The American Constitution Society's blog publishes progressive legal commentary on the Mueller report, executive power, citizenship, free speech, and civil rights.
Commenters cite it in political arguments about the Mueller report and the Vacancies Act; opinions are divided and often partisan.
The company PR is quite obviously, as claimed, "disingenuous":
> The spokeswoman insisted that the insects are treated humanely and that the backpack - first developed in 2011 - does not harm them.
Boring a hole in the head, and then another hole in the chest, and then clipping the antennae, so you can attach an apparatus which appears to roughly half the size of the roach itself and which exerts major control over its motion, does not approach "humane". Anyone found doing this to humans could very reasonably be lynched.
I'd prefer to see the company own it. To repurpose an argument I first saw on that bastion of philosophical thought cracked.com, "Cockroaches? Fuck 'em." Focus on the scientific potential of remote-controlled cockroaches.
Cockroaches have no rights that man is bound to respect. [1] There are no conceivable benefits to extending them any rights. And I'm not particularly worried that a child who grows up thinking of insects as something to be used or abused as they see fit will mistreat humans. I burned ants with a magnifying glass. It didn't seem to bother anyone. I went on to burn my sister's name into a block of wood as a gift. That's pretty much where things ended.
If a child of mine showed any interest in this sort of thing, I'd be happy to sponsor it.
The article actually made me wonder whether the cockroach lives through installation; I have read that cockroaches "live on" for a period of weeks after being beheaded. It would be really,…
> Who has had greater success at this than the media?
Totally agree that FOX News and other of the right-wing pundits have helped create an alternate reality where election results and public health guidelines don't matter. You're talking about The Media as if the Right doesn't have a media apparatus.
> When the Mueller report revealed no evidence of collusion
Reading your link about Mueller and other summaries of the Mueller investigation, I get the feeling that the investigations was not a "nothing burger": the investigation produced 37 indictments, seven guilty pleas or convictions, and compelling evidence that the president obstructed justice on multiple occasions[0].
> Trump's lie was immediately panned as utter bullshit.
Sure, AG Barr described the Big Lie as bullshit, but Hannity, Carlson, Ingraham, Crowder, and Shapiro haven't come anywhere close to that kind of a statement. Their gravy train runs on the Big Lie.
If Republicans don't want to look anti-democratic, then they should have (1) unilaterally disavowed the January 6 Insurrection instead of denying it, or calling these people patriots, and they should (2) make voting as easy as buying a gun, since they're both rights protected by the Constitution.
[0](https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/other-resources/key-findings-of-the-mueller-report/)
Officer's oath swears to protect and defend the Constitution, no mention of the president.
Enlisted oath adds they will obey the orders of the president.
So a president or his intermediary just needs to find the right Master Sergeant. In theory.
But not to worry, there are plenty of authoritarian-friendly colonels available. Their oath doesn't prohibit them from following a president's orders.
Wrinkle: all officers and enlisted are required to refuse illegal orders. But if you do so, you better be right.
Of course, in this new United States that the Supreme Court created this week, summary executions could become a motivational tool.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Armed_Forces_oath_of_enlistment&diffonly=true
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office
https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/what-the-law-of-military-obedience-can-and-cant-do-what-happens-if-a-presidents-orders-are-unlawful/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_execution
You are spreading disinformation. The FBI investigations into Russia collusion were separate from Mueller's special counsel investigations, Mueller's work did not refer to the Steele Dossier at all.
https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/other-resources/key-findings-of-the-mueller-report/
Mueller's key findings include
- Uncovering extensive criminal activity on the part of Trump associates
- that Russia engaged in extensive attacks on the US election system in 2016
- that there were numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign
- that there were multiple episodes in which Trump engaged in deliberate obstruction during the investigation
If you are taking Trump's "no collusion, complete exoneration" at his word, understand that he was lying. The report literally used the phrase "does not exonerate", and the only reason Trump was not indicted was because of the DOJ policy that you can't indict a sitting president.
As a straight, white, male I don't really feel that I'm a second-class citizen nor the enemy. Have you considered getting off Twitter for a while?
It's not clear to me the federal judiciary should match the composition of the population of lawyers as opposed to the composition of the people whom they judge.
In fact as you can see here, Obama appointed people largely similar to what you'd expect to see in the population (without bothering to look into specific geographies). It was Trump who was wildly aberrational. In fact even more aberrational than Biden, who at least has the believable rationale of trying to rebalance the courts after Trump took such a pro-male (76%!!) and pro-white (85%!!) approach.
For context, the US is <50% male, and about 60% white.
https://www.acslaw.org/judicial-nominations/diversity-of-the-federal-bench/
> that's what you wish Mueller had written.
Pot/kettle/black
https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/other-resources/key-findings-of-the-mueller-report/
- Special Counsel Mueller declined to exonerate President Trump and instead detailed multiple episodes in which he engaged in obstructive conduct
- The investigation “identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign” and established that the Trump Campaign “showed interest in WikiLeaks's releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton”
- Russia engaged in extensive attacks on the U.S. election system in 2016
- The Special Counsel investigation uncovered extensive criminal activity