March 14, 2019

"In Clinton v Jones, the United States Supreme Court held that separation of powers concerns did not preclude a federal lawsuit against a sitting President of the United States..."

"... based on unofficial acts allegedly committed by him before he assumed office. The Court expressly cautioned in that decision that different concerns, including the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, might influence the result if such a case were brought against the President in state court. However, the Court did not rule that such a suit could or could not proceed. This matter gives us an opportunity to squarely address the question.... [S]ubjecting the President to a state trial court's jurisdiction imposes upon him a degree of control by the State of New York that interferes with his ability to carry out his constitutional duty of executing the laws of the United States. Since the Supremacy Clause guarantees that any effort by the individual states to annul, minimize, or otherwise interfere with those laws will be struck down, it follows that any effort by a state court to control the President must likewise fail.... Plaintiff sees no functional difference between the effect a federal court's supervision of litigation would have over a President's executive power and the effect a state court's would... Defendant argues that the Supremacy Clause acts as an absolute bar to state courts' authority to exercise jurisdiction over a sitting President, citing McCulloch v Maryland... which held that 'the states have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government.'... [T]he President should not be forced to defend this lawsuit while he is in office. Therefore, in my view the action should be stayed until such time as defendant no longer occupies the office of President of the United States."

Writes Justice Mazzarelli, dissenting in Summer Zervos v. Donald J. Trump, in which one of the intermediate appellate courts in NY held that a defamation case against a President of the United States can go forward in state court. The case isn't based on the President's official actions as President, so the President's absolute immunity does not apply. It's like Clinton v. Jones, where the President is sued for actions outside of his official duties as President of the United States, but different from Clinton v. Jones, in that the case isn't in federal court.

82 comments:

mccullough said...

The Jones case was a typical terrible decision by The Court. Now the Dems get their revenge.

mccullough said...

If nothing else, Trump should relocate his residence to Florida. Then move his company out of New York.

tim maguire said...

Suppose the case had to wait for Trump to finish being president. Suppose further that Trump is president until January 2025. Does the statute of limitations run during this time? Or does it also wait until he leaves office?

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

The left like to bulldoze people.

PJ said...

@tim, I believe the statute of limitations is satisfied if the lawsuit is filed on time, regardless of whether the state compels the President to defend it in the normal course.

Mike Sylwester said...

In retrospect, Paula Jones' lawsuit against President Clinton should have been postponed until after he left office. The political consequences of that lawsuit were not foreseen adequately at that time.

Now that we have a President who has a long career in the construction business -- and not a long career entirely in politics -- we should recognize the mischief that partisan prosecutors at the state level can do.

People like the Clinton's make their big money by pay-to-play schemes, such as the Clinton Family Foundation. Any transaction in such a scheme involves only a small number of people.

Trump made big money in enormous construction projects that involved many thousands of transactions involving many thousands of people. Targeting such a business career, a partisan prosecutor such as New York's despicable attorney general can initiate a continuous series of lawsuits against the US President.

------

Democracy does not work without restraint and civility. We are living through the disintegration of this necessary restraint and civility.

On one hand, Trump is an example of such disintegration.

On the other hand, our country's Democrat leadership is another example of such disintegration.

We have tended to think that our Democracy cannot decline and fail, but we are seeing it decline.

We are seeing a massive invasion of our country, but nothing can be done about it because of extreme, self-destructive partisanship.

tim maguire said...

Thanks PJ, that makes sense.

mccullough said...

I doubt this stuff will hinder Trump. All he has to do is give a deposition. His lawyers can handle the rest. He can an afternoon off from watching TV for a deposition.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Wasn't Clinton in a position of power in Arkansas when he forced himself on Paula Jones?

Limited blogger said...

Maybe Trump can take a leave of absence to handle his personal affairs. Acting POTUS Pence can try his hand at the wheel.

mccullough said...

Jared Kushner is the acting President.

traditionalguy said...

The sole reason we have the Constitution of 1787 was the need to stop the power of politicians in individual States that were playing to their citizens by intimidating or blackmailing citizens of other States, which the weak Federation had no power to do.

Ergo: there is no more basic a power contained in the entire Constitution than this prohibition on State's courts interference.

YoungHegelian said...

in which the intermediate appellate court in NY

I think what's in bold says what you need to know about the ruling.

I think the Trump team should appeal this ruling.

Hagar said...

Pet peeve: Trump is not and never has been in "the construction business." He is a developer; not a contractor.

Jersey Fled said...

Developers sometimes act as prime contractors.

Mike Sylwester said...

Paula Jones' lawsuit was a fluke.

In contrast, the lawsuit campaign undertaken by New York's despicable attorney general is a systematic attack on the elected US President.

-----

The circumstances of the Jones lawsuit were that while Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas, he used some state troopers to help him engage in sexual adventures secretly with various women.

After Clinton became President, an article was published about Clinton's use of troopers for that purpose. The article happened to mention an incident in which the troopers invited a woman -- not named in the article -- into a hotel room where Clinton was waiting for her. Jones recognized herself in this incident, and she believed that other people who knew her well would likewise recognize her. Therefore she sued, and her lawsuit encompassed Clinton, who now was the US President.

The lawsuit was initiated by this one individual woman, Paula Jones, in odd circumstances.

-----

In contrast, New York's despicable attorney general has declared her intention to use her powerful position -- supposedly a non-partisan position -- to fish through any an all of the many thousands of transactions that involved Donald Trump during his decades of construction projects.

This is a breakdown of the restraint and civility that are necessary for our Democracy to continue to operate.

We should not change our Democracy so that only career politicians -- who enrich themselves in pay-to-play schemes -- can govern as President. Our Democracy should enable career businessmen too to govern as President if elected.

Mike Sylwester said...

He is a developer; not a contractor.

Whatever

mccullough said...

The Constituon created a Supreme Court. It did not create lower federal courts. It gave Congress the power to create lower federal courts if it wanted.

The Supreme Court can review decisions of state courts on issues of federal law.

If Jones was correctly decided (it wasn’t; the Supreme Court is staffed by a bunch of impractical lawyers who had no responsibility or experience in actual day to day politics), then this case is right.

Because there were no lower federal courts when the Cobstituion was adopted. Congress had to create them.

Trumpit said...

Suing is like calling pigs, i.e., attorneys.

Where do you think 'Soo-Ee' came from? Pure coincidence?

Spelling And Usage Of 'Soo-Ee' Pig Call:

https://www.englishforums.com/English/SpellingUsageCall/hxjvj/post.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hog_calling

Let's make the law as "pro bono" as possible, so that not only the rich can avail themselves of the courts. https://www.bing.com/search?q=pro+bono&form=EDGEAR&qs=PF&cvid=b94a0f2b579e4514a1eb957268902a23&cc=US&setlang=en-US

Mike Sylwester said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mccullough said...

I’d love to see an “originalist” say that the Condtituion requires suits against the president for non official acts to be brought in lower federal courts that didn’t exist and didn’t have to exist when the Constitution was adopted.

Jones should be overruled. It was a terrible decision by robed imbeciles.

Mike Sylwester said...

Clinton v. Jones is one of those rare decisions that the US Supreme Court should reverse.

The reason is New York's despicable attorney general.

When the Supreme Court decided that case, it failed to foresee such a despicable state attorney general.

Trumpit said...

[Clinton v. Jones is one of those rare decisions that the US Supreme Court should reverse.

The reason is New York's despicable attorney general.
When the Supreme Court decided that case, it failed to foresee such a despicable state attorney general.]

ad ho·mi·nem
[ˌad ˈhämənəm]

ADJECTIVE
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"vicious ad hominem attacks"

Hagar said...

Developers sometimes act as prime contractors.

That would be very rare indeed. They do sometimes act as their own "construction management firm," but often one experience of that is enough to teach them not to do that again.

buwaya said...

"New York's despicable attorney general. "

New York has always had despicable attorneys-general.
That woman sitting there today really isn't the problem.
She is there for a reason, as her predecessors have been there for the same reasons.

You guys just can't get beyond personalization. Again and again and again, I say its not about individuals. I should just throw up my hands.

She serves a system that created her and put her in there. The same system will put someone else in who will do the same should she be replaced. Indeed, in re Trump that's already happened to Eric Schneiderman. Who was doing the same sort of thing. None of these people are individuals with what we should consider free will. They do what they are programmed to do, and directed to do, even with, we may never know, personal qualms. But even so that does not matter.

Your problems are all about systems, not people.

Mike Sylwester said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Sylwester said...

Trumpit at 12:51 PM
ad ho·mi·nem

Yes, that is the problem.

New York's despicable attorney general is supposed to exercise her power in a non-partisan manner. However, she is using her power in a special manner based on her political hatred for our elected US President.

The US Supreme Court did not foresee the following circumstances.

* The US President would be a businessman who had been involved in thousands of transactions involving thousands of persons over a career that lasted decades.

* New York would elect a despicable attorney general who openly launched a campaign to fish through all those transactions with the declared intention of harassing the elected US President.

Normally, state attorney generals are rather non-partisan, and normally US Presidents are career politicians (e.g. the Clintons) who made their big money in pay-to-play schemes that involved few transactions and few people.

-------

In general, we are in a situation where many government people have abused their powers to harass Donald Trump simply because of their own personal and political hatred toward him.

These government people are paid to know better and to act better. They are paid big salaries and then receive big pensions. In exchange, they are supposed to use good judgement and act in a non-partisan manner.

The US Supreme Court failed to foresee the surprisingly fast disintegration of restraint and civility that would happen in the following decades.

buwaya said...

Trump is not in conflict with this person or that person.

He and most of the rest of you are in conflict with an entire caste, that is in control of almost all American institutions. This is a collective power struggle that must be resolved one way or another.

What any one person does is almost entirely determined by their membership and position in the collective. Assume a model of armies in combat, with the individuals involved almost all being driven by the same sense of objectives, to destroy the enemy and achieve certain political goals. They can be hierarchically directed with detailed orders, or they can exercise initiative according to the German mission-orders model (Auftragstaktik). Almost none are likely to be traitors, nor will very many surrender unless the entire collective is in a desperate state.

Mike Sylwester said...

buwaya at 1:07 PM
... Eric Schneiderman. Who was doing the same sort of thing

Schneiderman was extraordinarily despicable.

Letitia James is well on her way to becoming even more despicable. She has barely begun her long journey into extreme despicableness.

The situation is becoming worse and worse.

Attorneys general are supposed to be non-partisan and fair. Instead, some of them are using their positions to turn their powerful institutions to target and attack the US President personally -- and to attack also his family and associates.

I think the situation will continue to get worse and worse.

Earnest Prole said...

Here's something that will unite us all: Their guy should fry; my guy should skate.

Mike Sylwester said...

buwaya at 1:07 PM
Your problems are all about systems, not people.

We have a big problem in our political system when a despicable attorney general of a state can declare an intention to use her office to harass the elected US President by fishing through his long business career -- involving thousands of transactions and people -- and initiating an endless series of lawsuits against him.

Our political system should not allow her to do that.

Because this particular attorney general of New York is so despicable, she utterly lacks restraint and civility. She must be constrained by law, and therefore the US Supreme Court should reverse the Jones v. Clinton decision.

The New York attorney general is opening new frontiers, and other attorneys general will follow her. The situation will become worse and worse.

buwaya said...

"Schneiderman was extraordinarily despicable."

In the end it does not matter whether you are facing Sepp Dietrich, the convicted war-criminal, or Erwin Rommel the "correct" warrior, as the enemy corps commander on the opposite side. It is simply that they are on the opposite side.

Drago said...

Buwaya, at some point you have to transition from 'here's what's wrong mode' to 'here are some initial steps groups of people should take' mode.

Mike said...

I didn’t agree when they inflicted Jones on Clinton, because the Oresidency is more important than some state suit that can wait until end of term. Likewise now with Trump. The man needs to do his job unfettered by nuisance suits.

buwaya said...

"Our political system should not allow her to do that."

The political system will, however, allow something else even if you somehow manage to prevent this particular one.

Which is the point. You have endless scope for matters of discretion across many thousands of officials. You cannot regulate and constrain potential for bad behavior. You cannot construct a foolproof mechanism. It is futile to attempt this.

Your real problem is that you have a broader conflict. That needs to be resolved, in victory or defeat or a truce (unlikely). Arguing over the rules of war, in that state, is pointless.

Jim at said...

Attorneys general are supposed to be non-partisan and fair. Instead, some of them are using their positions to turn their powerful institutions to target and attack the US President personally....

Bob Ferguson (Washington state's AG) can't go a day without suing the Trump and the Trump Administration.

buwaya said...

'here are some initial steps groups of people should take'

I don't, because I really don't know what you can do about this, within your scope (of the persons posting here). If there were a billionaire listening I would have some suggestions.

Trumpit said...

I think Schlump is like supervillain Gru from Despicable Me, and should be sued at every opportunity. He needs to be distracted by continuous investigations, and litigation. The less time he has to foul up the country the better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despicable_Me

Molly said...

(eaglebeak)

buwaya--pretend there's a billionaire listening and make the suggestions. Just in case.

gahrie said...

I disagree with the dissent and most of the commenters. The president is not above the law.

I do agree however that this particular seems to be an example of warfare coming from the Left.

mccullough said...

Trump, like Clinton, isn’t distracted by this stuff. He’ was involved in hundreds of lawsuits when he was in business.

But Trump has a lot more money than Clinton did in the 90s to hire lawyers to deal with this stuff. Clinton had to go out and raise money from guys like Harvey Weinstein to deal with this stuff.

mccullough said...

No one in the comments here said the president was above the law. It’s just whether these suits should be postponed during a presidency.

Sebastian said...

Progs fight. Lawfare is just one tool. Ask Tom DeLay and Rick Perry and Scott Walker and --.

It serves three purposes:

1. to harass, impede, and delegitimate righty pols, of course
2. to warn others to stay away or be subject to such harassment, as a way of paralyzing the right
3. to tell us deplorables in no uncertain terms that the rule of law is a joke, that progs will bend it to their will, and that anything we value about "the system" is actually not worth caring about since it is hollow and void.

mccullough said...

Trump won Stormy Daniels defamation suit while he was president.

She now owes him $300,000 in attorneys fees, plus interest.

She fired Avenatti. Litigation is child’s play to Trump. Only lawyers take this bulkshit seriously and only if they are getting paid.

Mike Sylwester said...

The Supreme Court that decided Jones v Clinton failed to foresee how the situation would develop.

Paul Jones -- an individual, powerless woman -- was angry that her close acquaintances would recognize her in a magazine article about Bill Clinton's sexual escapades as governor. In her situation, she was compelled to sue also Bill Clinton for sexual harassment.

She already had had plenty of time to complain about the sexual harassment. Years had passed, and Clinton had been elected US President. She sued only because of the magazine article, which was published while he was President.

Because the US Supreme Court allowed her lawsuit to proceed while he still was President, he was subjected to extraordinary, long-lasting political attacks, including impeachment. Such a consequence was not foreseen, I think, by the US Supreme Court.

The US Supreme Court did not foresee likewise that a state attorney general would declare on the day of her own election to this powerful political office that she intended to fish through the elected US President's entire business career and to initiate an endless series of lawsuits against him.

If the US Supreme Court had foreseen such developments, then the US Supreme Court would have decided Jones v Clinton differently.

The current, extraordinarily despicable attorney general of New York is a trail-blazer, opening the way for many other attorneys general to use their powerful positions to harass political opponents endlessly.

This situation will become worse and worse. We are seeing only the beginning of one new but endless process of political degradation -- in the overall breakdown of political restraint and civility.

chickenlittle said...

This smells like more preeting by perpetually bhutthurt Bharara, Hillary’s coulda shoulda woulda been AG. When will it end?

buwaya said...

If I were a public spirited billionaire with an urge to win the American social war on behalf of its volk, that is, to be an effective revolutionary, and also a death-wish (even billionaires are vulnerable to sanction by the system), I would:

1. Buy or create a large range of mass-media institutions, and be prepared to operate them at a loss. This would include for instance a new Facebook, Google/Youtube and Twitter. This would include another Fox. Or ownership of one of the broadcast networks. Or the NYT. In other words, to create a counter-propaganda system. Propaganda is beaten only by counter-propaganda, not by brave or clever samizdat. This would be a near term effort.

2. Buy or create a range of universities with high academic entrance standards and classical curricula, with a conservative ethos. These could be run fairly cheaply per capita, but it would have to be at a large loss overall. The idea would be to replace the Ivy League with an equal and opposite. This would be a long term project. There are several such universities now, but they suffer from underfunding and the need to accept less than the best students.

chickenlittle said...

“Trump won Stormy Daniels defamation suit while he was president.”

Why just yesterday Stormy was bitching to a roomful of DC “ladies” about Trump.

What can possibly salve all this perpetual butthurt?

mccullough said...

Looks like Stormy is on the paid speaking circuit to work off her debt to Trump. Those ladies had to pay Trump her fees.

Trump will probably help book her at strip clubs so she can pay him back faster.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

The perpetual Hillary lost butthurt is now forcing the demos to lower the voting age.

Michael K said...

Buy or create a large range of mass-media institutions, and be prepared to operate them at a loss.

This was a suggestion to the Koch brothers for years but they have turned out to be open borders libertarians and of no help.

mccullough said...

Cato has been about promoting the Brothers K economic interests for a long time.

They pretend there is such a thing as free trade in actuality.

They are just greedy jagoffs. They are old and spread around some money to conservative thinkers to shill for the Koch economic interest.

AOC is going to confiscate their business empire. Give it to the Dreamers

Achilles said...

buwaya said...


2. Buy or create a range of universities with high academic entrance standards and classical curricula, with a conservative ethos. These could be run fairly cheaply per capita, but it would have to be at a large loss overall. The idea would be to replace the Ivy League with an equal and opposite. This would be a long term project. There are several such universities now, but they suffer from underfunding and the need to accept less than the best students.

You need to change the rewards system.

Right now admittance to Ivy gives you a golden ticket to a lifetime sinecure in the federal bureaucracy.

Take out the bureaucracy or take out the control over hiring and move those companies all over the country and you eliminate the power of the Ivy.

J. Farmer said...

@Hagar:

Pet peeve: Trump is not and never has been in "the construction business." He is a developer; not a contractor.

It's right he is not a contractor, but developers certainly are in "the construction business." But even that is not an accurate description of Trump's business model currently. He is a brand and makes a good portion of his money by licensing his name to developments he has little to nothing to do with.

J. Farmer said...

@buwaya:

2. Buy or create a range of universities with high academic entrance standards and classical curricula, with a conservative ethos

What do you consider "classical curricula?"

J. Farmer said...

Trump is basically the Pierre Cardin of real estate development. And like Cardin, I think he made a mistake in slapping his name on too many nonadjacent products, like bottled water and steaks.

Richard said...

Nobody hates like a liberal. They are just steaming mad that Trump won and they will do anything to change the will of the people, to overturn the election. They even stooped to politicizing the justice system to suit their bias when they made the phony charge of Russian collusion. They've evolved from that position because it's simply untrue to making other scurrilous charges against Trump. Phonies all.

Joshua Barker said...

J. Farmer said...
@buwaya:

2. Buy or create a range of universities with high academic entrance standards and classical curricula, with a conservative ethos

What do you consider "classical curricula?"

3/14/19, 3:22 PM

---------

My preference would be a mix of intense critical thinking courses coupled with the study of the history of western civilization (pros and cons) with a strong emphasis towards apologetics and STEM... no gender / social studies or underwater basket-weaving, thank you...

J. Farmer said...

@buwaya:

I agree with a deep study of western civilization. People are woefully lacking in historical knowledge and do suffer from an irritating presentism. And I do also believe that students should be involved in intense debate of subjects. But I am much less enthusiastic about "intense critical thinking courses." Critical thinking should be a byproduct of the other courses. Teaching "critical thinking" is actually a modern education buzz concept and is far often used to excuse a lack of deep learning. I'm all for rote memorization, which I think has gotten a bad wrap.

I think the problem with a lot of the professional ed schools is that they suffer from engineer's disease and constantly have to tinker and improve to justify themselves without ever really asking if there was anything wrong with previous methods.

Drago said...

J. Farmer: "I agree with a deep study of western civilization. People are woefully lacking in historical knowledge and do suffer from an irritating presentism. And I do also believe that students should be involved in intense debate of subjects. But I am much less enthusiastic about "intense critical thinking courses." Critical thinking should be a byproduct of the other courses. Teaching "critical thinking" is actually a modern education buzz concept and is far often used to excuse a lack of deep learning. I'm all for rote memorization, which I think has gotten a bad wrap."

Complete agreement.

buwaya said...

"What do you consider "classical curricula?"

https://www.sjc.edu/academic-programs/undergraduate

https://www.sjc.edu/application/files/4115/4810/0934/St_Johns_College_Great_Books_Reading_List.pdf

That's one "great books" system with a long track record. There are other approaches.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/courses-listing/classics-and-english?wssl=1

Another approach.

I am not a liberal-arts fellow, I am a simple engineer, and I understand very well the holes in my own education. I have done my lackadaisical best at getting some sort of a liberal education on my own time. But I'm certainly not the best one to ask about this.

Mr. Majestyk said...

Isn't the statute of limitations a problem at least to some extent for the NY Attorney General? How can she charge Trump with crimes allegedly committed many many years ago? I suppose she could called a continuing course of conduct, but still there are limits to that doctrine.

iowan2 said...

Buying media is good. Insty recomends buying women and teen platforms.
Colleges? That industry has to be about to crash. If President Trump can swing it, he wants the colleges on the hook for some portion of a Students Debt. That is going to change incentives of students and colleges. I see overall a lower participation rate in universities. A degree is not universally something of value. Corporations are starting to ween themselves away from using a collage degree as pre-screening tool. Most jobs do not require a degree.
Better to eliminate the Dept of Education and return education to the locals. Experts in education have made a terrible mess of our population. The experts have gotten everything they have wanted, and we are attempting to live with their handy work.

Mr. Majestyk said...

allege, not called

narciso said...

Well except they are going after other outfits like scl cambridge analytica, there had been a shamr campaign against Adelson's acquisition of one vegas.

Mr. Majestyk said...

Imagine if the US Attorney General announced that he would use his position to investigate Nancy Pelosi's private affairs. The outrage would be off the charts.

J. Farmer said...

@buwaya:

I am not a liberal-arts fellow, I am a simple engineer, and I understand very well the holes in my own education. I have done my lackadaisical best at getting some sort of a liberal education on my own time. But I'm certainly not the best one to ask about this.

The first job I ever wanted was archaeologist, though admittedly I was swayed by the Indiana Jones film series. I had a fascination with ancient history and Greek myths, and as Dr. Jones himself said, "70% of archaeology is done in the library." At some point that fell by the wayside, and I got caught up in the whole IT revolution. I enrolled at a STEM high school, fully intending to pursue something in the computer sciences. But my freshman year, one of my electives was "Introduction to Psychology," and I became hooked from that point forward.

For filling in those gaps, I would highly recommend The Great Courses

traditionalguy said...

The real estate Developers fight the contractors for the bids in order to make their money. To do that, the Developers have to know the details on true Construction costs, including hiring Mafia approved labor and the required bribes for the politicians.

mccullough said...

If the President started ordering investigations of the people investigating him it would put a swift end to this bullshit.

Go after Schiff and Nadler and the New York AG and Cyrus the Yonger to set some examples.

mccullough said...

Or the developer could hire a general contractor to do that stuff, which is what they do.

J. Farmer said...

p.s. For my own autodidactism, I have found Mortimer Adler's Propædia a very useful tool. It is essentially an attempt to create an organized outline of all human knowledge, and I am a sucker for such constructions. "Big History" is attractive for similar reasons, though I think as a form of history, it is mostly useful. I think "world history" is better, though I am acutely aware of how easily the subject can be poisoned by PC sensibilities. William McNeil is terrific.

Michael said...

Latin should be required in high school. Four years. Apart from STEM the country needs people with a classical education. I would never hire someone with a business degree. I consider that trade school. Business is learned on the ground. I want people who know who Chopin is, who Murakami is, what the Renaissance was, what the capital of Spain is, where Bhutan is on a map. People I hire are going to be in front of very successful people, interesting people who have made money and want more but who often have wide interests and prefer to be with people who share them or some of them. Music, art, literature. The rest is trade school stuff learned on the job over time. The people I hire are always competent writers, communicators. SJWs are weeded out on the first interview.

J. Farmer said...

@mccullough:

Or the developer could hire a general contractor to do that stuff, which is what they do.

My uncle is a developer in East Tennessee, where he specializes in building log cabin communities in places like Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forge. Having a good and reliable builder is 90% of the challenge. Dealing with general contractors is a nightmare. They are some of the most unscrupulous people you are likely to ever interact with.

J. Farmer said...

@Michael:

I want people who know who Chopin is, who Murakami is, what the Renaissance was, what the capital of Spain is, where Bhutan is on a map

Me, me, me, me again...wow I'm really close on this one!

Joking aside, you should check out the film The History Boys, based on the Alan Bennett play. I think you would identify with the ethos of Hector, the "general studies" teacher.

“The best moments in reading are when you come across something – a thought, a feeling, a way of looking at things – which you had thought special and particular to you. Now here it is, set down by someone else, a person you have never met, someone even who is long dead. And it is as if a hand has come out and taken yours.” -Hector, The History Boys

Michael K said...


@buwaya:

I agree with a deep study of western civilization. People are woefully lacking in historical knowledge and do suffer from an irritating presentism.


I was lucky enough to born as early as I was and able to attend college when Western Civilization was taught. Even as an Engineer, those were required. When I went back to do pre-med, they would not make a student loan to a pre-med. I was told most did not get in to medical school. So, I became an English major and did pre-med as electives. Enjoyed it thoroughly,

I doubt I would now.

alanc709 said...

"Colleges? That industry has to be about to crash. If President Trump can swing it, he wants the colleges on the hook for some portion of a Students Debt. That is going to change incentives of students and colleges. I see overall a lower participation rate in universities. A degree is not universally something of value. Corporations are starting to ween themselves away from using a collage degree as pre-screening tool. Most jobs do not require a degree."

The coming demographics bomb will kill a lot of colleges. Upper and middle class families having less children will drive a huge number of smaller colleges and universities into oblivion. Tying student debt to the schools would speed up that process. I'm not sure progressives really understand what's coming in the near future. Global warming isn't the issue they should be fixated on.

narciso said...

in other news


https://www.timesofisrael.com/after-gaza-rockets-fired-at-tel-aviv-political-leaders-call-for-harsh-response/

rcocean said...

Thanks Narisco. I'd NEVER thought of moving my index finger one inch and pulling up Drudge, Google News, CNN, or 100 other websites for the latest news.

Thank God, you've stormed onto Althouse and told us the latest. Despite having zero to do with the topic at hand. I look forward to your hourly updates.

Howard said...

So now you deplorables have found a statue to demolish.

narciso said...

I dont follow, zervos unlike Jones was not a direct employee in a governmental position, btw she seemed to be as clingy as anita hill, according to her brother.

Richard Dolan said...

Interesting. All of the justices on that panel are elected Democrats and they split 3-2. In NY practice a litigant can appeal as of right to the Court of Appeals (NY's highest court) when there is a two-Justice dissent on a question of law, but only if the order being appealed was final (meaning it finally resolved the case). This was an appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss or for a stay, which is non-final. The only other avenue to appeal is by permission and the Appellate Division can certify a non-final order for immediate appeal. There is a fair chance that, if Trump asks for leave to appeal, he will get it. All of the judges on the NY Court of Appeals are Democrats appointed by Governor Cuomo. But that court has a storied history (Brandeis and Cardozo, among many other distinguished judges, have served on it). Don't assume that judges appointed by a Democratic governor will act from partisan motives.

Drago said...

Howard: "So now you deplorables have found a statue to demolish."

Pardon me Ms Litella, "statute", the word is "statute". Not "statue", "Statute".

.........oh. Well. That's very different.

Seriously, who doesnt miss Gilda Radner?