rightly ruled that his religious freedoms were being unconstitutionally surpressed.

Don't fear, Strangelove. Once The Party packs the court, they can overturn all the evil things this current Court is doing.

[Dr. Strangelove]

First, I never said anything close to "never, no way" can a judge take away guns from people. I simply said that I wanted an adversary process wherein the person to be censured is able to confront (Sixth Amendment) those who triggered the red-flag listing. Remember, actions anticipated by most in regards to red-flag laws are under the rubric of criminal law. They should require a high level of proof. Otherwise, you will have one side or the other listing all members of the Proud Boys or all members of Antifa.

Strange, like most Progs, you invert the process in criminal law. A person has the right to a firearm just as he has the right to free speech. The "listed" person does not have to prove to a bureaucrat or a judge that he has the right to a gun. The state has to prove that he doesn't have such a right, preferably using objective criteria, as Talent pointed out.

There is also the matter of notice. An adversary proceeding gives actual notice to a potential listee. I would want to avoid a situation like the no-fly list in which lots of totally innocent people had to prove their innocence in order to get removed from the list.

What I am telling you is that most if not all red flag laws contain the same level of due process that you would receive when the cops ask a judge for a search warrant. No judge is required to listen to both sides plead their case before issuing a warrant. You're not "entitled" to any representation at that hearing. And every single warrant issued in this country is at least a mild infringement of your 4th Amendment rights.

I can't promise there's not a single problem with every such law in the country but the notion that they are all categorically abusive is wrong. Point out a specific state law that doesn't even require a judge to issue a protective order. I am not aware of any like that.

Ron DeSantis signed one into law.

[lineygoblue]

Meanwhile in Chicago, mayor Lightfoot, who previously pushed a "call to arms" over the Dobbs ruling, addressed a crowd at the pride festival in Chicago over the weekend and shouted "Fuck Clarence Thomas!" to the enthusiastic crowd.

But I'm sure Chicagoans everywhere are 'proud' of their mayor.

[Dr. Strangelove]

... and was FIRED for praying on the field after games.

The Court rightly ruled that his religious freedoms were being unconstitutionally surpressed.

Don't fear, Strangelove. Once The Party packs the court, they can overturn all the evil things this current Court is doing.

In this case they may have gotten it right. The circumstances matter. Had he led off all team meetings with a prayer it'd be different.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Moscow made a statement today in response to global criticism of their cruise missile attack of Kiev that struck civilian buildings not military targets that alleged a Ukrainian Buk missile system intercepted a S-300 air defense missile which then “fell down to a residential building”. Russia said all four of its missiles launched against an arms factory in Kyiv hit their target.

The allegation is revealing from an intelligence standpoint more than it has any other useful meaning. First, Russia is alleging that Ukraine shot its own surface to air missile (fired from an S300 system) down with a Buk system missile. That's possible I suppose but not likely for a number of radar acquisition and target tracking reasons. Second, if the Russians aren't just making shit up then they are collecting discreet signals intelligence involving being able to discriminate radar signals and associate them with specific weapons systems. No doubt they have this capability but to get that kind of data it is coming from one or possibly two collections systems. The most likely is from an aircraft platform (TU214) operating in Belarussian airspace. The Russians also reportedly have satellite based systems that do this. What's telling is that the Russians are likely employing a sophisticated SIGINT effort in Ukraine that is either failing to deliver good targeting data or doesn't work very well. If it did, we'd constantly hear bragging about Russia taking out Ukraine's command posts, generals and air defense systems.

Also telling is that Russia admits it sent 4 cruise missiles at the Artem complex on the outskirts of Kiev out of the dozens open source reports say were launched at that city. I suspect some damage was done. How much we won't know. What we do know is that Ukrainians have been asking for and will reportedly get delivered some Swedish manufactured (under US License) mobile air defense batteries - I don't know much about these but will find out later. The S300s and now adding the Buk system to Ukraine's air defenses creates a robust integrated system. Adding the Swedish batteries just adds to the effectiveness of it overall.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Meanwhile in Chicago, mayor Lightfoot, who previously pushed a "call to arms" over the Dobbs ruling, addressed a crowd at the pride festival in Chicago over the weekend and shouted "Fuck Clarence Thomas!" to the enthusiastic crowd. These are usually the same people that have the "hate doesn't live here" signs on their property.

Classy...as most Progs are...heh...

[Da Geezer]

I can't promise there's not a single problem with every such law in the country but the notion that they are all categorically abusive is wrong. Point out a specific state law that doesn't even require a judge to issue a protective order. I am not aware of any like that.

I never said they were "all categorically abusive", or anything of the sort. You speak for you and I'll speak for me, OK?

Parents who protest CRT at school board meetings are Domestic Terrorists (so the DOJ says)
Domestic Terrorists should not have guns
ergo: Parents who protest CRT at school board meetings should not have guns.

Can't you see that, when the left believes a false premise, they could turn that into unconstitutional action? It is a lot like saying White Supremacy is a health issue. Warped beliefs will inevitably lead to abuse of law when it benefits "The Cause". That is why Conservatives look at things like Gender Identity and Global Warming with a jaundiced eye. If you personally want to think men have babies, fine with me. But when you begin passing laws based on that belief, I say whoa.

As to your analogy to warrants, warrants are not convictions. There is no punishment meted out in a warrant situation. There is property taken from a listed person in red-flag laws. I did read Florida's law this morning and it has 16 specific requirements in order to be effectuated by a court.

Now, what if I wanted to list all members of Antifa or BLM as red-flag listees. What would be your reaction? Do you think White Supremacy is the biggest problem facing the US? Your party does. What about listing all Republicans?

[Da Geezer]

Lots of talk this morning about the three Trump-appointed justices lying to Senators when questioned about Roe. WSJ had an interesting take on it.

The fury of the left’s reaction isn’t merely about guns and abortion. It reflects their grief at having lost the Court as the vehicle for achieving policy goals they can’t get through legislatures. The cultural victories they achieved by judicial fiat will now have to be won by persuading voters. We understand their frustration, but they ought to try democracy for a change. They might even win the debate over abortion.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I never said they were "all categorically abusive", or anything of the sort. You speak for you and I'll speak for me, OK?

Parents who protest CRT at school board meetings are Domestic Terrorists (so the DOJ says)
Domestic Terrorists should not have guns
ergo: Parents who protest CRT at school board meetings should not have guns.

Can't you see that, when the left believes a false premise, they could turn that into unconstitutional action? It is a lot like saying White Supremacy is a health issue. Warped beliefs will inevitably lead to abuse of law when it benefits "The Cause". That is why Conservatives look at things like Gender Identity and Global Warming with a jaundiced eye. If you personally want to think men have babies, fine with me. But when you begin passing laws based on that belief, I say whoa.

As to your analogy to warrants, warrants are not convictions. There is no punishment meted out in a warrant situation. There is property taken from a listed person in red-flag laws. I did read Florida's law this morning and it has 16 specific requirements in order to be effectuated by a court.

Now, what if I wanted to list all members of Antifa or BLM as red-flag listees. What would be your reaction? Do you think White Supremacy is the biggest problem facing the US? Your party does. What about listing all Republicans?

Having your guns temporarily confiscated isn't a conviction either. It's a temporary protective order. Courts have upheld them over and over again as constitutional and the subject of the order does not get to plead his case BEFORE the order is issued. He can request a hearing after a brief period of time usually.

I could say a lot about the Right believing false premises too. Like how it's incredibly easy to get the guns of anyone you don't like confiscated with zero due process. So I'll ask again, point out a specific law where this is happening, and we can discuss.

Finally I know it was Hannibal suggesting the gun bill could be unconstitutional and not you, but the bill didn't write any new red flag laws. It provided funding for their support. At least as far as I am aware. If so, the only way that provision could be unconstitutional is if all red flag laws are unconstitutional.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Russia bombed a shopping mall that's nowhere near the front lines. Dead center of the country. Current number of dead is 10 but over a thousand people were believed to be in the mall when it was hit so the number could get a lot worse.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I'm familiar with Carl Paladino from my time in NY. He's been trying to be a power player in New York politics for decades. When even the NY Post is saying you are a "Buffalo wingnut infamous for a long history of idiotic, racist, sexist, and homophobic comments", you know you're a nut.

Buffalo wingnut Carl Paladino is wrong for Western NY (nypost.com)