Forgot to mention that I was thinking during the second half that folks who like pro-wrestling, like JB, would probably enjoy the spectacle of it all. So I wouldn't advise against seeing it.
For about half the movie I was really impressed... felt like a real movie. With people and words and stuff. A plot, a meta-plot, a meta-movie about a movie. Stunts were props to the plot; Stunts were metaphors for love. Foreshadowing about making bad decisions.
Then the writers/movie just started making bad decisions. Where the first half walked the tight-rope of stunts in service to the plot -- like a Penn & Teller routine -- the second half just said F-it. Stunts for everyone. And wasted a plot that didn't have to go the way it did.
At first I thought your wife was pushing you to get your act together and play Halo 2 on date night... then I realized you meant some sort of TV show. Sad.
Food:
Hot food for lunch!!! (IMPORTANT)
NO packaged food
NO cold cuts, unless warmed on fresh bread with mayo and mustard and a bubbies pickle on the side. Cubano's are a-ok.
NO leftovers without the accompanying starch: Rice, Pasta, Potatoes... as appropriate.
NO Eggs, unless its part of an McMuffin arrangement: bagels, biscuits, english muffins, etc. NO Veggies (except afore mentioned pickles, or pickled jalepanos)
NO UNPICKLED Veggies.
NO MIRACLEWHIP (non-negotiable)
Taking Lady Marchmaine to the Alamo (they have passable fish'n'chips believe it or not) to see The Fall Guy ... desperately hoping without evidence that it's something of a dumb action RomCom.
Then our streak of beautiful weather is supposed to turn into cold rain for the weekend... so boo.
Heh, appreciate the sentiment... but not a good test.
I think you yourself have argued that the Executive has the authority to interpret the laws that Congress passes and therefore there's something of a tautology involved when the Executive branch executes. Else every interpretation of the EPA is potentially liable to criminal pursuit. This is, of course, the reductio absurdum on the other side of total immunity.
I'd even point to the recent impeachment of Mayorkas is an example of why that won't work. Mayorkas was impeached for "willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law" whereupon Schumer "made a point of order that neither article of impeachment alleged "conduct that rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor" as required by the Constitution for an impeachment"
There should be a test, best we can hope for is that it's a good test.
Yes, well, then you're crazy then :-) . More precisely, I don't think SCOTUS is remotely entertaining carte blanche. At issue is what I quoted above from Alito -- what if the President consults the AG on 'whether his actions are legal or not' and the AG says they are (murdering citizens abroad, torture, etc) -- and the Govt (Dreeben) says that would make it legal.
That's the 'problem' with QI... it's based on the discretionary actions of Govt which the Exec office is the primary executor of discretionary actions as its role.
So we want a 'good' test that gets us accountability while preventing random DA's from indicting Presidential ham sandwiches.
That would seem likely to me. There's already an 'understanding' that such is the case, but moving in to the reality of actual criminal charges the 'understanding' should be codified so that the current charges can move forward with a backstop of making the 'understanding' actionable.
Until we see what the test actually is we can speculate that it will be poorly constructed and evolved like, say, Qualified Immunity ... or we can speculate that it will be a workable three pronged test like lots of other SCOTUS tests. Or something in between.
As I note above, I think the govt. did a decent job of making the case that Trump was acting as 'Candidate Trump' and not 'President Trump' ... they have to navigate (which I think they did) why 'Candidate Trump' was using 'President Trump' as a cover for actions that weren't official in any meaningful way.
Clarifying the rules is the only way the case can go forward. Of course, it may not meet certain timeline expectations, but that's irrelevant.
Ultimately Congress flinched when it didn't Impeach after Jan 6. Shame on the Republican Senators who failed in their duty. But in the end, no DA is going to be the remedy for Executive overreach qua Executive power. That's a power reserved to Congress. At best we clarify that DAs can prosecute Presidents for private criminal acts committed by Presidents while in office... and what constitutes a private act from an official one. And how to make that case.
Coda: out of bounds will be any sort of theory on motive or intent for obvious (I hope) reasons. That is, every action of President XYZ could theoretically be recast as a Politically motivated Official Act to get Candidate XYZ re-elected. To whit, Biden's plan to use Executive Power to nullify voter's debt is a criminal abuse of power because it's clearly motivated by Candidate Biden, not President Biden... etc. etc.
I listened to about an hour of the live SCOTUS arguments about Presidential Immunity... and I'm not sure which way the chips will fall on this one. More precisely, I think the Govt. may have made it's case that the trial at hand 'could' proceed, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was sent back with a set of guidelines/tests that must be satisfied before it could proceed (I'm not sure what that would mean procedurally).
On the one hand, there seems unanimity that simply being President does not grant immunity to anything a person might do while in office. But, the obvious distinction is "official acts" vs. "private acts" which my hunch tells me will require something like a presumption of official, but possibility to 'pierce the veil' into private with proper safeguards.
My hunch is that Trump's 'universalist' claims will be ignored (i.e. I don't think they will address them directly) and a narrower guidance on how presidential actions may reviewed -- it sounds like the court may position an affirmative defence that the executive can invoke prior to trial ... basically a judge decides if the Executive has satisfied his 'official act' with evidence of various sorts (i.e. he consulted the AG and AG followed procedures and gave him permission to murder citizens abroad because murder is an unlawful act and this review makes it lawful -- yes, this was actually paraphrased as the Obama defense on Drone killings) and this would end the case.
---
Sample exchange:
Alito asks "if the president gets advice from the attorney general that something is lawful, is that an absolute defence" for the actions they take?
"Yes I think it is," Dreeben replies. "If an authorised government representative tells you what you are about to do is lawful, it would be a violation of due process to prosecute you."
[Alito asks about a 'yes man' AG, Dreeben replies advise & consent is constitutional defense against that...which, yes, but eeep.]
---
There are, of course, concerns about a sort of DDoS strategy that even if the President can point to the process whereby the acts are official, not having 'immunity' makes asking the President to defend every act potentially exploitable... so possibly a more affirmative stance of 'immunity' that makes piecing official acts a burden of the prosecution.
For State/Local Crimes, interestingly, the Govt basically said, yes... the President is Immune under the Supremacy Clause -- so pound sand Fairfax County, Virginia.
Heh, I don't really keep track of directors... but looking at IMDB I liked Sherlock and Man from UNCLE... but a lot of movies I've never heard of. I probably would have seen Ruse de Guerre, but it disappeared before it even came out. Never saw Snatch, but it looks good... I'll have to find it.
I kinda wanna see the new Henry Cavill movie The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare but am getting mixed reviews on the violence.
I'm hoping its Man from U.N.C.L.E levels of violence and not Inglorious Basterds (or worse) levels of violence... I can get Lady Marchmaine to go to the former but not the latter. If anyone goes, let me know.
Also hoping that all of Cavill's co-stars remain sane and not dabble with cannibalism so we might get a sequel (if the movie is any good). But, I hasten to add, I hope none of his co-stars dabble with cannibalism even if the movie is bad. For the record, and all that.
Other than that... now is the season I have to attack the side fields before the weeds and growth are out of control. The pool, however, should be open (but had to replace the heater -- so bye bye $$).
A modest proposal to move the border south... not all the way to Mexico City (yet)... Monterey to Mazatlan and, well, Baja. Significantly spur investment in Greater America... new citizens... new political dynamics... new resources! Protect our new citizens with US labor and economic Laws! Growth without the deadloss of inefficient Mexican Government(s). Wins for everyone!
Arizona is curious because the AZ supreme court (just TODAY) ruled that the *existing* 1864 law is still on the books because after Roe in 1973 there was no reason to do anything with it.
And, what further makes this not really any sort of test case is that the 2022 15-week law signed by Republican Gov. Ducey is on the books and the court simply says that the 2022 law was written in such a way that it operated under Roe and didn't (re-)authorize abortions post Roe.
So... I'm not sure anyone can make of this as a test case for anything. Likely it results in a 24-week 'viability' law that seems to be working its way through referendum process. The difference between 15-weeks and 24-weeks in terms of the # of abortions? None.
¶1 We consider whether the Arizona Legislature repealed or otherwise restricted A.R.S. § 13-3603 by enacting the abortion statutes in Title 36,2 namely A.R.S. § 36-2322, the statute proscribing physicians from performing elective abortions after fifteen weeks’ gestation. This case involves statutory interpretation—it does not rest on the justices’ morals or public policy views regarding abortion; nor does it rest on § 13-3603’s constitutionality, which is not before us.
¶2 We conclude that § 36-2322 [The 2022 15-week Law] does not create a right to, or otherwise provide independent statutory authority for, an abortion that repeals or restricts § 13-3603, but rather is predicated entirely on the existence of a federal constitutional right to an abortion since disclaimed by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215, 292 (2022). Absent the federal constitutional abortion right, and because § 36-2322 does not independently authorize abortion, there is no provision in federal or state law prohibiting § 13-3603’s operation. Accordingly, § 13-3603 is now enforceable.
On “Open Mic for the week of 5/13/2024”
Ask me anything about selling software to Russian Oligarchs.
"
The interesting thing to me is that *DEM* analysts who are confronting this are openly talking about the primary issue being Non-white poll numbers.
That is, I have no interest in unpacking the crosstabs... but those who do seem concerned in areas they weren't expecting to be concerned about.
And, to be clear, these are not the partisan hacks either denying or affirming whatever is in their interest.
Still, it's too early for the OT presidential predictions because the election is, what? A year or two away? Something like that.
"
"an hour long module employees mindlessly click through"
If only... or, more accurately, if only there was one module.
On “From WUNC, North Carolina Public Radio: UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees votes to divert DEI funding, redirecting it to campus public safety”
Obvious comment is obvious: Defund DEI.
On “Weekend Plans Post: The Best Bagel Sandwich”
Forgot to mention that I was thinking during the second half that folks who like pro-wrestling, like JB, would probably enjoy the spectacle of it all. So I wouldn't advise against seeing it.
But, as a RomCom date movie, no.
"
Eh... it was still better than another superhero movie. I just could have been tighter. In the end, it was Ken-nough.
"
For about half the movie I was really impressed... felt like a real movie. With people and words and stuff. A plot, a meta-plot, a meta-movie about a movie. Stunts were props to the plot; Stunts were metaphors for love. Foreshadowing about making bad decisions.
Then the writers/movie just started making bad decisions. Where the first half walked the tight-rope of stunts in service to the plot -- like a Penn & Teller routine -- the second half just said F-it. Stunts for everyone. And wasted a plot that didn't have to go the way it did.
"
At first I thought your wife was pushing you to get your act together and play Halo 2 on date night... then I realized you meant some sort of TV show. Sad.
"
I'll let you know what you missed...
I feel like there's a Fall Guy / Everythingbodywhere dating meme waiting to happen.
On “Campus Insurrections?”
In the Marchmaine house:
Food:
Hot food for lunch!!! (IMPORTANT)
NO packaged food
NO cold cuts, unless warmed on fresh bread with mayo and mustard and a bubbies pickle on the side. Cubano's are a-ok.
NO leftovers without the accompanying starch: Rice, Pasta, Potatoes... as appropriate.
NO Eggs, unless its part of an McMuffin arrangement: bagels, biscuits, english muffins, etc.
NO Veggies (except afore mentioned pickles, or pickled jalepanos)NO UNPICKLED Veggies.
NO MIRACLEWHIP (non-negotiable)
"
At this point, it's mostly a positional top tier, not an actual top tier. Scarcity of input, not excellence of output.
And for the purposes of the endowment and institutional reputation, that's good enough.
On “Weekend Plans Post: The Best Bagel Sandwich”
Taking Lady Marchmaine to the Alamo (they have passable fish'n'chips believe it or not) to see The Fall Guy ... desperately hoping without evidence that it's something of a dumb action RomCom.
Then our streak of beautiful weather is supposed to turn into cold rain for the weekend... so boo.
On “Open Mic for the week of 4/22/2024”
Heh, appreciate the sentiment... but not a good test.
I think you yourself have argued that the Executive has the authority to interpret the laws that Congress passes and therefore there's something of a tautology involved when the Executive branch executes. Else every interpretation of the EPA is potentially liable to criminal pursuit. This is, of course, the reductio absurdum on the other side of total immunity.
I'd even point to the recent impeachment of Mayorkas is an example of why that won't work. Mayorkas was impeached for "willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law" whereupon Schumer "made a point of order that neither article of impeachment alleged "conduct that rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor" as required by the Constitution for an impeachment"
There should be a test, best we can hope for is that it's a good test.
"
Yes, well, then you're crazy then :-) . More precisely, I don't think SCOTUS is remotely entertaining carte blanche. At issue is what I quoted above from Alito -- what if the President consults the AG on 'whether his actions are legal or not' and the AG says they are (murdering citizens abroad, torture, etc) -- and the Govt (Dreeben) says that would make it legal.
That's the 'problem' with QI... it's based on the discretionary actions of Govt which the Exec office is the primary executor of discretionary actions as its role.
So we want a 'good' test that gets us accountability while preventing random DA's from indicting Presidential ham sandwiches.
"
That would seem likely to me. There's already an 'understanding' that such is the case, but moving in to the reality of actual criminal charges the 'understanding' should be codified so that the current charges can move forward with a backstop of making the 'understanding' actionable.
Until we see what the test actually is we can speculate that it will be poorly constructed and evolved like, say, Qualified Immunity ... or we can speculate that it will be a workable three pronged test like lots of other SCOTUS tests. Or something in between.
As I note above, I think the govt. did a decent job of making the case that Trump was acting as 'Candidate Trump' and not 'President Trump' ... they have to navigate (which I think they did) why 'Candidate Trump' was using 'President Trump' as a cover for actions that weren't official in any meaningful way.
Clarifying the rules is the only way the case can go forward. Of course, it may not meet certain timeline expectations, but that's irrelevant.
Ultimately Congress flinched when it didn't Impeach after Jan 6. Shame on the Republican Senators who failed in their duty. But in the end, no DA is going to be the remedy for Executive overreach qua Executive power. That's a power reserved to Congress. At best we clarify that DAs can prosecute Presidents for private criminal acts committed by Presidents while in office... and what constitutes a private act from an official one. And how to make that case.
Coda: out of bounds will be any sort of theory on motive or intent for obvious (I hope) reasons. That is, every action of President XYZ could theoretically be recast as a Politically motivated Official Act to get Candidate XYZ re-elected. To whit, Biden's plan to use Executive Power to nullify voter's debt is a criminal abuse of power because it's clearly motivated by Candidate Biden, not President Biden... etc. etc.
"
I listened to about an hour of the live SCOTUS arguments about Presidential Immunity... and I'm not sure which way the chips will fall on this one. More precisely, I think the Govt. may have made it's case that the trial at hand 'could' proceed, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was sent back with a set of guidelines/tests that must be satisfied before it could proceed (I'm not sure what that would mean procedurally).
On the one hand, there seems unanimity that simply being President does not grant immunity to anything a person might do while in office. But, the obvious distinction is "official acts" vs. "private acts" which my hunch tells me will require something like a presumption of official, but possibility to 'pierce the veil' into private with proper safeguards.
My hunch is that Trump's 'universalist' claims will be ignored (i.e. I don't think they will address them directly) and a narrower guidance on how presidential actions may reviewed -- it sounds like the court may position an affirmative defence that the executive can invoke prior to trial ... basically a judge decides if the Executive has satisfied his 'official act' with evidence of various sorts (i.e. he consulted the AG and AG followed procedures and gave him permission to murder citizens abroad because murder is an unlawful act and this review makes it lawful -- yes, this was actually paraphrased as the Obama defense on Drone killings) and this would end the case.
---
Sample exchange:
Alito asks "if the president gets advice from the attorney general that something is lawful, is that an absolute defence" for the actions they take?
"Yes I think it is," Dreeben replies. "If an authorised government representative tells you what you are about to do is lawful, it would be a violation of due process to prosecute you."
[Alito asks about a 'yes man' AG, Dreeben replies advise & consent is constitutional defense against that...which, yes, but eeep.]
---
There are, of course, concerns about a sort of DDoS strategy that even if the President can point to the process whereby the acts are official, not having 'immunity' makes asking the President to defend every act potentially exploitable... so possibly a more affirmative stance of 'immunity' that makes piecing official acts a burden of the prosecution.
For State/Local Crimes, interestingly, the Govt basically said, yes... the President is Immune under the Supremacy Clause -- so pound sand Fairfax County, Virginia.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-68892030?src_origin=BBCS_BBC
"
Heh, the reporter stopped him from the payoff word(s).
Being what? Now the listener/reader gets to insert whatever word *they* want it to be and that becomes Biden's position on the matter.
Being treated; being misgoverned; being let down; being used; being abused; being murdered; being genocided... etc.
On “Weekend Plans Post: The Aftermath of Catching Up”
A song of rebuilding... we *will* reset the channels. Our souls *will* be won.
But dang, that's like, a song actually.
"
Heh, I don't really keep track of directors... but looking at IMDB I liked Sherlock and Man from UNCLE... but a lot of movies I've never heard of. I probably would have seen Ruse de Guerre, but it disappeared before it even came out. Never saw Snatch, but it looks good... I'll have to find it.
"
I kinda wanna see the new Henry Cavill movie The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare but am getting mixed reviews on the violence.
I'm hoping its Man from U.N.C.L.E levels of violence and not Inglorious Basterds (or worse) levels of violence... I can get Lady Marchmaine to go to the former but not the latter. If anyone goes, let me know.
Also hoping that all of Cavill's co-stars remain sane and not dabble with cannibalism so we might get a sequel (if the movie is any good). But, I hasten to add, I hope none of his co-stars dabble with cannibalism even if the movie is bad. For the record, and all that.
Other than that... now is the season I have to attack the side fields before the weeds and growth are out of control. The pool, however, should be open (but had to replace the heater -- so bye bye $$).
On “The Statistical Side of Immigration”
Colonialism with a DEI heart.
"
A modest proposal to move the border south... not all the way to Mexico City (yet)... Monterey to Mazatlan and, well, Baja. Significantly spur investment in Greater America... new citizens... new political dynamics... new resources! Protect our new citizens with US labor and economic Laws! Growth without the deadloss of inefficient Mexican Government(s). Wins for everyone!
On “OJ Simpson: Football Great, Murder Suspect, and Convicted Felon, Dead at 76”
"and my boss lit a cigarette for the first time in years"
Heh... it's a young'un who doesn't have a clear timeline of the smoking changes.
"
The Actor? From Airplane?
On “Open Mic for the week of 4/8/2024”
Arizona is curious because the AZ supreme court (just TODAY) ruled that the *existing* 1864 law is still on the books because after Roe in 1973 there was no reason to do anything with it.
And, what further makes this not really any sort of test case is that the 2022 15-week law signed by Republican Gov. Ducey is on the books and the court simply says that the 2022 law was written in such a way that it operated under Roe and didn't (re-)authorize abortions post Roe.
So... I'm not sure anyone can make of this as a test case for anything. Likely it results in a 24-week 'viability' law that seems to be working its way through referendum process. The difference between 15-weeks and 24-weeks in terms of the # of abortions? None.
¶1 We consider whether the Arizona Legislature repealed or otherwise restricted A.R.S. § 13-3603 by enacting the abortion statutes in Title 36,2 namely A.R.S. § 36-2322, the statute proscribing physicians from performing elective abortions after fifteen weeks’ gestation. This case involves statutory interpretation—it does not rest on the justices’ morals or public policy views regarding abortion; nor does it rest on § 13-3603’s constitutionality, which is not before us.
¶2 We conclude that § 36-2322 [The 2022 15-week Law] does not create a right to, or otherwise provide independent statutory authority for, an abortion that repeals or restricts § 13-3603, but rather is predicated entirely on the existence of a federal constitutional right to an abortion since disclaimed by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215, 292 (2022). Absent the federal constitutional abortion right, and because § 36-2322 does not independently authorize abortion, there is no provision in federal or state law prohibiting § 13-3603’s operation. Accordingly, § 13-3603 is now enforceable.
https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Supreme/2024/CV230005PR.pdf