Caveat: the following is largely based on my recollections of a law review article I drafted over 30 years ago (which has long since vanished from my files), and not on any current legal research. But at least its not nihilist black pill ranting, so I’ve got that going for me.
The Supreme Court decision in the abortion case (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization 19-1392 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (06/24/2022) (supremecourt.gov) ) took the very unusual step of overturning a major previous Supreme Court decision. This is extraordinarily rare, and even more so because Roe was itself a rare Supreme Court decision that limited the power of the government. I have not yet closely read the Dobbs decision, but on a quick review the decision did not address the issues discussed here.
When the Court rules that a statute is unconstitutional, the statute is not repealed. These statutes remain on the books until repealed by the legislature. Courts can neither create nor repeal statutes. Many states did not repeal their pre-Roe abortion laws. Arizona’s pre-Roe law outlawing elective abortions, allowing them only to save the life of the pregnant woman, is still on the books. The precise legal status of these statutes is not clear (more on that below), but at a minimum they were unenforceable after Roe and until Dobbs. These laws are enforceable now, though.
And now, for the philosophical/jurisprudential musings. I am going to use a couple of straw man jurisprudences – “legal positivism”, which is the theory that the law is whatever the courts (or the legislatures) say it is; there is no underlying order or natural law, merely the pronouncements of those in power, and “traditionalism”, which is the theory that there is an underlying order and the law is the recognition of what that order is. Traditionalism is the philosophical foundation for common law, laws “made” by the courts, and recognizes that law can be illegitimate. Positivism is a reaction to traditionalism, based on the belief that the underlying order is invisible and likely fictitious, and that all we can really say that the law is, is what is on the books. Positivism is also the basis for critical legal theory and its bastard stepchild, critical race theory.
The traditional view of court decisions, including Roe and Dobbs is that they “discover” the law, they do not “create” the law. Creating law is the province of the legislature, after all. Courts applying statutes (or the Constitution) are merely explicating what the law already is. Under this view, the Dobbs ruling means that abortion laws were never unconstitutional; the Court ruled that there was no Constitutional basis for Roe. Wouldn’t that mean that those laws were always Constitutional? The Constitution itself hasn’t changed, after all. If those laws were always Constitutional, does that mean that abortion providers (and, depending on the statute, the women who had abortions) are now exposed to criminal prosecutions for abortions performed before Dobbs?
Not so fast. This gets into the retroactive application of court decisions, which is a murky topic.
Retroactive application is messy. Court decisions apply to the parties to the case. However, the dispute that gave rise to the case occurred before the court made its decision. When the court decides the case, it is applying its decision to something that happened years ago – the decision applies retroactively to whatever caused the court case in the first place.
Just to simplify things, let’s say the court adopted a new rule to decide the case – it used to be that the courts were silent on whether the terms of service for an app could authorize the software company to install surveillance software on your phone, or the courts even allowed it. This court decides that, no, that would be a contract of adhesion and the software company has to give you specific notice and you have to opt in to the surveillance software. At the time the software company installed the software, there was no rule against it, but now there is and they have to pay damages for something that wasn’t against the rules at the time. The court’s decision applies retroactively to actions that took place before the rule was adopted. This is an essential part of the courts’ core purpose of resolving disputes; there’s really no way around it.
Not only that, through the miracle of precedent and the common law, the new rule applies to other cases as well. The new rule on surveillance software can be applied in pending cases, but not cases that are final. For pending cases, the new rule will have retroactive effect, just as it did in the case where it was created. Once a case is finally adjudicated (appeals are not taken or are exhausted), it is closed and can’t be reopened even if the new rule would have given the losing party good arguments, or even a lay-down win. The loser is stuck with it, even though under the (current) law, they would have won.
Saying the rule didn’t exist until a court announces it is legal positivism (and the sharp-eyed reader will detect the odor of positivism in my references to a “new rule”). To a positivist, it is a new rule, and it is applied retroactively, because the rule didn’t exist when the dispute arose, but is applied anyway.
Under a strict application of the traditional view that courts discover, not create, the law, the rule existed the whole time and was just now “discovered” by the court, so its hard to say that it is being applied retroactively. There is definitely a tension between courts “discovering” the law and their decisions having only a limited retroactive effect. If that’s what the law has always been, then why doesn’t the court’s decision apply retroactively across the board? There’s a couple of reasons:
Part of the rule of law (and due process) is “finality” – once its over, its over, and everybody needs to move on. Allowing every case to be reopened every time there is a new decision that might affect its outcome is destabilizing, to say the least. That sets one limit on retroactive application of court decisions. And, really, a pretty clean and reasonable one.
Another part of the rule of law (and due process) is “reliance”. People are supposed to be able to rely on what the rules are when they take action, which is when legal disputes arise. No ex post facto laws, right? Statutes have prospective effect, and often even come with delayed effective dates to give people time to adjust. However, statutes are laws created by a legislature, not rules “discovered” by the courts to be applied to resolve a live dispute.
Its messier trying to protect reliance on the law when you are talking about court cases. Do you say whatever cases are on the books at the time the dispute arose are the law for that dispute? Nobody would seriously argue that the decision in a court case shouldn’t apply to the parties, so that piece of retroactivity is pretty uncontroversial. From there, it’s a short step, and one that is hard to argue with, to apply that decision in other cases not yet final – the law should be uniform, after all. Applying new decisions retroactively to cases not yet final is often justified by an interest in “progress”, which seems an odd thing for a “traditionalist” approach, but there it is. Fortunately, you can apply both approaches reasonably cleanly in the vast majority of cases, because any change in the rules is likely to be very marginal, if its detectable at all.
Cases like Roe and Dobbs are not part of this vast majority – they are both cases where the Court pretty explicitly changed the rules. In Roe, all those state abortion laws became unenforceable. In Dobbs, all those state abortion laws became enforceable again. Those aren’t marginal changes, and make it harder to be a strict traditionalist. You can’t really say both Roe and Dobbs “discovered” the meaning of the Constitution without doing violence to the words “discover” and “meaning”. This tips the scales away from saying that those state abortion laws were always in effect and so states can prosecute people for abortions that happened before Dobbs (reliance on the “settled law” of Roe be damned). On the flip side, I don’t think people who were convicted under abortion laws were freed when Roe was handed down.
As a practical matter, major changes like this tend to be applied prospectively with only limited retroactive effect only in live cases, and do not reopen closed cases. If you were convicted before Roe, you stayed in jail. If you performed abortions before Dobbs, you really don’t need to worry about being prosecuted. And this seems intuitively correct, even if its not a pure application of either of positivism or traditionalism.
Allow me to complicate matters. Arizona recently (before Dobbs) passed something much like the Missouri statute at issue in Dobbs, which allows elective abortions up to 15 weeks. The bill had “Construction” language that says that it doesn’t repeal the old pre-Roe statute, and that it doesn’t “make lawful an abortion that is currently unlawful”. At the time the new law was passed, were elective abortions legal, or were only the abortions allowed by the old statute, to save the life of the pregnant woman, legal? What exactly was the status of the old, pre-Roe, statute, before the Dobbs decision?
If Roe made elective abortions legal, rather than merely barring enforcement of abortion laws, then the new statute would mean elective abortions up to 15 weeks are legal in spite of the old statute which is still on the books and is now enforceable. If Roe means the old statute was simply unenforceable, then elective abortions were always illegal but the state was prohibited from enforcing the law. Consider that healthcare providers, including hospitals, routinely make representations that they comply with applicable law, both in contracts and in representations to government agencies. If elective abortions were illegal the whole time, what happens to those representations? If they were legal while Roe was in effect, why was the old law still on the books? Does it make any sense to say that something explicitly prohibited by law is actually legal?
One difficulty with the narrower reading of Roe (that it made abortion laws unenforceable) is that’s not really consistent with the way we understand and talk about our Constitution, which is more consistent with the traditionalist approach. Government power is limited, and governments do not have the power to infringe on Constitutional rights. Statutes that do so are ultra vires, beyond the state’s power, and as such should be void ab initio, because the government doesn’t have the power to pass such statutes in the first place.
The Roe Court did not issue an injunction against enforcement; it said the law was invalid in some sense. Consider the holding in Roe v Wade:
Our conclusion that Art. 1196 is unconstitutional means, of course, that the Texas abortion statutes, as a unit, must fall. . . .
Although the District Court granted appellant Roe declaratory relief, it stopped short of issuing an injunction against enforcement of the Texas statutes. . . .
We find it unnecessary to decide whether the District Court erred in withholding injunctive relief, for we assume the Texas prosecutorial authorities will give full credence to this decision that the present criminal abortion statutes of that State are unconstitutional.
There are a couple of very interesting things here. First, the District Court gave Roe, as a party to the lawsuit, protection against enforcement of the statute, but did not enjoin enforcement of the statute generally. That kind of old-school judicial restraint has fallen by the wayside in recent years, with District Courts showing no hesitation to enjoin enforcement across the board, rather than only with respect to the parties to the case. Enjoining enforcement across the board is more consistent with the traditionalist approach, and also with judicial activism. Does your head hurt yet?
The Supreme Court also did not enjoin enforcement of the statute, but really left its status in suspense with its rather vague statement that Texas prosecutors will give credence to the Court’s finding that the abortion law was unconstitutional. What did the Court mean when it said the abortion law “must fall”? Why didn’t it issue an injunction against enforcement? Both of these are consistent with the traditionalist approach and our general understanding of the Constitution, but the Court did not go on to say that the statute had always been unconstitutional, was ultra vires, and thus was void ab initio and to be struck from the books. The Court carefully avoided the implications of its ruling and left its full effect indefinite.
This post has gone on long enough, so I’ll just wrap it up by saying that perfect philosophical consistency is not something that we should wish for in the law; the world is too messy. Traditionalist retroactive application of new rules seems unfair, but how else will you apply the rule adopted by the court to the parties to the case where it was adopted? What else is consistent with our view of the Constitution and the belief that it should be applied as written? Do we think there is an underlying emergent order to society that the law should reflect, or not? How fair is it to adopt a new rule and then, as a positivist, continue to enforce the old rule and the new rule side-by-side until older disputes clear the system? Isn’t the positivist approach, that the law is what the courts say it is when they say it, essentially the same as having a “living Constitution”? But don’t the positivists have a point when they say the law is what is on the books at any given time, and that the “brooding omnipresence” of natural law is, essentially a social construct?
Oh good, I’ve seen too many of those recently.
That was specifically for you.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Nice article, but the lack of clarity from the arizona legislature is frustrating.
People get confused sometimes, e.g.
Missouri statute at issue in Dobbs is referring to a Mississippi law. 😉
I hadn’t noticed that. I was referencing the major subject of a few paragraphs in the middle of the article with regards to a law Arizona passed during the span between Roe and Dobbs.
Dang it!
A very good article, RC. Thank you.
Agreed. Wish could add something more thoughtful.
It pushes home the issue that Team Blue in many states should have made an effort to repeal those laws if they considered this such a critical issue.
Cleaning up unenforcable laws doesn’t buy new votes, so it’s difficult to motivate legislators to take up the task.
When KY went to annual legislative sessions, instead of every other year, I suggested the second session should be solely for removing laws.
You would have thought I had seven heads, the looks people gave me.
Not enough, repeal two laws per law or regulation added.
Pass a law? But then they would have a voting record that could be held against them.
Accountability is a bitch.
As you mentioned in the article, there’s something inherently different between “discovery” and a change in course.
Technological and social change guarantees the continued need for this “discovery” process. NYT v. Sullivan applies to digital newspapers just as much as paper newspapers. Defamation in electronic form shouldn’t be given a pass because the standards in defamation law were hashed out in the context of physical newspapers. The difference in medium didn’t impact the fundamental principles involved.
Dobbs upends the fundamental principles espoused in Roe and Griswold.
Griswold was shit and deserves to be discarded.
^^ this.
And Roe and Griswold upended the fundamental principles previously in place.
It’s amazing how closely positivism and results-based jurisprudence are linked. It’s almost as if the former is an excuse to engage in the latter.
*whistles and walks away casually*
NYT v. Sullivan applies to digital newspapers just as much as paper newspapers.
But does it have a Constitutional basis? Or is it merely a positivist “creation” of law by a court?
I, for one, search the Constitution in vain for any basis for a two-tier law of defamation.
But does it have a Constitutional basis?
No, but the question isn’t “is that Alabama state law Constitutional?”. The question is “does application of that Alabama state law violate the federal Constitutional rights of the NYT?”
Only the BoR* was incorporated, not the whole Constitution. State law is only restricted at the federal level from usurping power from FedGov (supremacy clause) or violating a right granted by the BoR (incorporation).**
Does SCOTUS setting up a two tier system to determine unconstitutional violations of the 1A go afoul of the plain meaning of the 1A? I think it’s hard to say yes to that unless you think the bar for libel in a case of a private individual is set too low. Does it go afoul of the Privileges or Immunities clause of the 14th amendment? I’d say so. I’d love to see them overturn Sullivan on 14th amendment grounds.
*and evidently not fully 🙄🙄
**explanation for the benefit of the audience
Does SCOTUS setting up a two tier system to determine unconstitutional violations of the 1A go afoul of the plain meaning of the 1A?
Does the 1A authorize two different standards for defamation? I don’t see it; I’m not even sure it sets any limits on defamation law, properly understood as providing for restitution and not prior restraint. P & I may be a cleaner way to go at this, but I think there’s an argument that Sullivan is invalid because the double standard it creates has no Constitutional basis. Especially under the Court’s new “history and tradition” standard (which is, really, common/natural law jurisprudence dressed up to go after the recent, err, innovations in application of the “Constitution”). I think the Court could decide there’s no basis for a double standard, strike Sullivan on that ground alone, and perhaps set whatever Constitutional boundaries on defamation law that it thinks have a Constitutional basis based on “history and tradition”. The Court’s creation of new classes and standards of proof in Sullivan has the same aroma of emanations and penumbras as Roe, to me.
Does the 1A authorize two different standards for defamation?
I don’t think it says either way. 1A says nothing about egalitarianism. So long as the fundamental right isn’t abridged by the more stringent standard, I don’t think the 1A has any guidance in whether some animals are more equal than others. IMO, that’s where privileges & immunities and privileges or immunities come in.
But don’t the positivists have a point when they say the law is what is on the books at any given time, and that the “brooding omnipresence” of natural law is, essentially a social construct?
Shit. I was told there would be no
mathphilosophy. Natural rights aren’t a social construct, but the acceptance and recognition of them is. At least practically.Excellent article, RC. Most of this is way above my pay grade, but I dig it!
>>above my pay grade
Me too! And I’m married to a lawyer but I admit my eyes start to glaze over when it comes to legalese.
I tend to go for the “shoot from the hip” intuitive understanding of the world.
Natural rights aren’t a social construct, but the acceptance and recognition of them is. At least practically.
I can support this from a Christian point of view, but I struggle to put any oomph behind natural law from a secular materialistic perspective.
The Christian argument is fairly simple. The Law is imprinted on man’s heart, no matter their exposure to the written law itself. All are held to account for their adherence to the law in their hearts.
Rom. 2
The secular materialist argument in favor of natural law seems to be a combination of appeal to tradition and plain utilitarianism. E.g. “Natural law is a useful social construct that builds on the evolutionarily honed instincts and time-tested philosophies coming together over thousands of years. Oh, and natural law has been used to bring forth some of the most thriving societies in history.” It’s a good argument for recognizing the value of natural law, but I don’t think it goes very far in compelling adherence to natural law principles. What’s missing is that link to truth and reality. I can recognize the value of a fiction and not feel compelled to embrace that fiction. It’s much harder to do that with truth.
“Natural law is a useful social construct that builds on the evolutionarily honed instincts and time-tested philosophies coming together over thousands of years. Oh, and natural law has been used to bring forth some of the most thriving societies in history.”
Works for me.
To my simple mind, it’s easy enough to think that laws are natural and timeless, but their discovery by fallible humans is not, and so our actions based on those discoveries are subject to effective dates.
That’s actually a very nice summary of the way we apply court cases.
The problem really does go back to Griswold.
The problem with Roe, and the positivist approach in general, is that is exactly what Taney set out to do in Dred Scott v. Sanford.
So scratching around on Dred Scott, I came across the partial justification of the Missouri State Supreme Court, which in 1852 overturned the then established doctrine of “once free, always free” (with respect to a slave residing in a state or territory that forbade slavery):
How much more positivist can you get!
Consistent or complete, pick one (at most).
And I think you have to err towards complete with the law. Can’t have judges just shrugging and refusing to make a decision in any direction at all. Or can we?
This post has gone on long enough, so I’ll just wrap it up by saying that perfect philosophical consistency is not something that we should wish for in the law; the world is too messy.
I just need to know how to coerce everyone to live in a manner that I find acceptable. Letting states have their own policies is a threat to Democracy.
Good article. I’m curious to the follow-ups to New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen.
If I still lived in NJ I would be rather upset at the Democrats and Phil Murphy (*spit*, rigged election cheating mf $#!). While sort of accepting the ruling and switching from won’t issue to will issue, they have now thrown up many more unconstitutional roadblocks to gun ownership and self-protection. Maybe years from now those laws will be stuck down.
After the tantrum New York threw following Bruen, there are now at least four lawsuits challenging both the new laws and several existing laws.
When it all shakes out, there will be rulings on the books invalidating all of the weapons laws at this rate. (I hope they tantrum the state into constitutional carry)
As a bonus, state court threw out the forced quarantine rules too.
The risk there (and hope by the states in question) is that by the time these disputes make it to the Supreme Court, the makeup of the Court will have changed.
On a related note, can the Supreme Court choose to take cases that are pending in lower courts if the action by a State is considered to be an egregious violation of Constitutional law, or are they obligated to wait for the process in the lower courts?
Kind of where I was going. NJ and NY are blatantly thumbing their noses at the Court and the Constitution.
That is hardly anything new (see e,g, Georgia and Indian removal), and frankly there isn’t a damn thing the SC can do about it.
I view this as step #1 to national divorce.
I believe the court can accelerate the process But I’m not all that certain about the conditions under which it can happen.
That was my thought too, I’m hoping we’ll find out soon that those conditions are operative.
For instance, in Bruen, the Court (or at least concurring Justices) issued a non-comprehensive list of things that the States could not do under this decision, which New York proceeded to do almost exactly (overly broad definition of “sensitive areas”, etc.). Can the Supreme Court smack them down for this directly or do they have to wait years to get a crack at it?
Too bad the courts invented qualified immunity out of thin air so the officials who knowingly violate the constitution and the court will never be held personally responsible for their actions.
Qualified Immunity is a terrible thing. If anything, in a Constitutional republic, the default assumption should be that the government is going to always try to violate its limitations, and all possible avenues to prevent official overreach should be retained.
Way back under Roman law – office holders lost their immunity as soon as they were out of office. There was some wisdom we shouldn’t have ignored.
Don’t know. Above my pay grade.
Not obligated to wait. If there is jurisdiction over the matter, parties can petition the court directly without going through the appellate process. However, I am guessing jurisdiction matters are a narrow set of rules, such as disputes between states.
So as I understand.
I think you can try to appeal from the district court ruling, but the typical response is to go to the circuit first.
Donno if they’ll respond differently when directly defied.
The Appellate Court would be extremely hard pressed not to slap the state laws down, which leaves the states petitioning for cert. Good luck with that unless you’ve got a new slate of justices on the SC.
I have no faith in the 2nd Circuit to not torture the language to find a way to uphold the state laws.
Could they slap them down in a very narrowly phrased way such that it would leave room for further abuses, if they were playing the game?
They could pull all sorts of shenanigans, an appellate court judge’s toolbox is full of bullshit ways to avoid the natural ruling when it goes against their politics.
They can always go the way of the 9th – charge hard and get benchslapped.
The risk there (and hope by the states in question) is that by the time these disputes make it to the Supreme Court, the makeup of the Court will have changed.
If I was Clarence Thomas, I wouldn’t sleep in the same place twice.
Certainly without pillows.
Yup. I won’t mind seeing this place in the rearview mirror.
I was all “Why does Sensei hate us and why is he leaving?” until I scrolled back and understood “this place” to be NJ.
“They are commonsense. They are smart,” Murphy said. “They live up to our Jersey values.”
Creating several new crimes while doing nothing about violent crime?
Sounds like Jersey values to me.
New Jersey state motto: Stupid Laws for Stupid Reasons.
Organized crime, high taxes, Democrat run ghettos, rigged elections, kick backs, corruption, etc.
What a useless pile of dogshit those laws are.
“Our work is not done. This is a huge day for gun safety in New Jersey. We have already made an enormous amount of progress,” Murphy said. “We need to take more steps, and I’m confident we will.”
You conniving, commie cuntes never stop.
A bill known as the “New Jersey Safe Storage of Firearms Act” would require all gun owners to store unloaded firearms in gun safes or locked boxes, with ammunition locked away separately
Make people remove the firing pins too. The more inoperable your gun is when you need it, the better.
He also signed an executive order that will require state agencies to start compiling a list of “safe places” in which the state could ban firearms, such as sports stadiums, arenas, bars, restaurants, child care facilities and hospitals.
Murderers are notorious for avoiding soft targets. It is known.
Criminals love a challenge. The harder the work the better.
That’s why all the respected criminals are doing heists with dozens of participants.
Coming this summer: Ocean’s ♾️
You’ll need a crew.
Of course, Rick and Morty did it already.
You can’t really say both Roe and Dobbs “discovered” the meaning of the Constitution without doing violence to the words “discover” and “meaning”.
This much I get.
It is interesting that old laws rendered unenforcible remain on the books and can only be removed by the legislature. And that laws can be passed that are currently unenforcible but will immediately become active when the SCOTUS reverses or modifies a previous decision.
@Sensei: It pushes home the issue that Team Blue in many states should have made an effort to repeal those laws if they considered this such a critical issue.
I suspect that in the states with those laws the Dems realize they have no chance to do so, and don’t waste the effort.
OT: My wife and I established a nonprofit to try to build some low-income housing (8 studio apartments) in our city. We have commissioned the plans (my wife and I paid an architect, our donation to the project) and been approved by the city council to proceed. We have already secured grants and donations for almost 30% of what we need to start — all we need to do now is raise more money. This is where I hope Glibs can help.
Gannett Corp. is sponsoring a fundraising challenge, and we could win grants of anywhere from $2,500 to over $100,000 if people donate to us from July 18 to August 12. There are incentives both for the most people and the most money. There are also bonus grants for most people and most money in specified weeks (all times are CDT):
July 18, 11 AM to July 25, 11 AM: Most unique donors of $5 or more ($5,000 bonus)
July 25, 11 AM to August 1, 11 AM: Highest donation totals ($3,000 bonus)
August 1, 11 AM to August 8, 11 AM: Most unique donors of $5 or more ($4,000 bonus)
August 8, 11 AM to August 12, 8 PM: Highest donation totals ($4,000 bonus)
To count in the challenge, donations must be made through the web address http://bit.ly/alliesonduff . The site is administered by a fundraising website called Mighty Cause, which is what Gannett is using. There is also a description of the project at that link.
At a minimum, if you can donate at least $5 in either Weeks 1 or 3 (or both!), that would help towards our unique donor counts. If you want to donate a larger amount, it might be more helpful to do $5 in Week 1 and the rest in Week 2, for example. It’s a little convoluted, but that’s the way it’s set up. Donating more than once in a week does not add to the unique donor count for that week, but you can donate in more than one week and count as unique for that week. If you can encourage friends and family to help, that would be great, they just need a different email address to be considered unique (only one email address per person, however).
If we can raise $3,000 during this period, we can qualify to be in the running for these grants.
We also have an anonymous donor who will give $5 for each donation of $5 or more to help us reach the $3,000 minimum needed to qualify for the grants. In the first 24 hours, we already got $180 of donations (my wife posted it on Facebook), and I haven’t hit my contact lists yet, and we are going after some bigger donors in town. Separately we are also pursuing other grants.
On the donation page, you will have options for the payment method, which include PayPal, Venmo, or a credit card. We hope you can help!
Our nonprofit has its own website, http://homeallies.org , where you can see more details, including plans for the project. But don’t donate through our website, as it won’t count in the challenge; use the Mighty Cause link http://bit.ly/alliesonduff to donate.
👍 Please keep this front of mind by posting in the links as those dates get closer!
I will! Thanks.
Definition of woman: someone that doesn’t want to get any stank on their hang-lo…
The focus of the issue here is the shocking level of expense.
Electric cars have become quite popular lately. And with gas prices and inflation, it seems like a great way to help the environment and save money in the long term. But… what happens when the battery needs replacing? And what happens when the replacement battery costs more than the car itself? For a St. Petersburg family, that is the exact position they found themselves in.
Not a glimpse at the environmental impact of lithium and cobalt mining or the overuse of slave labor in most of the regions where it is extracted?
It’s out of sight, out if mind for the progs. Makes me sick.
Yeah.
Narrator: They do not “help the environment”.
“seems like a great way to help the environment”
Electricity comes from the outlet.
“Not always”
/CA and TX
heh heh!
My wife’s cousin bought a used Chevy Volt recently. He did the research, and found that the batteries were being recalled and will be replaced. So he paid used car prices for a car that will soon have brand new batteries that have an 8 year warranty.
“What’s this?”
“It’s a liquid-storage thermal-kinetic converter.”
“That looks like an engine.”
“It explodes less often than our batteries, sir.”
Did he check on the lead time? I’ve been waiting a year for a recalled part.
I want to say it will be within a month. They have been replacing all the battery packs because they tend to catch fire…
And then there is this dumb motherfucker.
What a tool.
I have to assume mendacity. Like with this cunte.
“[I]t is about making a choice between what is the short-term and the medium-term so that we can make sure we have enough oil and gas to support us through the transition, and what are the kind of steps that we don’t want the oil and gas industry to take that would have long-term consequences when we don’t want new major projects that would take 20, 30 years to become profitable,” he continued. “So, we have to make that differentiation to make sure that the American consumer has what it needs … to grow our economy and the global economy, but not take steps and endanger the climate work that we’re trying to do to make sure that we’re in a better footing to accelerate the transition.”
They are going to ensure that people freeze/starve this winter.
No, what YOU need to do is accelerate the replacement development to deliver the same energy cheaper than fossil fuels. Cost of energy will be the height of your gallows – do you really want it as high as possible?
IOW, we want to shut down long term investments in the fossil fuel industry, which can’t possibly have any short-term impacts.
If I had to choose between pulling the pin on greenism and wokism, I might pick greenism. Tough call, though.
It’s the same mindset, so if you get one you probably get the other too.
“Those who can access electric vehicles” = rich people. So the more pain we experience, the better it is for rich people. Sounds about right.
Sorry, I live in an electric vehicle desert. Where’s my free car?
Oh, and just for funsies, it turns out that in Arizona there is a 1973 case that enjoined the enforcement of the pre-Roe abortion law. The Arizona AG has petitioned to have it reversed. On the merits, I think he’s right. Given the more recent laws that it conflicts with, though, I think the better course would be for the AG to “request” that the legislature sort this out once and for all. After all, the legislature just legalized elective abortions up to 15 weeks, and allowed them to avoid serious bodily harm to the pregnant woman. It seems odd that statute would be rendered a nullity by the old law, but there we are. I suspect similar scenarios are in play in other states. Of course, the AG has the option of saying that elective abortions up to 15 weeks, etc. weren’t unlawful, due to Roe, when the recent law was passed, and so they are lawful now (until the legislature or the courts say otherwise), but that’s not the approach he is taking.
Legislators have very little incentive to sort this out. Even though, shockingly, team red managed to do something on the federal level about their long stated goal of overturning roe, the same incentives for state legislatures to keep this as a wedge issue used to garner votes remains.
And what happens when the replacement battery costs more than the car itself?
That could never happen!
“Is that the new Apple iCar?”
In local OT news
https://www.the-sun.com/news/5813722/hoover-dam-explosion-terrifying-fireball-video/
https://mobile.twitter.com/BNONews/status/1549444981408022528
Looks like it’s in the generator house
I blame green energy advocates.
This would never have happened had we converted completely to nuclear.
I think you’re being facetious here…nuke plants have GSUs too…
Of course I am.
Yikes. What all does hoover dam power out west? I’m fairly certain that is the largest hydroelectric generating plant in the country.
85% to Cali from what I know.
The Hover Dam is 10th in generation capacity in the US.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1172137/largest-us-conventional-hydropower-facilities/
Sorry, its the sixth. The previous link was a for pay site.
Rank Name Total Capacity (MW) Year of Completion
1 Grand Coulee 6,809 1942/1980
2 Bath County PSP 3,003 1985
3 Chief Joseph Dam 2,620 1958/73/79
4 Robert Moses Niagara Power Plant 2,515 1961
5 John Day Dam 2,160 1949
6 Hoover Dam 2,080 1936/1961
7 The Dalles Dam 2,038 1957
So what you’re saying is, we’re overdue to make it bigger.
Not serious but more of a big idea kind of spit balling. We should dam the Mississippi if we were serious about carbon emissions and water for the South West. We could make a huge inland lake an use the power generated to pump it to the SW. Were would the lake most likely be, Missouri?
The plant I used to work at would come in #4 in that list, but sadly it is shut down completely now.
Oh, those are just hydro facilities. We were supposed to be the 5th largest fossil fired plant in the Americas at one point.
Those GSUs (Generator Step-Up) transformers are generally full of oil for cooling. The oil is notoriously flammable.
Additionally the electrical connection between the generators and the GSUs is usually solid copper bus bar enclosed in air cooled ducts. If you look closely at the picture you will see these ducts. There are three per generator/GSU pair, one for each phase. At the power plant where I used to work, we once had a short circuit between one of these bus bars and the cooling duct (water got in the duct) while the unit was a full load (about 850 MW). The result was about 60 feet of copper bus bar vaporized instantaneously and exploded the duct. We were very fortunate that it didn’t start the cooling oil on fire in the GSU.
From the pictures I see there it looks like there’s a fire in the GSU fed by the oil. Those types of fires can start for a number of reasons, but they’re relatively rare because they are a known phenomenon, and plant maintenance is supposed to keep up with prevention.
As always, db, thanks.
Yeah that and RC article is just a firehose of great information
If someone wanted to sabotage the power grid, GSUs are a major weak point. They are almost always outside in plain view and can easily be pierced. Generally a power plant will keep a single spare GSU aound for each type they have at the plant. They are extremely expensive, extremely heavy, and take a terribly long time to manufacture. Transport from the factory to the site is very slow and expensive due to the weight and size.
I’m surprised that more hasn’t been done to prevent modes of attack like that. Not saying this particular event was intentional.
About 10 years ago the secondary bus on a 5 megawatt 23.5kv to 480v transformer at a place i used to work at got contaminated with carbon dust. It arced phase to phase inside the connection enclosure. the arc was hot enough to damage the seals where the secondary bus passed out of the main tank, causing the transformer to leak out and catch fire. It burned for several hours before the oil was down below the level of the secondary bus and quit leaking.
About 3 years ago, one of our 100MW furnace transformers started showing elevated acetlyne levels in the transformer oil during a routine oil analysis. It went from 20 ppm to 3000ppm in between tests. When i got the results back, i took another sample immediately and had it flown to the lab. It was at 10000ppm when i got it back the next day. Two days later it was at 20000ppm, and we shut it down. I think around 12k or so ppm, you risk blowing your xformer up. It ended up that one of the contacts on the primary voltage tap changer had a bad connection and was arcing in the tank. We changed the contact, filtered the oil and put it back in service. If we weren’t doing our due diligence by checking the gasses in the oil periodically, we would have eventually blown up a 2 million dollar transformer.
That oil is usually toxic as hell, too. Don’t breathe the smoke. The big transformers still have oil with PCBs in many cases (newer ones might not).
PCBs are good for you! A lot of vintage tube gear – especially military stuff – used oil capacitors filled with yummy PCBs.
Hey, Lach! Long time no see!
What’s up RC. Glad this place is still hopping. Great article.
Why does it seem like everything breaks in the house at once?
Washing Machine drum – yes I checked the thermostat – dropped. Repairman found a broken spring. And the back feet – being cheap plastic – broke too. There is a 2+ week delay on the feet replacement.
And my ancient Craftsman garage door opener decided to – finally! – die. You can still open the garage door – manually – from the inside. Luckily we don’t use the garage as well a garage but instead as an exercise room (hot as hell in the summer, cold as ice in the winter) and antique booth storage space.
Also my roof is leaking – right into the master bedroom. It only happens during intense range but suddenly you feel like you’re in the middle of a Chinese water torture session.
I put a metal roof on my house in 2017. Best thing i ever did.
We really wanted a metal roof, but our old asphalt shingle roof let go while we were in the midst of a major renovation and we had to get it done fast, and our budget was tight because of the reno. So we ended up with a new shingle roof. Maybe when this one starts to wear out in 45 years…
45 years?!! Do you live under a dome?
Pretty much everybody up here have steel roofs, with no gutters. They shed snow better than shingles.
I’m right there with you. Our shower needs a new mixer valve, and I have to find time to fix that. Meanwhile our washer is out and the guy won’t be here until Thursday. Dryer is also squeaking. Then yesterday the pool kept blowing the GFI, so I’ll have to troubleshoot that.
My most recent problems involve water. Again.
It appears we have sprinklers out in the back yard of our rental. Now, you have to understand. We never go outside, or at least, not into the back yard. So the landlord had a sprinkler backwash test done (something like that?). And some days after that, my husband (who works downstairs in his mancave) noticed the sprinklers were on in the middle of the day in a heat wave. WTF. How do we reset the schedule. Then it appeared we couldn’t get them to go off unless we just shut the water to it off entirely. So we did that. The company who came to do the test had to do some hocus pocus involving tools and hardware for it to go back to usability.
We just got our water bill. $580.
Landlord said he’d make it right if it was huge, but he hasn’t responded to my husband’s text yet.
Call the water company (or have the landlord do it) and explain that there was a leak that has since been fixed. They will likely adjust the bill for you.
I had a series of events including a high water bill:
1. From my balcony, I can see my neighbor’s pool. Early summer last year I noted how filthy green the water was.
2. Took a long weekend to Florida.
3. Noticed that my neighbor had cleaned his pool.
4. Received a $300 water bill. Called the water utility and they recommended I call a plumber out to look for a leak.
5. Plumber comes out, no leak.
6. Remembered steps 1-3.
7. Installed security cam on the spigot nearest the neighbor’s house.
There are also locks for water spigots, which might be better, as they might prevent you from having to go after your neighbors for money the next time they steal water from you.
Locks for water spigots… That would have been easier! Although I do like that now he knows that I know (installation of the camera involved hammer-drilling into brick across from their bedroom window early one Saturday morning). And his pool has looked like shit all this summer.
hammer-drilling into brick across from their bedroom window early one Saturday morning
Well played.
Hime issues come in threes. At least you found all three! All horrible issues.
Some modestly good news.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/manhattan-da-moves-drop-murder-charge-nyc-bodega-worker-deadly-stabbing
I wonder if someone on the grand jury didn’t tell the DA “Don’t even think about bringing that shit to us. No way will we indict.”
I think it was typical prosecutorial discretion. Now that’s perfectly fine. But jury nullification is a absolutely forbidden in the eyes of the state.
The quote about a ham sandwich is far too true IMHO.
Case against Colbert’s Crew also dropped.
Joe just can’t catch a break.
High inflation. Manchin and Sinema. Some of his own mistakes. But in my view, one of the biggest challenges for Biden has been facing a mainstream media looking to “balance” its anti-Trump coverage from 2017-2020.
This is the first time ever that a sitting president was held accountable for a bad economy. Poor guy.
That damn right-wing media! The Dems just can’t get an even break.
Wait until the SPLC find out about this guy!
Oh wait – he’s selling bigotry against anyone that dares to not be a Democrat, he’s perfectly safe. Fuckwad.
Sad trombone sound.
Former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio Ends Congressional Bid
https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-new-york-city-mayor-bill-de-blasio-ends-congressional-bid-11658256693?st=3eawcqk4cxb7m55&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
“It’s clear to me that when it comes to this congressional district, people are looking for another option,” Mr. de Blasio said in a video posted on Twitter. “And I respect that.”
“I really want to keep serving and I’m going to find a different way to serve,” he
saidthreatened.FTFH
“I really want to keep
servingthe grift going and I’m going to find a different way toservedo that,” hesaidpromised.Better
Our new mighty military!
We deserve an asswhopping
Lazy lol.
AOC arrested…
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/19/politics/congress-members-arrested-abortion-protest-supreme-court/index.html
Odds are this was planned? Why do they suddenly care about security in the Kapitol?
Stunning and brave.
Performance politics!
Ilhan did the same shit.
Of course it was planned. But to be fair, most protestor arrests are.
Fake arrested.
No handcuffs.
Love the way she poses with her hands behind her back, as if she’s handcuffed.
She’s not.
I can only hope tomorrow brings us the behind the scene planning of this.
Oh I’m looking forward to The Bee’s take, you can be sure.
I bet they’re all staying late tonight for this one.
excellent article