May I Put My Head Up My Own Ass?

I’ve blogged twice before on the creeping criminalization of all things sexual. As I have noted many times, the goal here is not to prevent rape or sexual assault, per se. It is to enshrine radical feminist notions of consent into law so that women are considered victims, sex is considered non-consensual by default and any man can be guilty of sexual assault.

To wit:

PERHAPS the most consequential deliberations about affirmative consent are going on right now at the American Law Institute. The more than 4,000 law professors, judges and lawyers who belong to this prestigious legal association — membership is by invitation only — try to untangle the legal knots of our time. They do this in part by drafting and discussing model statutes. Once the group approves these exercises, they hold so much sway that Congress and states sometimes vote them into law, in whole or in part. For the past three years, the law institute has been thinking about how to update the penal code for sexual assault, which was last revised in 1962. When its suggestions circulated in the weeks before the institute’s annual meeting in May, some highly instructive hell broke loose.

In a memo that has now been signed by about 70 institute members and advisers, including Judge Gertner, readers have been asked to consider the following scenario: “Person A and Person B are on a date and walking down the street. Person A, feeling romantically and sexually attracted, timidly reaches out to hold B’s hand and feels a thrill as their hands touch. Person B does nothing, but six months later files a criminal complaint. Person A is guilty of ‘Criminal Sexual Contact’ under proposed Section 213.6(3)(a).”

Far-fetched? Not as the draft is written. The hypothetical crime cobbles together two of the draft’s key concepts. The first is affirmative consent. The second is an enlarged definition of criminal sexual contact that would include the touching of any body part, clothed or unclothed, with sexual gratification in mind. As the authors of the model law explain: “Any kind of contact may qualify. There are no limits on either the body part touched or the manner in which it is touched.” So if Person B neither invites nor rebukes a sexual advance, then anything that happens afterward is illegal. “With passivity expressly disallowed as consent,” the memo says, “the initiator quickly runs up a string of offenses with increasingly more severe penalties to be listed touch by touch and kiss by kiss in the criminal complaint.”

That last bit will sound ominous to those of you familiar with our legal system. In some cases, prosecutors will pile up dozens if not hundreds of charges in the hope of intimidating out a plea bargain. Do we really think someone should end up on a sex offender registry for a stolen kiss? A bunch of lawyers think so.

The example points to a trend evident both on campuses and in courts: the criminalization of what we think of as ordinary sex and of sex previously considered unsavory but not illegal. Some new crimes outlined in the proposed code, for example, assume consent to be meaningless under conditions of unequal power. Consensual sex between professionals (therapists, lawyers and the like) and their patients and clients, for instance, would be a fourth-degree felony, punishable by significant time in prison.

Having sex under those circumstances can already lose you a job, a professional license, a reputation and a career. Do we really need to add prison time and registration to an act of slimy but consensual sex? A bunch of lawyers think so.

You should read the whole thing because it gets worse and worse. Stephen Schulhofer, one of the authors of this code, defends the proposal, saying the law would take a “light touch” to policing sex. I wonder if he could identify any time when when the law has ever taken a light touch to anything.

Yes most people will ignore this nonsense. But it would create a powerful tool for law enforcement to punish people they don’t like. Can’t convict a man of rape even though you “know” he’s guilty? Well here’s fifty charges of holding her hand without consent. And suddenly that “light touch” adds up to a twenty-year punch in the mouth. And I’ll give you one guess as to the skin color of the men who would be most commonly victimized.

Schulhofer compares such a law to speed limits:

To critics who object that millions of people are having sex without getting unqualified assent and aren’t likely to change their ways, he’d reply that millions of people drive 65 miles per hour despite a 55-mile-per-hour speed limit, but the law still saves lives. As long as “people know what the rules of the road are,” he says, “the overwhelming majority will comply with them.

First, the majority of people don’t obey the speed limit. Second, the claim that speeds limits save lives is dubious. Third, there have been many problems with people ending up in prison because fines and fees leave them thousands of dollars in debt from minor traffic violations. Fourth … for the love of … speeding is a fine, not a prison sentence. Speeders aren’t put on offender registries. Speeders don’t lose their jobs because they sped. Speeders aren’t barred from being near children. The comparison is totally ridiculous.

The fundamental problem here is that there is a gray area where sex is concerned. Everyone would agree that if a man forces a woman to have sex with him, that’s rape. Everyone would agree that if two people have sex with complete enthusiasm that’s not. But what if one of them drunk? How drunk? Is one party manipulative? Has pressure been brought? What kind of pressure? Does repeatedly asking your spouse or girlfriend for sex count as pressure? What if you tell your boyfriend you’re going to cheat on him if he doesn’t have sex with you?

Over time, we have moved the black area to cover more and more behavior. Having sex with someone who is passed out drunk is rape (unless he’s a man, in which case you’re the victim). That’s as it should be. Coercing or defrauding someone into sex can be rape. That’s as it should be.

But there is a growing part of our culture that wants no gray areas. Everything has to be either has to be enthusiastically consensual or it is assault.

But human beings don’t work that way. We need gray areas, including gray areas in sex. We have and should turn some of that gray into black — there was a long time where a rape victim was blamed if she was drunk. But the idea of turning all of the gray into black is the kind of absolutist idea that only lawheads and fanatics believe in.

This is often tied to reasonable-sounding questions: “Well, why should a woman have to endure a man kissing her if she doesn’t want to be kissed?” She doesn’t. But the law is a crude instrument with which to deal with these things. Any time we have tried — any time we have tried — to inject the law into complex human interactions, it has been a disaster. It has ended up destroying lives, throwing people in prison, and creating a climate of fear and distrust.

One of the NYT’s commenters:

This is a power play by people who know nothing about power other than their desire to have the power to force their vision of sexual exchanges on others through totalitarian state power, totalitarian because it superciliously uses the state to inject into ALL the most intimate adult relationships their own weird ideology, completely unrooted in biology, psychology, or sanity. The heart has its reasons reason does not know so.

Mind your own damn business. Take responsibility.

It is pathetic that this perverted nonsense is taken seriously in the name of rape. It is a perfect storm example of why american contempt for the academic and the intellectual and the professor is justified and the Emperor’s New Clothes remains relevant. The ALI isn’t what it was. It is like the founder’s grandson running the business into the ground.

We should have a debate over how we define rape and sexual assault. That conversation has resulted in enormous progress on the question. But we should not cede the floor to the absolutists and lawheads. That way lies disaster.

One final note: several commentators have joked — or said seriously — that young men should hire sex workers rather than deal with this nonsense. While I favor decriminalization of sex work, that joke isn’t funny. The same people who want to make holding hands into sexual assault want to make patronizing a prostitute into rape. They believe that all sex workers are victims and all johns are predators. And our laws — under the guise of fighting sex trafficking — are coming into line with what they want.

The people who want to keep sex work illegal are the same people who want to prosecute people for holding hands. There’s a lesson in that somewhere …

(H/T to the always awesome Lenore Skenazy and Amy Alkon.)

The Bear Roars

Vox has a long think-piece about the potential for a war with Russia, which could include a nuclear conflict. I think the article is a bit alarmist but it’s worth a read. The essential point is that Russia trying to re-establish itself as a premier power and is consumed with the idea that the United States wants to weaken and topple its leadership. To that end, they are engaging in more and more provocative action and have lowered the bar for the use of nuclear weapons. There is a real fear that they might attack the Baltics to try to break NATO, with the threat of nuclear attack backing it up. And the lowering of nuclear thresholds has made an accidental nuclear war more likely.

A few scattered thoughts:

First, I’m old enough to remember when Mitt Romney was openly mocked and derided for declaring that Russia was one of the chief dangers we faced. There’s a part of me that wonders if Romney didn’t actually win the 2012 election and is keeping Obama in as a figurehead. We certainly seem to be, in the inept Obama way, pursuing every foreign policy initiative Romney advocated.

Second, the idea that the US would invade Russia and topple the regime is insane. But, as Robert Heinlein noted during the Cold War, the defining element of Russian foreign policy has always been paranoia. It still is. And we need to be careful in how we deal with them.

Third, I think this means that missile has moved from critical to even more critical, especially given the danger of an accidental war.

Fourth, we need to seriously think about what we’re going to do if Putin attacks the Baltic states. Do we let him take them and risk having NATO fall apart? Do we defend them and risk a large-scale war? This is the kind of issue that needs to be front and center in the 2016 presidential campaign.

Science Sunday: SpaceX Explodes

Ouch:

An unmanned rocket by Elon Musk’s SpaceX on a resupply mission to the International Space Station exploded Sunday just minutes after launch.

It wasn’t clear what caused the rocket, named Dragon, to fail. SpaceX will conduct an investigation overseen by the Federal Aviation Administration.

It was the third resupply mission to fail in recent months. The three astronauts on the space station have about four months worth of supplies, according to NASA.

This is the first big failure for SpaceX, which has had a good track record so far (they’ve had a few failed launches of experimental craft as well). You can follow Phil Plait here who speculates that it was a fuel tank rupture.

I’m a big fan of private space flight and disappointed that Congress is trying to curtail it a bit. The potential savings is good but the potential for breakthrough technology is very large. Hopefully, this won’t be too big a setback.

Movie Review: American Sniper

I just saw American Sniper on DVD. You may remember that this film caused some controversy early this year for supposedly being pro-war and portraying the Iraqis as savages and monsters. A planned screening at the University of Michigan was scotched because students complained that it was “anti-Muslim”.

First things first: the film is very good. Clint Eastwood’s directing is sharp and clear. Bradley Cooper gives an astonishing subdued performance as Chris Kyle. It is tense, well-paced and definitely worth your time (although it is definitely not for children as it features some brutal violence).

I can also report that the political aspects are massively overblown. As with Eastwood’s previous Letters from Iwo Jima and Flags of Our Fathers (and the Oscar-winning The Hurt Locker) the politics is subdued if it exists at all. It focuses heavily on the experience of the soldiers, both in the war and when they get home. While Kyle says he is not haunted by the people he killed (only the people he failed to save), the film hints that this is not entirely true. Cooper’s nuanced performance and Eastwood’s excellent direction suggest that the Kyle’s battle wounds go deeper than he lets on. But it’s not hammered home. It is not broadcast with screaming banners and clunky dialogue. You have to watch and think.

And I think that’s what bothers many liberals about the movie. They wanted a movie that would portray Kyle — a sniper who likely claimed over 200 kills — as a monster. They wanted it to get into what a mistake the Iraq War was. And that it was made by the man who gave a memorable anti-Obama speech at the 2012 Republican convention only exacerbated that need. But the movie steadfastly avoids politics (just as Letters avoided any politicizing about the Japanese Empire). You can draw whatever conclusions you want — that the war was a mistake or that the war was a good idea. But the movie cares mainly about the stress, the terror and the cost that our soldiers endure.

(As for the movie not being sympathetic to the Iraqis: it actually does get into it a little, especially one brutal sequence that demonstrates clearly that many Iraqis were caught between a rock and a hard place — wanting to help the US, but facing horrific retaliation if they did. There are scenes showing the heavy cost the war took on the Iraqi people. The main antagonist of the film is also humanized a little, showing his family and hinting at a past. But because the movie is mainly concerned with Kyle, these things are subtle and again require you to watch … and think.)

There’s a line from the movie Black Hawk Down, another excellent war film, that I’m fond of:

When I go home people’ll ask me, “Hey Hoot, why do you do it man? What, you some kinda war junkie?” You know what I’ll say? I won’t say a goddamn word. Why? They won’t understand. They won’t understand why we do it. They won’t understand that it’s about the men next to you, and that’s it. That’s all it is.

That quote is the key to understanding American Sniper. It’s a good movie. It might even be a great movie. You should see it. And stuff the politics.

Gay Marriage Debate Ends

A lot going on today, but the big news is that the Court has upheld gay marriage by a 5-4 vote. With that, the debate over the subject is effectively over. And, as someone who has supported the GOP in the past, I couldn’t be happier. The issue can go away and we can focus on more substantive issues.

More to come.

You should read the opinions. It includes vintage Scalia. But it also includes a very good dissent from Roberts who argues that the problem is not gay marriage; the problem is the way the Court has interpreted the Constitution. It’s quite good and conciliatory. Roberts can drive me nuts sometimes, but I still think he’s one of the best things to come out of the Bush 43 Administration.

King Denied

The Supreme Court has just ruled 6-3 that the Obamacare subsidies apply to states that do not run their own exchanges, thus upholding a major provision of the law. I’ll post more when I have time. Discuss.

One thing I’ll note: I was not surprised. The Roberts Court really hates to overturn legislation. They prefer to let legislators do that. The theme from Roberts in the two Obamacare decisions is basically this: if you want to repeal, repeal the law. We’re not going to do it for you.

Update: The more I think about it, the more I think the Court reached the right decision here, much as it pains me to say so. I don’t think King’s case was “ridiculous” as many liberal pundits opined. It’s never ridiculous to argue that a law should be interpreted as it was written. But I do think it was the language was ambiguous enough and the intent of Congress during the debates plain enough for the Court to defer to them. The message from the Court, as I noted above is “we’re not going to repeal Obamacare for you”.

(And I think the GOP is secretly grateful. As Thrill pointed on Twitter, this decisions basically saved them from having to repair the law.)

The way forward is pretty clear: replacing Obamacare becomes the key GOP electoral issue in 2016. The law, as Justice Roberts noted in his majority opinion, is still a mess. While the number of insured has been reduced, there has been no improvement in overall health. It’s saving some people from crippling financial bills but at enormous cost. And we are still in very real danger of an insurance “death spiral” that will destroy the individual market.

The shape of that replacement is up in the air right now. I prefer a bill that eases the link between insurance and employment, allows insurance to be sold across state lines and encourages the kind of high-deductible insurance that has been shown to reduce healthcare costs with little impact on overall health. But we’ll see what happens. The Court has put the ball into the GOP’s court. Let’s hope they don’t step on it and fall on their ass.

Update: You should read Scalia’s blistering dissent. It’s vintage Scalia, complete with saying the law should now be called “SCOTUScare”. It makes good points, I think, and shouldn’t be dismissed.

Update: Doug Mataconis explains the Court’s reasoning:

As Chief Justice Roberts noted, Courts have always been deferential when it comes to statutory interpretation in order to ensure that Judges are not substituting their judgment for elected representatives. The fact that there is a drafting error, or that language in a bill that was more than a thousand pages long is inexact in some way should not necessarily mean that a Court must interpret a law in a manner that brings down an entire statutory scheme. The alternative would be a world where the lack of a single word, or an in-artfully drafted sentence, would bring down an entire law, and that’s never been the way the Courts have interpreted statutes. In my past comments about this subsidy issue, I’ve been somewhat sympathetic to the argument of the Plaintiffs in this case, but reviewing the pleadings and the oral argument in this case have caused me to reconsider that position. I’m still not a fan of the PPACA, and I think that it’s going to create long-term economic incentives that will make health care more expensive rather than less expensive, but that is a policy matter not a legal one. As it stands, it seems clear to me that the Justices in the majority got it right.

If this had happened with a republican president that had an enemies list…

As usual a complicit media just lets the criminals running our government tell blatant lies and show no curiosity or desire to get to the truth. At this point it is a given that the IRS was ordered to target conservatives by the WH – and only fucking liars will pretend otherwise – but the criminals have been beyond efficient at hiding the level of criminal activity the Obama administration has gotten away with because of media treatment of this abuse of power:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Investigators are blaming mistakes by IRS employees — not a criminal conspiracy — for the loss of thousands of emails related to the tax agency’s tea party scandal.

IRS workers erased 422 computer backup tapes that “most likely” contained as many as 24,000 emails to and from former IRS official Lois Lerner, who has emerged as a central figure in congressional investigations, according to IRS’s inspector general.

The workers erased the tapes a month after IRS officials discovered that an untold number of Lerner’s emails were lost. The IG says the workers were unaware of a year-old directive not to destroy email backup tapes.

J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, is scheduled to testify Thursday before the House Oversight Committee about his investigation into the emails. The Associated Press obtained a copy of his prepared testimony.

George says his investigation “did not uncover evidence that the erasure was done in furtherance of an effort to destroy evidence or conceal information from Congress and/or law enforcement.”

No, they are not just reporting news and not speculating here. They are covering for these crooks. We all know that the level of incompetence of the politically motivated bureaucratic monster that has been dragging this country into the abyss for a few decades now has reached absolutely new levels of low during this criminal administration, but not even I – someone that expects nothing but mendacity and stupidity from these people – can believe this level of stupid and ineptness is responsible for the bold faced claims nobody would otherwise accept. As the title of post asks: do you think that anyone, especially in the media, would have accepted this ridiculous answer to what was obviously another attempt at a coverup?

Why no questions and answers about who conducted the investigation and what evidence they used to present this ludicrous argument? And how likely would one be to accept this conclusion when you find out it was neither an independent or honest investigation, but some other insiders beholden to the crooks in charge that couldn’t find anything. Shit, I bet if the evidence was dropped in their lap they would manage to misplace it or lose it. Because that’s how they have been doing things.

Maybe we should ask the Chinese what their hack produced about the various Obama administration criminal activities. Then again, with Obama and the people following him being this corrupt, destructive, and profitable to China, they might just feel compelled to lie to keep him in charge for as long as it takes them to take over the world.

Still, the revelation that computer tapes were erased after officials knew about the lost emails is likely to fuel conspiracy theories among conservatives who say the IRS has obstructed investigations into the scandal.

Nixon was unavailable for comment, and George Bush was caught laughing because so many of the people that called him stupid are now bending over and grabbing their ankles trying to provide cover for the stupid criminals now in charge. Can you imagine the media making this sort of excuse for a republican president if the IRS, after attacking his political enemies and being caught & investigated, decided to erase evidence? I normally would go into my rant about how I told you Obama would make mediocre Boosh look like a fucking awesome president, and how stupid and destructive leftists and what they believe and do are, but at this point, after all this damage and destruction, there is not even joy in that.

More Gun Grabber Baloney

The anti-Second-Amendment crowd has been positively giddy over a new study that claims Connecticut’s gun registration law cut gun violence an amazing 40%.

I find this claim extremely suspect.

You can read some good critiques from Reason, Hot Air and especially John Lott. Lott is an object of hate from many gun grabbers because of his “more guns, less crime” theory. Some of the criticism is deserved: he can’t reproduce his original results because, he claims, his hard drive crashed. But what Lott is good at is poking holes in the claims of marginal studies of single states that make grand conclusions.

In this case, the authors’ result is that Connecticut saw a sharper reduction in gun violence than Rhode Island did over a very specific ten year frame. That’s it. So give up those NRA memberships guys, the debate is over.

Of course …

Of course, if you look at the data before that law was passed, Connecticut’s rate of gun violence was already falling. And if you look at the data after their ten year window, Connecticut’s rate comes back up. And if you compare them to literally any state other than Rhode Island, the supposed reduction in violence disappears. And if you look at other states that have passed similar gun control laws, you don’t see a reduction in gun murders.

To be clear: there’s no fraud here. Their claim is true. But it’s cherry-picked. You could do a hundred other studies looking at the effects of gun laws and not come to this conclusion. You could do this study with only slightly different parameters and not reach their conclusion.

And it’s not the first time for these guys. Recently, they claimed that violence in Missouri went up because of a repeal of a gun control law. That claim was also cherry-picked. And now comes information that the claim that mass shootings were going up was also bogus. For some time, Mother Jones had been ground zero for this nonsense, including a collection of mischaracterized, cherry-picked data that proved nothing.

But remember, folks. It’s conservatives who are the enemies of science. It’s we who ignore empirical data and substitute our feelings in. Not the Left, oh no. Especially not those who are funded by gun-grabber Michael Bloomberg.

The Best of Lee: Kelo Anniversary

Ten years ago today, the Supreme Court issued out of the worst ruling in their history: Kelo v. City of New London, in which justices Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer and Stevens decided that it was “public use” for a government to force a citizen to sell his property to a rich developer. Because taxes.

Here’s some choice quotes from the wonderful dissents of Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O’Connor. Thomas first:

This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a “public use.”

I cannot agree. If such “economic development” takings are for a “public use,” any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution, as Justice O’Connor powerfully argues in dissent.

The consequences of today’s decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful. So-called “urban renewal” programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted by uprooting them from their homes. Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful.

O’Connor:

Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded–i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public–in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings “for public use” is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property–and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use” from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.

The irony is that the deal with Pfizer fell through and Kelo’s former home is still an empty lot.

Lee’s comment was short and brutal:

Personally, I would love to see one of the homes of these justices earmarked for demolition because some douchebag on a city council somewhere has decided that the revenue from a new Wal-Mart Supercenter is more important to the community than the property tax being paid on the land that has been in your family for six generations. Simply disgusting. When the highest court in the land wipes its ass on a concept as fundamental to human liberty and dignity as the right of property there is something seriously wrong with our government.

The government’s assault on property rights has only gotten worse. Yesterday, SCOTUS pushed back a little. But it will not really begin until the Court repudiates Kelo.

Raisins in the Sun

This morning saw the Supreme Court hand down four more decisions. All were important to some degree but the most significant was one I blogged about earlier: Horne v. Department of Agriculture. The Court decided, correctly, that the government taking part of someone’s raisin crop to ostensibly raise the price of raisins was indeed a “taking” under the Constitution and they are entitled to compensation.

Somin:

The Court ruled in favor of the property owners by an 8-1 margin on the most significant issue at stake: whether the government’s appropriation of the raisins is a taking. Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

This is an extremely important result, because it rejects the government’s dangerous argument that the Takings Clause offers less protection for personal property than for real property (the legal term for property in land), which had been embraced by the Ninth Circuit lower court decision. For reasons elaborated in detail in an amicus brief I joined along with other constitutional law and property scholars, the government’s position on this issue was deeply at odds with the history and original meaning of the Takings Clause. Indeed, as the Court notes, the Clause was adopted in part as a reaction to abusive British confiscation of personal property during the colonial era and the Revolutionary War.

The government argued that it wasn’t really a taking because if they later sold the raisins, the Hornes would get some of the proceeds. This was clearly nonsense. If I steal your car and later give you a cut of what I got from the chop shop, that doesn’t mean I didn’t steal it in the first place. The justices were a little more divided on how to compensate the Hornes.

This is a big case, though. Somin again:

The ruling also calls into question a number of other similar agricultural cartel schemes run by the federal government. In addition to property owners, consumers of agricultural products are likely to benefit from the decision, if these cartel schemes can no longer operate. Freer competition between producers in these agricultural markets will increase the amount of goods sold, and thereby lower prices. Lowered food prices are of particular benefit to poor and lower-middle class consumers, who generally spend a higher proportion of their income on food than the affluent do.

A few years ago, Robert Levy published a fine book called The Dirty Dozen, detailing some of the worst Supreme Court decisions of the last century. One of them was Wickard v. Filburn, in which a unanimous Court decided that a man growing wheat on his own farm for his own use was intrinsically “interstate commerce”. Wickard is the basis not only of our idiotic farm policy, but the basis of the Court’s expansive view of the commerce clause, including the vile Raich decision.

This doesn’t attack Wickard but it’s the first pushback on agricultural policy in a long time, at least recognizing some limits to the power of the Department of Agriculture. Hopefully, it’s the first in a series of decisions.

More from Mataconis and from McArdle, who cautions against optimism:

However, don’t get too excited, because it doesn’t do too much to limit eminent domain where compensation is offered, or “regulatory takings” in which government rules make your property practically worthless, but not quite so worthless that it has to pay you for the lost potential uses.

Indeed. Our federal government has a tremendous amount of power that has goen well beyond its Constitutional limits. Today, a little bit got pushed back. That’s a good day.