Mar
26
2026

Fudge the Filibuster? What Could Go Wrong?

Mr Ramirez knows:

This is all in the context of trying to pass the "SAVE Act" via a filibuster bypass, something that sensible people consider a ‘foolish and lazy idea’

Not to say that voting fraud isn't real. Because, according to Kevin D. Williamson: Yes, Voting Fraud Is Real. (archive.today link)

But let KDW put that in context:

Because we live in a dumb world, it is possible—though not likely!—that this column will be put in front of the eyes of at least a few dumb people, and, so, a few caveats here. It is entirely possible for all of the following things to be true at the same time: 1) Donald Trump lost the 2020 election fair and square; 2) The only people who say otherwise are dopes, dupes, and charlatans; 3) Logistically, it would be extraordinarily difficult to fraudulently alter the outcome of a U.S. presidential election; 4) It is not the case that there are millions of illegal aliens registered to vote and voting; 5) Voting fraud happens; 6) Voting fraud happens regularly; 7) Voting fraud, though not pervasive, is more widespread than many would imagine; 8) It is possible, and even likely, that such fraud can and does change the outcome of certain elections; 9) Evidence suggests that the affected elections mostly are relatively obscure primaries and municipal elections in which the number of total votes is small and, hence, the number of fraudulent votes needed to change the outcome also is small; 10) If No. 8 is not true and no election is being successfully captured, then the only likely explanation for the persistence and regularity of actual, real-world voting fraud—the existence of which has been proved time and again to the satisfaction of the generally excellent standards of evidence relied upon in our criminal trials—is that the ballot-box stuffing and ballot harvesting and such are a kind of expressive, therapeutic exercise in extreme political tribalism, which strikes me as an unlikely explanation though far from impossible. 

The so-called SAVE America Act (and here I will reiterate my desire to horse-whip legislators who insist on cutesy acronyms), which imposes strict voter-ID rules on the states, may be an imbecilic and bad-faith exercise in political self-interest—these are Republicans we are talking about, after all—but the underlying principles are defensible and, in my view, often prudent. 

But you should Read The Whole Thing.

Also of note:

  • I blame Claude. I wouldn't rule him out, anyway. The Free Press editorialists tell us Insider Trading Takes Washington.

    Between 6:49 a.m. and 6:50 a.m. on Monday, somebody—or several somebodies—bought 6,200 oil futures contracts with a notional value of $580 million. Twenty-four minutes later, at 7:04 a.m., President Donald Trump took to Truth Social to announce that the administration was holding off on bombing Iran’s oil fields, and was instead in the process of negotiating a deal.

    The effect of this on the markets was exactly what you’d expect. Stocks soared, while the benchmark Brent crude fell from $113 a barrel to $96, according to the Financial Times. Whoever that somebody—or several somebodies—was, the timing of their trade right before Trump’s announcement made them a lot of money.

    I wouldn't rule out the possibility that some geek working in his basement cooked up an AI algorithm that saw Trump's action coming. But if the past 14 months have taught us anything, it's that Trump has surrounded himself with amoral grifters who would absolutely do something like this if they thought they could get away with it.

  • Speaking of amoral grifters… The WSJ editorialists observe a recent legal theft: The Social-Media Shakedown Begins. (WSJ gifted link)

    A Los Angeles jury on Wednesday held Meta Platforms and Google’s YouTube liable for a 20-year-old woman’s personal troubles. The schadenfreude will be overwhelming—nail the billionaires! But using a novel product liability theory to shake down companies won’t help young people and isn’t a good way to make law.

    The $6 million verdict against the two companies is the first of more than 3,000 lawsuits pending in California courts that seek to hold social-media companies liable for the travails of young people. School districts and more than 40 state Attorneys General have also sued for damages to compensate for social problems allegedly caused by the platforms.

    Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act protects internet platforms from being held liable for harm caused by user-generated content. But plaintiffs are trying to dodge that law by arguing the platforms were negligent in how they designed their sites. They claim that features like so-called infinite scrolling and “like” buttons—not user posts per se—harm children. Whether this theory trumps Section 230 will be the main issue on appeal, and the platforms have a strong case.

    I probably won't be able to avoid the late-night lawyer ads: "Did someone you love get depressed because of social media? Call us today!…"

  • An interesting defense. Bryan Caplan on a possible out for algorithms: LLMs and SCOTUS.

    Since the New Deal, the Supreme Court has given government almost unlimited power to regulate the economy. Wickard v. Filburn (1942) infamously ruled that a farmer growing wheat to feed his own animals on his own farm was nevertheless engaged in “interstate commerce.” Given this stance, it’s hard to see how the courts could justify any restrictions on government regulation of the rapidly growing Artificial Intelligence industry.

    Hard, that is, as long as you call it “the Artificial Intelligence industry.” But all of the top AIs also go by another acronym: LLMs, which of course stands for Large Language Models.* Which makes sense, because the primary output of this industry is just a bunch of words.

    So what? While the Supreme Court has given government a virtual carte blanche to regulate the economy for over 80 years, constitutional protection of freedom of expression has probably never been stronger. In 1969, the Supreme Court moved from the classic “clear and present danger” test for permissible regulation of free speech to the even higher “imminent lawless action” test. By eviscerating obscenity law, Miller v. California (1973) even effectively extended full constitutional protection to almost all pornography, allowing the industry to thrive despite its extreme unpopularity. Though more Americans morally condemn pornography than abortion, the Supreme Court stands with porn.

    It's been quite a few years since Reason took this route to avoid the censor: YouTube Won't Host Our Homemade Gun Video. So We Posted It on PornHub Instead.

  • Le freak, c'est chic! National Review notes the onset of panic mode: The More Americans Use AI, the More They Fear It. (archive.today link)

    That's the actual headline. The article's HTML title is better: "The American People Are Freaking Out About Widespread AI Adoption"

    Artificial intelligence is increasingly becoming a part of daily life for many Americans — and they aren’t happy about it.

    As AI continues to accelerate at breakneck speed, working its way into an increasing number of economic sectors and transforming everyday interactions, the technology is fast becoming one of the most disliked forces in American life. This backlash, captured by a growing pile of survey data, adds urgency to the AI policy debates happening on the national level and across state governments, where lawmakers, entrenched tech interests, and consumer protection groups battle over the height of regulatory guardrails.

    A poll from NBC News released last week found AI has a -20 approval rating, with 26 percent rating it positively compared to 46 percent who were negative. The only institutions that proved less popular in the poll were the Democratic Party at -22 approval and Iran at -53 approval.

    Well, that's awful. History tells us what happens when hasty regulations are enacted at the behest of a panicked populace.

    And not that it matters, but I got Claude to help me out with automating construction of my Amazon Affiliate links yesterday. Amazon's documentation was (as near as I can tell) pretty opaque on the issue.

    I could not resist telling Claude:

    Fantastic. I know you don't need thanks, but thank you anyway.

    The response:

    That's kind of you to say — genuinely appreciated. Good luck with the affiliate links!

    Genuinely? Um, well, I guess if you say so, my friend.