Maybe I lack imagination, but I don't see what Pelosi could do as Temporary President that Trump/Pence wouldn't be able to undo once one or both of them recovered. Now if they both were to die, that would be a different story. But before you spend too much time arguing that the current succession law is unconstitutional, just consider that the most likely alternative would be to have the succession pass to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

It seems to me that for temporary disabilities, the better solution is to go with a cabinet officer. But for actual simultaneous deaths, the Speaker is the most democratic option available.
 

One more point: no succession law should allow acting Secretaries to take a place in line.
 

The UK does not have a well-functioning constitution with respect to temporary succession. When Boris Johnson was in intensive care with Covid-19 there was considerable confusion about whether Boris or the first secretary of state was administering the government.

I know the US constitution has problems, but inventing features of the UK constitution that do not actually exist is not doing much for your argument.
 

Yes. On another blog, a resident of the UK noted that the succession law in the UK is not so clear either. Plus, from across the pond, I have rather mixed views on how their political situation handled things in the last few decades. It appears that a plurality repeatedly gained power. The whole Brexit thing also left something to be desired.

I recently read Birch Bayh's interesting account of the ratification of the 25th Amendment, which deals with presidential incapacity. We talked a bit about the 25A in the past in comments. Reading about the process, it significantly was affected by the times and political compromises necessary. This included not doing more -- such as more clarity on the rules of who fills in after the v.p. -- than it does.

The 25A clearly sets up rules that partially probably could be done by the original clause dealing with incapacity though the process to replace a vice president is a separate matter. But, over the years, clarify of such rules were basically avoided. So, the 25A was helpful in setting in stone some things. Maybe, if it was politically possible (Sen. Bayh basically argued it was not), dealing with rules past the v.p. covered in the Prof. Levinson's comments might be helpful too.

Anyway, our system does allow a line of succession. For a time, we had a rule where if a v.p. was unable to serve, the next in line was the lead Cabinet secretary who was constitutionally able to be president. That was changed eventually, in part because President Truman and others actually thought the current approach better since an elected official with support of the whole House and Senate [the pro tempore need not be the oldest member of the majority, btw] would have more popular support. Maybe, that is a bit ironic to those who oppose the current rule.

I don't know how much you can blame our constitutional system for the current rule. I guess I rather it go from Secretary of State etc. I doubt both Trump and Pence will be so incapacitated that it would go to Pelosi. But, yes, that does seem problematic. Things that never happened eventually tend to. So, it's something to think about.
 

I don't see what Pelosi could do as Temporary President that Trump/Pence wouldn't be able to undo

A pardon would come to mind.

Judicial appointments and the like would need Senate approval, but maybe there is some sort of legislation that Mitch would want passed that he couldn't get past Trump.

Also, probably various individual actions that are final or once you approve, it would be somewhat hard to undo.
 

Important one. Just one missing aspect here, and this is courts, and, expert testimony or opinion. If court is petitioned ( federal one of course) it will have to prevail, and, based on expert testimony. Simple as that. One may expect such scenario to occur. Has to do, with controversy, with significant consequences, as how to interpret the 25th amendment, or, not implied simply, or correctly implied.

Thanks



 

I agree that the continuity in government act is badly written, and handles matters that probably should be relegated to a constitutional amendment.

Probably the worst part of it is that you can envision scenarios where a couple of tactically selected deaths result in dramatic changes in policy. That's BAD, it provides too many people with nasty incentives. Ideally continuity in government should result in continuity in policy, so that nobody has a motive to change policy by fatally changing personnel.

Really, instead of one VP, we should just have a whole string of the; 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th VP. They could be kept up to speed by the administration, and be selected for policy continuity.

By the way, I find the scenario here a bit far fetched; You'd need both Trump and Pence to be diagnosed at pretty much the same time, and then both decline to the point of being incapacitated almost immediately. Otherwise it would be dirt simple to replace Pence with somebody uninfected. And the virus really does not work that way, worst case with daily testing you'd have a week or so, and that's assuming neither of them are getting prophylactic injections of antibodies from people who've recovered.

While there's little question that McConnell has severe policy differences with Trump, (With the GOP electorate, really!) and would exploit such a situation to get a new VP who wouldn't be Trump's ideal pick, I doubt he'd let it go as far as Pelosi ending up President. That would be his nightmare scenario.
 

"I don't see what Pelosi could do as Temporary President that Trump/Pence wouldn't be able to undo"

She could fully implement the Defense Production Act and get PPE distributed to hospitals, even in states whose governors aren't "nice" to the toddler. The toddler and his lapdog could not easily undo that if they recovered.
 

The pardon power is the obvious example. I can't think of anyone who might be pardoned right now, but it's certainly a consideration.

The DPA is a possibility, but I think it depends on how long the incapacity lasts. It would be easy to undo after a week, a bit hard after a month perhaps. Perhaps President Pelosi could take the DoD money Trump uses for the wall and buy something else. That would piss off Trump but it's not enough money to be all that meaningful otherwise.

While there's little question that McConnell has severe policy differences with Trump, (With the GOP electorate, really!) and would exploit such a situation to get a new VP who wouldn't be Trump's ideal pick, I doubt he'd let it go as far as Pelosi ending up President.

I understood the hypothetical to involve a situation where neither Trump nor Pence were capable of nominating a new VP. In any case, though, both Houses would have to confirm the nominee and I doubt there'd be much agreement.


 

"I understood the hypothetical to involve a situation where neither Trump nor Pence were capable of nominating a new VP. In any case, though, both Houses would have to confirm the nominee and I doubt there'd be much agreement."

I understood that, too. My point was that that's just not the way the virus works, in the real world if they did both test positive tomorrow, there would be plenty of time to replace Pence with somebody who wasn't infected before Trump became incapacitated. And that's even ignoring the use of prophylactic treatments that can be pretty effective on somebody who's not already seriously ill. (Most of the deaths are among people who already had serious medical problems.) So it isn't really a realistic scenario.

You'd really need a different scenario to be realistic, Covid-19 just isn't going to cut it for creating this particular problem.
 

I suppose you could modify the scenario as just a massive screwup: Both Trump and Pence expect to have mild cases, (This wouldn't be totally irrational, given that they're both going to get the best treatment possible from the get-go.) and don't change their minds until too late to pull off a replacement.

But, of course, every system is vulnerable to multiple people making bad decisions.
 

"Otherwise it would be dirt simple to replace Pence with somebody uninfected."

There is a law in place now regarding who is acting president after Pence.

How is it 'dirt simple' to change said law?

It isn't up to Trump to appoint someone else. There is a legal line in place.

It is not really too hard to imagine somehow (such as a car accident) for both to suddenly be incapacitated. As to the virus, there is lag time, but I can see Trump refusing to step aside until physically something happens suddenly. That leaves Pence, so yes, it's a hypothetical. Be more likely if McConnell was next in line. Pence would be more willing (let's say if he was self-isolating already) to step aside temporarily.

 

As to appointing a whole new VP, that wouldn't be likely if Pence was merely temporarily ill & it would be even more likely the House [both houses need to confirm a VP] would refuse to do so immediately. The person has to be someone the Democratic House would support. And, the acting POTUS would be Pelosi, giving the Democratic House even less incentive to rush.
 

"There is a law in place now regarding who is acting president after Pence.

How is it 'dirt simple' to change said law?"

Never said anything about changing the "law", changing the law isn't remotely necessary.

Trump asks Pence to resign, then nominates somebody to fill the vacancy. Easy peasy, and consistent with current law.
 

" [both houses need to confirm a VP] "

Well, you got me there, I forgot that.
 

Everything You Need To Know About The AliExpress Sale
It always comes with an exciting sale. That brings the global shopping fashion from all over the world. So, what’s so great about a sale? Well, almost all categories provide an unbeatable price at this time. Be it Electronics, Fashion, Accessories, Footwear, Health & Beauty, Bags, and everything you ever wanted. It goes the extra mile and brings you the best of the online shopping experience. But it doesn’t restrict to that, Not only that but also has flash deals in place to help you save more.

AliExpress Coupon Code
Hot Clearance Deals Up to 70% OFF
The AliExpress Deals One Can Bag
The Single Day Sale, famously known as the 11.11 sale has some of the best deals that go live at midnight. Before the sale begins, one can get a glimpse of all deals that will go live during the sale. One can bag some of the best 11.11 deals, but you can get huge concessions on clothes, electronics, footwear, and many more. If you happen to love your footwear collection, this is the perfect time to add more to it with AliExpress shoe collection. They have great discounts on men's and women's shoes.

Buy Better At AliExpress With Additional Discounts
When you feel like buying something, don’t forget to shop from the AliExpress mobile app as you can avail extra discounts. The mobile app offers exclusive AliExpress deals which you wouldn’t want to miss. Take a look at their deals to sneak peek a corner to know what deals go live during the sale so that you don’t miss out on any.

Avail International shipping
The site offers free delivery to your doorstep across various categories and products. You can change the site’s language and currency based on your preference. You will be notified of the delivery status once the seller confirms your order. There is a 100% buyer protection for all the products.

https://askmeoffers.com/coupon-deal-offer-promo-store/aliexpress-com/
 

Trump may not be seriously ill, but I doubt he is without moderately serious medical issues that would make his case a risky one.

He's 73, with BMI just over 30, and LDL of 122, (these are the reported numbers, anyway), neither of which are good. He eats a lot of fast food and he doesn't exercise.

So a picture of health he isn't.
 

"Otherwise it would be dirt simple to replace Pence with somebody uninfected."

"Trump asks Pence to resign, then nominates somebody to fill the vacancy. Easy peasy, and consistent with current law."

" [both houses need to confirm a VP] "

Well, you got me there, I forgot that.
# posted by Blogger Brett : 10:43 AM"

Ah, Bircher Brett, don't ever change!
 

The Birch Bayh book is "One Heartbeat Away."

His wife also wrote "Marvella: A Personal Journey" and it too is recommended.

Marvella Bayh was a spokeswoman for cancer survivors until she herself died in her 40s. Birch Bayh remarried; their son also later became senator.


 

I'm willing to admit when I've been proven wrong, I should hope I don't change in that regard.

Anyway, bottom line: I agree with Sandy that the Succession in Office Act is bad policy, though I don't see where the constitutional crisis comes in.
 

The true essence of Bircherism:
1. Assume you know the answer to a complicated question you're not trained in
2. Confidently assert the answer, it's truth is obvious, those who don't see it are probably up to something
3. Of course you didn't know what you were talking about because there was a key, non-obvious detail you didn't know
And here is the key:
4. Never learn your lesson. Do this regularly but don't be more careful the next time, simply keep repeating these steps. No matter how many times you get egg on your face, make sure you assume and confidently assert that the answer is simple and easy the next time around. And the next time. And the next time. And...
 

And I think this is why so many conservatives today really can't stand and hate those who start off by saying 'well, this is a really complicated issue with lots of nuance.' Their raison d'etre is assuming they have the answers or can get them really easily. People who say the answers are hard to come by and one probably needs years and years and years of training and experience to get at the answers (note, at, note 'the'), well, they're just elites who are probably up to something.

It's like an entire political philosophy based on jumping to conclusions and then getting angry whenever anyone, including reality, says 'I think you're being hasty...'

And it's why they like things like Fox and Limbaugh, little hermetically sealed bubbles that, most importantly, tell you that the simple, conservative (in the small c sense) answers that you were already easily familiar with are ok and right all along.
 

"And I think this is why so many conservatives today really can't stand and hate those who start off by saying 'well, this is a really complicated issue with lots of nuance.'"

The reason we really can't stand that, is because the moment you run into ANYTHING in the Constitution that doesn't go your way, it's suddenly "really complicated with lots of nuance". You can nuance your way out of anything.

At some point you have to be able to recognize things that are clear, unambiguous, and contrary to what you want, to expect people to listen when you call something "really complicated."

We're sick of "nuance", because all "nuance" seems to mean in practice, is "you get your way regardless of what the words actually say."
 

Of course here Bircher Brett was just sloppy or ignorant of the actual, 'uncomplicated' Constitutional text, and yet he was so sure his reading contrary to it was obvious and easy peasy. And of course that kind of thing, which he does regularly, doesn't give him pause to do the same thing when the text is much more broad and vague and, necessarily, 'complicated.'

Like I said, and he couldn't wait to prove, it just upsets him and his ilk to be told their easy answers aren't so easy. Stretching and reaching are painful to them and upsetting. And what's so amazing is that this is true for areas where *they have to know* they don't have much experience or training in.

I think it's why they fall for so much quack stuff and conspiracy theory in areas that are also full of complications (climate science, medical science, economics, etc): they need easy and simple answers (and the easiest and simplest answers are always the one's you 'always knew' and don't disrupt your worldview a bit).
 

Khác hoàn toàn với máy giặt hay máy sấy thông thường, máy giặt hấp sấy LG Styler không hề sử dụng bột giặt hay hóa chất dễ gây tổn hại cho quần áo. Thay vào đó, chiếc tủ được tích hợp sẵn công nghệ giặt hơi nước TrueSteam do LG phát triển độc quyền, đem tới khả năng khử mùi, khử trùng hiệu quả.

 

You need to read that thing:

“I Am Being Serious Here”: Yale Professor Denounces Trump For “Genocide” In Response To The Pandemic "

Here:

https://jonathanturley.org/2020/05/12/i-am-being-serious-here-yale-professor-denounces-trump-for-genocide-in-response-to-the-pandemic/
 

A proper Covid-19 nasal swab test is reportedly very unpleasant - much worse than a flu jab. Does it seem credible to you that Trump is having a stick shoved up deep into his nasal passages, every day? I suspect he is simply being checked daily for symptoms (fever, cough, fatigue, etc.)
 

Brett: You'd really need a different scenario to be realistic, Covid-19 just isn't going to cut it for creating this particular problem.

Agreed.

Actual COVID incapacitation (delirium) would not last long. Once the crisis point hit, an elderly and overweight person like Trump would either die or survive and recover.

The far younger and more fit Pence would probably be asymptomatic or only have mild symptoms.

I think Sandy is fantasizing again.
 

Speaking of delirium...

Mr. W: The true essence of Bircherism:

When this silly person started calling me a "bircher," I had to look them up. For those who are unaware of the anti-communist John Birch Society because you either were not alive or politically cognizant during the 1960s and 1970s, you can find a reasonable history here. The organization barely exists today.

1. Assume you know the answer to a complicated question you're not trained in
2. Confidently assert the answer, it's truth is obvious, those who don't see it are probably up to something
3. Of course you didn't know what you were talking about because there was a key, non-obvious detail you didn't know
And here is the key:
4. Never learn your lesson. Do this regularly but don't be more careful the next time, simply keep repeating these steps. No matter how many times you get egg on your face, make sure you assume and confidently assert that the answer is simple and easy the next time around. And the next time. And the next time. And...

This is a totalitarian's view of critical thinking. Mr. W apparently views citation and submission to authority to be a virtue rather than a logical error.

Those of us who still believe in freedom and self government assume any motivated person who does not suffer from a mental disability is capable to gathering information and answering even complicated questions for themselves.

 

Just over a month ago, Bart gave us this:

Next, death rate should be measured as a percentage of population, not infections
. So, yes, the far more prevalent annual flu causing roughly 30,000 deaths this s
eason is more dangerous that COVID 19 has proven to be.

He further compared COVID-19 to "the sniffles".

Meanwhile, COVID-19 has killed, in just over a month since, more than 5-10 times as many as the annual flu, and the death rate, which he confidently predicted to be around 80, is at about 250 and climbing.

This is a person that no one should pay attention to on epidemiology. (As to whether he might be worth attending on any other subject, I would consider it doubtful, but YMMV.)

 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

C2H5OH said... Just over a month ago, Bart gave us this: Next, death rate should be measured as a percentage of population, not infections

Correct. This is the standard CDC uses.

So, yes, the far more prevalent annual flu causing roughly 30,000 deaths this season is more dangerous that COVID 19 has proven to be.

Correct for the time.

Meanwhile, COVID-19 has killed, in just over a month since, more than 5-10 times as many as the annual flu, and the death rate, which he confidently predicted to be around 80, is at about 250 and climbing.

This is your wildly false statement of fact and of what I posted. I never made any prediction concerning COVID deaths.

He further compared COVID-19 to "the sniffles".

I believe this was Mr. W's false statement of what I posted.
 

Bart, "Correct for the time" would be sensible, except that, at the time it was explained to you how stupid that was in the face of expert opinion, which you poo-poohed.

That "wildly false statement of fact" is precisely correct. You predicted a death rate around 80 per million. It's now 250 per million and looks to be headed for 500 per million before this pandemic in the USA is half over.

You did, in fact, say that COVID-19 was comparable to the common cold. You are not in a position to complain about other's use of hyperbole.

 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

C2H5OH said..."Correct for the time" would be sensible, except that, at the time it was explained to you how stupid that was in the face of expert opinion, which you poo-poohed.

Actually, I categorically rejected the "expert opinions" of the time speaking of millions of deaths without a shutdown and hundreds of thousands with a shutdown as ridiculous and they continue to be so. The Brit clown who predicted 2.2 million deaths if we did not shit down the economy was forced to resign when he was caught violating his own social distancing demands. The IHME model used by the government collapsed its projections to better match reality and continues to change them weekly.

These are the "experts" to whom average people are supposed to defer according to you and W.

That "wildly false statement of fact" is precisely correct. You predicted a death rate around 80 per million. It's now 250 per million and looks to be headed for 500 per million before this pandemic in the USA is half over.

Stop lying. I never made a COVID death projection in any format.

Next, there are no good US COVID death figures.

The state figures which are being regurgitated by the media and COVID death websites are nothing more than guesstimates.

Even with the new death certificate standards of "assumed" deaths "related" to COVID guaranteed to inflate COVID deaths, the death certificate attributions collated by CDC are lower than the state guesstimates.

So far as I can tell, physicians are no longer testing for COVID to determine cause of death.

You did, in fact, say that COVID-19 was comparable to the common cold. You are not in a position to complain about other's use of hyperbole.

Another lie.
 

"Mr. W apparently views citation and submission to authority to be a virtue rather than a logical error.

Those of us who still believe in freedom and self government assume any motivated person who does not suffer from a mental disability is capable to gathering information and answering even complicated questions for themselves."

Freedom does not equate to being an idiot. An it's an idiot that doesn't realize that as a matter of inductive logic a person who has more experience and training in an area is more likely correct in that area than a person that does not. Indeed, one of Bircher Bart's more hilarious blunders here (and there have been so many!) was when he showed his ignorance of the complicated field of logic by misusing the deductive fallacy of authority demonstrating his ignorance of the inductive logic principle I just mentioned to argue that he need not show any deference to experts. And, of course, he further illustrates my points above by making the same mistake again. This is what Birchers are about my friends, they cannot change no matter how many folliess and foolish things they get caught red handed saying, they must repeat the process forever because personal growth recognizing answers are not easy to come by is a painful thing for them to contemplate.
 

"You did, in fact, say that COVID-19 was comparable to the common cold. You are not in a position to complain about other's use of hyperbole.

Another lie."


"Initially, Trump had the correct instinct to place this severe cold in context with the annual flu and to reassure the markets...
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 4:56 PM

"We do not do this because most sane human beings would consider this an insane overreaction to a severe cold which has a far less than a 1% chance of incapacitating or killing them...
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 9:06 AM"

https://balkin.blogspot.com/2020/03/government-speech-in-age-of-donald-trump.html

 

"The previous 18 versions of this illness have never before caused an economic depression and our government has never before caused an economic depression fighting what amounts to a severe cold.

Stop the madness.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 8:43 AM

https://balkin.blogspot.com/2020/03/a-ghost-majority.html

"The Democrat media spends 24/7 fueling a panic over the severe cold COVID 19 and condemning Trump for not taking even more extensive dictatorial measures to destroy the economy in order to contain the cold.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 11:27 AM
https://balkin.blogspot.com/2020/03/donald-trump-and-herbert-hoover.html

"The Chinese cold COVID 19 is a sniffle compared to the 1918 influenza true pandemic.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 11:59 AM
https://balkin.blogspot.com/2020/03/neville-chamberlain-and-donald-trump.html

"Finally, we have a government induced panic treating a severe Chinese cold as the second coming of the Black Death. While the Democrats and their media are doing their best to blame Trump, the Donald is fending off this political attack by taking charge of the panic mongering.

We are living in interesting times.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 8:39 AM
https://balkin.blogspot.com/2020/03/suspending-campaigns-bug-or-feature.html

"COVID 19 is a very small part of a constellation of colds and flus the health system treats and from which a small percentage of the elderly and immune system compromised die every year.

There is absolutely no reason to panic and "close everything" in response.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 2:20 PM
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Mr. W: An it's an idiot that doesn't realize that as a matter of inductive logic a person who has more experience and training in an area is more likely correct in that area than a person that does not.

In a search for the truth, you judge the evidence supporting a proposition.

Your assertion lay people without credentialing cannot gather or judge evidence is totalitarian nonsense. As designed, our free republic assumes lay people running their own lives, electing governments and serving on juries can routinely solve complex problems.

Your assertion lay people should defer to credentialing without evidence is the logical error of citation to authority.

Training and experience should allow a person to more readily gather and explain evidence to lay people for those people to judge then evidence for themselves.

However, when an "expert" offers wild assed guesses and opinion instead of evidence, any critically thinking person should question her.

When the wild assed guesses and opinions differ from the evidence, any critically thinking person should find the "expert" non-credible and stop listening to her.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Mr. W:

"The previous 18 versions of this illness have never before caused an economic depression and our government has never before caused an economic depression fighting what amounts to a severe cold. Stop the madness.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 8:43 AM

"COVID 19 is a very small part of a constellation of colds and flus the health system treats and from which a small percentage of the elderly and immune system compromised die every year.There is absolutely no reason to panic and "close everything" in response.# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 2:20 PM

Remains true. A "severe cold" is not the "common cold." My data comparison was properly to the flu and/or other respiratory illnesses.

"The Chinese cold COVID 19 is a sniffle compared to the 1918 influenza true pandemic.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 11:59 AM

Remains true. Noting "COVID 19 is a sniffle compared to the 1918 influenza" is not calling COVID 19 a case of the "sniffles."

Both you and C2H5OH lied when you misrepresented my posts above.

 

"Your assertion lay people should defer to credentialing without evidence is the logical error of citation to authority."

This Bircher can't change.

The error he's talking about is an error of *deductive logic.* A statement is not true *because* of the credentials or 'authority' of the maker. But as a matter of inductive logic of course it is more probable that an expert, i.e., a person with more training and experience in field, will be correct than someone lacking that. Again, this is a well accepted and easily proven tenet of inductive logic.

But Bircher Bart obviously hasn't read enough logic to get to inductive logic (the fallacy he cites is one taught in intro survey courses). His mistake *prove my point* (if he read more in the field, i.e., had more education, training and experience), he would know he was making a stupid statement for that field. But he hasn't and so he does. What makes it so much more special is 1. that Bircher Bart is ironically doing this *in an argument to say expertise isn't importance* and 2. *that he's doing it again, repeatedly.* JUST AS I PREDICTED IN MY COMMENTS ABOUT HOW BIRCHERS THINK. And get this: he's so far gone he really doesn't get how he's making my point. This, my friends, is what that type of thinking does to you.

This is common sense to all non-idiots (it's why people train and educate themselves when they want to go in a field for example).


 

"A "severe cold" is not the "common cold.""

Pathetic wriggling is the stage now, lol.

"COVID 19 is a very small part of a constellation of colds and flus the health system treats and from which a small percentage of the elderly and immune system compromised die every year.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 2:20 PM
 

Egregious stupidity example: "Actually, I categorically rejected the "expert opinions" of the time speaking of millions of deaths without a shutdown and hundreds of thousands with a shutdown as ridiculous and they continue to be so."

Given that it now appears that the official estimates of COVID-19 deaths are grossly undercounting the actual deaths, (see, for example, this for the conclusion "Almost certainly, because of the scarcity of testing and other reasons, we will find that the number of COVID-19 deaths has been grossly underestimated.") we are already seeing that those experts were dead on.

And this is with "social distancing" and shutdowns, mind you. Without those efforts, the "Brit expert" looks like he would have been pretty close.

An "expert" is merely someone who has learned from a lot of his experience, including mistakes. On the other hand, the term for someone who not only doesn't learn from experience, but is incapable of listening to others who know more than they do is "fool".
 

Lol

"Can you imagine for a moment how the British bulldog Churchill would react to any suggestion the UK shut down in the face of a cold?

George Carlin probably came the closest in his skit You are all Diseased.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 10:26 AM
https://balkin.blogspot.com/2020/03/neville-chamberlain-and-donald-trump.html
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

When the wild assed guesses and opinions differ from the evidence, any critically thinking person should find the "expert" non-credible and stop listening to her.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 11:49 AM

Sniffles, critical thinking isn’t really part of your skill set.
 

If it seems amazing that Birchers can't seem to learn (I mean, even amoebas are evidenced to 'learn' by avoiding moving into negative stimuli) just recall my points above: if your philosophy is largely based on the answers being easy because you already have them then you are not going to learn. The answers have to be easy to get because if they weren't then you might not have them, and that would likely mean having to enter an area where looking for them meant you might not find them (the ones you started with and want), so it's best to admit the answers really were easy, were the ones you had at the start, and anyone arguing that's not the case is probably up to no good and working to complicate the matter out of no-good-ism of some sort (and this is where the easy hyperbole and conspiracy stuff comes in-notice Bircher Bart decried following inductive logical principles as 'totalitarian view,' he really, really can't help himself, even when not doing so is critical to his argument).
 

It's also interesting to point out how this mindset dovetails nicely with the conservative protestors out there screaming about COVID restrictions: they're all about 'you can't tell me what to do!' And part of it is also this we see here: you can't tell me I don't know something! It's not so much anti-elitism (Birchers like Brett and Bart are happy to look the other way at 'fat cats' enjoying all kinds of self-dealing, nepotism, privileges, and the like when they're on the 'right' side) as it is a warped, extreme view of individualism and freedom. As someone who likes individualism and freedom I must say this is a form of that which is childishly extreme, and more important, something very foreign to what was once 'conservative thought.' The idea that no one can or should ever tell you what to do or that you don't know something would have made Kirk or Burke aghast. They believed in a very well-ordered liberty rising from a very well-ordered society (which followed a built in order to the world) full of humility and deference to authority. But the conservative movement today is more Walter Sobchak than Edmund Burke...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn-kxUEySy0
 

C2H5OH: Given that it now appears that the official estimates of COVID-19 deaths are grossly undercounting the actual deaths, (see, for example, this for the conclusion "Almost certainly, because of the scarcity of testing and other reasons, we will find that the number of COVID-19 deaths has been grossly underestimated.") we are already seeing that those experts were dead on.

Do you understand the difference between evidence, speculation and opinion?

You linked to a survey of opinion and speculation without evidence meant to justify the false wild ass guess COVID death projections and the subsequent shutdown caused severe recession.

And this is with "social distancing" and shutdowns, mind you. Without those efforts, the "Brit expert" looks like he would have been pretty close.

Sweden and eight US states do not have shutdowns and have suffered small fractions of the deaths per capita projected by the "Brit expert."
 

Mr. W:

I do indeed believe in freedom and have placed my life on the line to preserve it. I sure as hell am not surrendering my freedom to a severe cold.

When you ridicule the desire to live freely, your denial of being a totalitarian rings exceedingly hollow.
 

"I sure as hell am not surrendering my freedom to a severe cold."

Just his integrity folks, just his integrity!
 

"Sweden has taken a far more relaxed approach to curb the spread of the coronavirus than neighboring Norway and Finland, and it has seen significantly more fatalities."

https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-norway-sweden-different-coronavirus-responses-fatality-rates-2020-4
 

"I sure as hell am not surrendering my freedom to a severe cold."

Again, this is the talk of a baby man. A grown man does not consider his freedom to be dealt some kind of serious blow when asked to restrict themselves modestly to save the lives of thousands of their fellow citizens.

Let's note that Bircher Bart put on his cheerleading skirt, hiked up his knee high socks and waved his pom-poms like mad to cheer on the drastic measures our nation took in response to the far, far less American deaths of 9/11. He's just being a partisan baby man.

The only concerning thing is the conservative movement has a lot of these types.
 

BD: "I sure as hell am not surrendering my freedom to a severe cold."

Mr. W: Again, this is the talk of a baby man. A grown man does not consider his freedom to be dealt some kind of serious blow when asked to restrict themselves modestly to save the lives of thousands of their fellow citizens.

Children, not adults, willingly surrender their freedom merely because mommy says so.

Here is a clue for you children: The pretext for the government shuttering tens of thousands of businesses, unemploying tens of millions and placing hundreds of millions of house arrest was to "flatten (and extend) the curve" of COVID cases to prevent the from overloading the hospitals. The only lives theoretically being saved under this evidence-free scenario are those who would be denied hospital care. The folks who would normally die from COVID would simply die over a longer period of time.

In fact, these shutdowns had no substantive effect the trajectory of the illness.

In fact, government decrees like NY ordering COVID patients into nursing homes made the situation worse. See NY ordering COVID patients into nursing homes and deaths of despair from government created mass unemployment and poverty.

I have already educated you concerning most of this, which means you are again lying or you are just too obedient or stupid to care.
 

"A grown man does not consider his freedom to be dealt some kind of serious blow when asked to restrict themselves modestly to save the lives of thousands of their fellow citizens."

It's like trigger discipline. That's not a surrender of freedom, it's a way to make sure you don't violate the harm principle.
 

Mark:

As I have noted before, quarantining the ill to keep them from infecting others falls well within the harm principle.

Partly shutting down the economy and placing the uninfected on modified house arrest is a fundamentally different proposition. The government is denying fundamental liberty rights to hundreds of millions of people on the evidence-free assumption the hospitals will otherwise become overloaded and people will die for lack of hospital treatment.
 

Bart, you appear to be blissfully unaware that actual deaths in the first several weeks of the pandemic in this country exceeded, by many thousands, the expected number of deaths. This is not speculation. This is cold, deadly fact.

And it is also cold, deadly fact that the only true estimate that will be made of the results of this pandemic will have to be made ex post facto by counting those excess deaths, and that count will be far more than the numbers that you cling to, even now.

But go ahead, continue to belittle the experts, as they continue to be right and you continue to be a fool. I'll take expert opinion over your wishful thinking any day.

 

By evidence free assumptions Bircher Bart means the conclusions of people who actually know about this type of thing but which Bircher Bart doesn't like.

 

And of course his talk of the harm principle is nonsense. Here the issue is we largely didn't know who was ill and who wasn't but knew lots were and would be ill and that the illness was quite contagious. Requiring social distancing measures under that demonstrable information is a quite reasonable use of the quarantine power (which btw *always* squelched 'fundamental liberties' even in the most 'classical liberal' of times).

Bircher Bart is basically saying 'sure government can restrict liberty under quarantine, but it must do so only drastically (for the target) and stupidly (when it's too late to much good).'

Bircher Bart is like the person who says 'sure government could destroy a house in the line of a spreading city fire under public necessity, but requiring spacing and flame retardant building materials is TEH END OF LIBERTY!'

This is not a serious man. This is partisan incoherent.
 

Again, grown adults know to exercise restraint in order to live with others. I may want to play music loud at midnight, observe whatever speed limit I deem appropriate and urinate in public if I feel the need, but I don't because I was properly socialized to live as a grown man among men (and women).

But a child? They protest about those restraints and scream about unfairness and tyranny.

Birchers are people for whom basic childhood socialization didn't seem to 'take.'
 

C2H5OH said...Bart, you appear to be blissfully unaware that actual deaths in the first several weeks of the pandemic in this country exceeded, by many thousands, the expected number of deaths.

I already corrected you or W on this latest example of lying with statistics.

I assume you are referring to the groundless claim that any "excess deaths" above the "historic average" for a month must be caused by COVID. There are two major errors in this claim:

(1) The baseline of historic average deaths for a month is not normalized for population growth and is, thus, lower than it should be for the population in 2020.

(2) Even if the baseline is corrected, the only way you can blame one cause for "excess deaths" is if all the other causes are static over time. In fact, all the various causes of death are constantly changing variables. You cannot say that one cause of death is more responsible than others.

And it is also cold, deadly fact that the only true estimate that will be made of the results of this pandemic will have to be made ex post facto by counting those excess deaths, and that count will be far more than the numbers that you cling to, even now.

Estimates are NOT facts.

Yes, CDC does use the excess deaths model to offer very broad estimated death ranges for immeasurable illnesses like the flu and now COVID. Take it for what it is.

 

Mr. W: And of course his talk of the harm principle is nonsense. Here the issue is we largely didn't know who was ill and who wasn't but knew lots were and would be ill and that the illness was quite contagious.

Under this reasoning, we can eliminate criminal murder and violence by preemptively imprisoning everyone. But only children would protest these restraints and scream about unfairness and tyranny.
 

"Under this reasoning, we can eliminate criminal murder and violence by preemptively imprisoning everyone."

This poor fellow doesn't see, among other things, that this applies to the quarantine power he himself cites as well...

See, everyone agrees that the government can deny fundamental liberties to people under the quarantine power to protect the health and welfare of the people. There are questions of *when* that can be applied. Should it only be applied to people when there is a positive test someone is ill and/or contagious? That has *never* been a limit on the quarantine power in Anglo-American law. Instead, the power has been used on both people/things who/that are ill/contagious with a *certainty* and people/things that are *suspected* of being ill/contagious, as well as on people known/suspected of NOT being ill/contagious (restrictions to keep them from the former groups). Note that *any* use of the quarantine power I've mentioned could be met with the retort 'well, by that reasoning we should imprison everyone to stop murder.' It's a fallacy, easily seen by that everyone rejects the idea that we can't restrict some people's fundamental liberties under quarantine.

What's really going on is this: Bircher Bart doesn't think the threat here warrants the reaction. But this has or could be said *for every use of the quarantine power,* and as noted everyone, even Bircher Bart has to admit there is some legitimate use of the power.

Bircher Bart thinks the quarantine power can only be used like my analogy about destroying the house to save the line of houses, he doesn't think it can be used to get everyone to use flame retardant materials and have standard spacing in housing. It's nonsensical, but then again he doesn't really believe this and/or hasn't thought this through, he's, like other Birchers, just mad someone is trying to tell him what he can do. As long as the government is telling others what to do, in fact coming down on them heavily, like all the stuff he supported involving a much lower threat of American deaths after 9/11, he was fine with it of course.
 

Btw-since this is a legal blog I'll reiterate a point I've made before: the power of the state governments to use quarantine restrictions to protect the health and welfare of the people is one that has throughout our nation's history been recognized by SCOTUS as a power both broad and to be deferred to:

"They form a portion of that immense mass of legislation which embraces everything within the territory of a State not surrendered to the General Government; all which can be most advantageously exercised by the States themselves. Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass." Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)

"If the public safety or the public morals require the discontinuance of any manufacture or traffic, the hand of the legislature cannot be stayed from providing for its discontinuance by any incidental inconvenience which individuals or corporations may suffer." Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 32 (1877)

"the supervision of the public health and the public morals is a governmental power, 'continuing in its nature,' and 'to be dealt with as the special exigencies of the moment may require;' and that, 'for this purpose, the largest legislative discretion is allowed, and the discretion cannot be parted with any more than the power itself.'" Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U. S. 814

"It cannot be supposed that the states intended, by adopting [the 14th], to impose restraints upon the exercise of their powers for the protection of the safety, health, or morals of the community."

"The principal that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, was embodied, in substance, in the constitutions of nearly all, if not all, of the states at the time of the adoption of the fourteenth amendment; and it has never been regarded as incompatible with the principle, equally vital, because essential to the peace and safety of society, that all property in this country is held under the implied obligation that the owner's use of it shall not be injurious to the community." Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887)
 

See also:

the power of the state to take steps to prevent the introduction or spread of disease, although interstate and foreign commerce are involved (subject to the paramount authority of Congress if it decides to assume control), is beyond question. Morgan's &c. S.S. Co. v. Louisiana, 118 U. S. 455; Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613; Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U. S. 1; Rasmussen v. Idaho, 181 U. S. 198; Compagnie Francaise &c. v. Board of Health, 186 U.S. 380; Reid v. Colorado, 187 U. S. 138; Asbell v. Kansas, 209 U. S. 251. Minnesota Rate Case, 230 U.S. 352 (1913)
 

Yes, CDC does use the excess deaths model to offer very broad estimated death ranges for immeasurable illnesses like the flu and now COVID. Take it for what it is.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 3:43 PM

It’s all estimates when you don’t have enough testing. You’re just clinging to bad estimates. Because you’re really stupid.

 

Well, given the ultimate uncertainty of cause and effect (it can only be assumed based on inductive reasoning, which is, as Mr. W. has said, is Bart's weak point), we cannot rule out the explanation for all the excess deaths being a "Dem" plot.

Yes, all those people are dying of unexplained causes (things like "pneumonia", "stroke" and "heart failure", you know) because they want to make Trump look bad.

If we throw out common sense and expert opinion, after all, that's as good an explanation as "just happened" (and statistical inference, be damned!)
 

It's interesting how the governments, health institutes, doctors and media all over the world in South Korea, Italy, the UK, etc., all fell for or were in on the Dem conspiracy! Well, and even Trump to a large extent...If only they had listened to Bircher Bart, polymath of epidemiology (and climate science, survey research, macro-economics,computer science, WMD proliferation, etc., etc.,) who was correct when all those people around the world who've worked to understand those subjects so much longer were wrong!

This is an utterly ridiculous person.
 

As always, the sad thing is that Bircher Bart doesn't need to be such a ridiculous person and pretend like he knows more about what is, essentially, a premise of an argument. He could acknowledge that experts are more likely correct to say there's a serious risk of COVID and that social distancing could help with that but simply argue that the damage to the economy (and attendant damage, such as exacerbation of mental illness, health care issues, etc., from that economic damage) make it not worth it and/or that some restrictions make more sense than others.

But he simply can't think that way. He *has* to think, no matter how many times this view has led him into foolishness, that the answers on this or any other complicated matter are easy for him to know and then he has to put things in the most hyperbolic way possible.

Being ridiculous is the gear he's stuck on. And it's increasingly what we know as the Republican Party (look at DeWine's embarrassment at the over-the-top antics of conservative activists in his state over this recently, but you could also see that while he knew they were lunatics he also knew he must play to them somewhat because, well, baby-person lunatics are becoming the base of that party)...
 

Is that quote of Mark's a general principle or did someone specific say it?
 

Mr. W: This poor fellow doesn't see, among other things, that this applies to the quarantine power he himself cites as well.

This poor fellow is preparing a motion to dismiss for a local restauranteur criminally charged because his carry out customers dared to sip on their drinks while waiting for their food in violation of our Dem governor's decree. This decree and its application is illegal on multiple levels, but let's address the one which appears to confuse you.

Quarantine and the caselaw upholding it is limited to the infected who present a danger of harm to others.

The current government decrees reaching the entire population, the vast majority of whom are uninfected, are virtually unprecedented in American history. The closest historical example was when the City of San Francisco cordoned off and shut down the Chinatown neighborhood after discovering cases of bubonic plague. The city cited your case of Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887) to justify their decree. In the case of Jew Ho v. Williamson, 103 F. 10 (N.D. Cal. 1900), a grocer whose business was closed and who was confined to the neighborhood brought suit, alleging the decree violated his rights to liberty and property guaranteed by the 14A. The 9th Circuit enjoined the decree, finding the mass quarantine of uninfected residents was an irrational violation of said rights.

The closest precedent cited to support the current decrees is pretty damned remote. In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), the Supremes held the state could criminally sanction a healthy man for refusing to take a vaccine absent evidence the vaccine would harm him. A vaccine presents a mere moments denial of your right to bodily integrity and can still be refused if it harms you. In comparison, the present decrees are unemploying and impoverishing tens of millions, restricting the liberty of hundreds of millions and destroying trillions of dollars in property for weeks and now months without achieving its health goals, as I noted above.
 

Bart, I hesitate to point out more of your hypocrisy, but I suppose someone should note that the paper you cherry-picked to support your presupposed conclusion that the lockdowns don't have any effect is simply rife with estimates, questionable assumptions (notably, the one that people in Europe did not start social distancing before being required to!) and fiddle factors in the equations.

And of course, the biggest one, that those results are transferrable to the USA...

That paper is simply lousy with lousy modeling, of exactly the kind you complain about. Just look at all the parameters the author back-estimates in order to reach the conclusions. Gamma, mu, T sub d, etc, etc. Occam just rolled over in his grave and threw up.

But then, you'll believe any science, no matter how shoddy and questionable, if it supports your wishful thinking, won't you?