David Schraub

@schraubd

Sometimes lawyer. Sometimes law professor. All the time awesome. Associate Prof. at Lewis & Clark Law (con law and anti-discrimination).

1231 Siguiendo5907 Seguidores5946 Publicaciones

YouTube Bluesky

¿Es tu perfil?Reclámalo y schraubd.dirty.social es tuyo.Reclamar perfil

David Schraub@schraubd· 6d

Good news! I’d say I hope Cori Bush similarly endorses Wesley Bell, but she’s already promised not to. Moral: don’t be smug. This is not a reticence limited to one particular faction of the Democratic Party.

https://www.jta.org/2026/08/05/politics/el-sayed-decried-aipac-now-he-hopes-to-win-over-pro-israel-democrats

David Schraub@schraubd· 8d

What, you don’t like solving a Myst puzzle to turn on your car’s AC? See also:

David Schraub@schraubd· 11d

James Loeffler has a new book out. This was the launch email I got. Admittedly, “here’s my new book on Jewish life: “AAAAAAA [incomprehensible screaming]” does capture a 2026 mood. The real book looks interesting too.

David Schraub@schraubd· 12d

Ahem.

Zoidberg telling Fry "Young lady, I'm an expert on humans." (Futurama)

David Schraub@schraubd· 13d

Part of me is worried about the reading apocalypse among young folk, and part of me is like “my son is going to RULE THE WORLD!”

David Schraub@schraubd· 14d

Not a woodblock print, but a few months ago I picked up an outstanding early piece by Sadao Watanabe (which my wife immediately claimed for her office). Sadao Watanabe, "The Wedding Guests Answer Samson’s Riddle" (from The Story of Samson suite), stencil print, 14” x 18” (c. 1947-52).

David Schraub@schraubd· 16d

Half of Mamdani’s genius is convincing ordinary people that progressive ideas will materially benefit their lives and aren’t scary communism, and the other half is convincing terminally online leftists that basic good government is progressive and isn’t neoliberal shilling for evil corporations.

David Schraub@schraubd· 19d

Cannibals can be very lovable!

Scenes of Caleb and Jake Peralta on Brooklyn 99

David Schraub@schraubd· 24d

David Schraub@schraubd· Jul 10

Jared Golden may not want it, and Maine voters may not want it, but WelcomePAC sure wants it!

David Schraub@schraubd· Jul 10

Someone sent me Moe Tkacik’s take on all this on X, which introduced me at least to the new adverb “aipacfully”.

Tweet by Moe Tkacik:

Racicot:
-Was asked by a friend whether she should set up another friend with platner. She answered elliptically. She said he was intelligent and didn't listen when drunk. She did not say he was a rapist.
-Told Tapper "compliance is not consent." I would be interested to know whether this argument has ever held up in court, with a defendant who was blackout drunk. She didn't come forward the first time because she knew she didn't consider him to be a "rapist" because if she did see him that way she would have told her friend that was the case. She was emotionally blackmailed by Lyndsey Fifield who is a ride or die genocide cheerleader & professional liar, and most assuredly the promise of unlimited pro bono legal representation for her services to the Gratuitous Suffering & Death Lobby. I doubt she fully gamed out the sequence of events her new revelations would set off but Lyndsey Fifield absolutely did. One question is, did the funds that boosted him along the way game it out as well? Remember who funded Hamas to divert support from the PLO, people!! What was Seth Frantzman's role?

Second half of tweet by Tkacik:

Now Abundance Barbie shows up to scoff aipacfully at the desire of Platner's campaign team to have a role in choosing his replacement. These Demonicrat party hacks, the ones who appointed Epstein's best friend Larry summers, the man who oversaw the liquidation of Russia after which Scott bessent modeled the DOGE coup, the one who said unemployment needed to go to 10% in order to discipline the workforce into accepting shittier wages and working conditions, to run the economic policy component of project 2029, these ghouls will crush you, take everything you have and spit on your face. Grow a spine and please decide whether Graham Platner or someone with a similar level of baggage is worse than all that.

David Schraub@schraubd· Jul 10

The cost of war comes for us all.

Headline reading: "US Ceasefire with Iran is Likely 'Over,' and No One is Coming to Save Lloyd Center Mall."

David Schraub@schraubd· Jul 10

David Schraub@schraubd· Jul 7

POV: someone who could pick a halfway decent Senate candidate.

David Schraub@schraubd· Jul 7

“I eat fascists and oligarchs for breakfast [to absorb their essence]”

“I believe women and I forgive Graham Platner.”

“The Zionists really know how to time shit, don’t they?”

David Schraub@schraubd· Jul 7

Voters love a party that gives up [on defending its Nazi tattooed rapists].

Skeet with text:

“Just for the hell of it, given who is occupying the White House, why not leave this up to the voters of Maine? Are they democrats going to do their normal schmuck and immediately fold and replace him with a yet another corporate-friendly milquetoast runner-up? Voters love a party that gives up

David Schraub@schraubd· Jul 7

Posted and pinned two hours ago.

Screenshot of skeet by The Angry Wisconsinite claiming he’s the victim of an AIPAC and Heritage set up and touting his support from Track AIPAC.

David Schraub@schraubd· Jul 1

I get it -- you hate waffles -- but I'm not sure what this has to do with finding "is burning an elderly American Jewish woman alive because one hates Israel antisemitic?" to be a tough question.

David Schraub@schraubd· Jun 30

Guys, he tweeted it out.

Tweet from Ilan Wurman: "A year and a half ago a federal judge in Washington basically said the Trump Administration view was borderline sanctionable. That view just got 4 votes on the U.S. Supreme Court."

David Schraub@schraubd· Jun 29

“It must not speak. It must die!”

David Schraub@schraubd· Jun 28

Did you see what his profile banner pic is? Some people contain multitudes.

David Schraub@schraubd· Jun 27

We can imagine a world where both liberal 2ss and 1ss were viewed by Dems as morally acceptable, but the former was politically expedient too and thus an easy consensus sell. Take away “politically expedient”, though, and there’s no reason for anyone other than a true believer to pick 2ss over 1ss.

Let's simplify potential Democratic Israel positions into three categories: (1) AIPAC-style status quo (represented by someone like Stevens), (2) The Andy Levin or J Street style two-stateism , or (3) Rashida Tlaib style one-stateism. Of course, some politicians have very strong feelings on this question and will choose based on those deeply-felt sentiments. However, my core model assumes that most politicians don't have hard-and-fast policy preferences on most issues. Rather, on most issues beyond the rarefied few they care deeply about, they will choose the political path-of-least-resistance amongst the set of choices which meet their basic criteria of moral tolerability, even if a different choice might be closer to their ideal ideological preference. So if we imagine a politician who really doesn't care one way or another about Israel/Palestine -- they are at least not repelled by any of the three forms of Israel positions above -- they won't adopt the position they "believe in" the most, they'll pick the position that is politically easiest and least likely to generate controversy or backlash. AIPAC's victories have strongly suggested that, in many contexts, that would be position #1 -- even in Democratic primaries. And to that extent, AIPAC probably will succeed in moving the Democratic needle towards its preferences.

However, we can also imagine a different sort of potential progressive candidate, one who does not find AIPAC-style status quo advocacy to be morally tolerable. For this candidate, the two viable choices for their Israel/Palestine positions are categories #2 and #3. Historically, many would have picked door #2, again, because it's the path of political least resistance. Indeed, if such a candidate a few years ago had asked me for advice -- had said that they had serious concerns about Israel's behavior and they simply couldn't endorse a position of total and unconditional support -- I'd have told them that, so long as they supported two states and opposed BDS, they'd probably be okay. They wouldn't necessarily be endeared to AIPAC or other like actors, but they wouldn't be seen as beyond the pale either. But endorse BDS, or oppose Israel's existence outright, and the full sound and fury would fall onto them.

But now AIPAC may have changed the calculus. By going scorched earth on Levin, it sends the message that it views categories #2 and #3 as equally destructive. Suddenly, door #2 is not a political "path of least resistance" compared to door #3. And if they're both going to bring AIPAC's full fury down upon the candidate, well, at that point you might as well choose based on your ideological preference. Some of these candidates, will sincerely prefer robust two-stateism over one-stateism (that characterizes me, for instance), so their behavior shouldn't change. But some will no doubt prefer one-stateism, and lacking any political rationale for tacking towards the center, they won't do it anymore.

David Schraub@schraubd· Jun 27

Elbows Up!

Political leader quiz that says I'm closest to Mark Carney, PM of Canada.

David Schraub@schraubd· Jun 25

“The red is the good parts.”

Scene from Brooklyn 99 showing Pimentos brain with portions circled in red.

David Schraub@schraubd· Jun 25

This was a favorite of mine.

David Schraub@schraubd· Jun 21

U-2, Syngman Rhee, payola, and Kennedy Chubby Checker, Psycho, BELGIANS IN THE CONGO

David Schraub@schraubd· Jun 3

Keshet understood the game. All Jews understand the game. The submission is the point.

Rome Pride says they are "fully capable of distinguishing between the Israeli government and the Jewish community." But they also hold Keshet "responsible for having failed, and continuing to fail, to distance itself from the ongoing genocide in Gaza," Which raises the question: why should they need to "distance" themselves? What makes them so close?

It is, of course, because they're Jewish. Keshet's concern -- that the term "genocide" was being used to demand collective responsibility and collective culpability from Jews, not Israelis -- was entirely vindicated. They understood the game. All Jews understand the game. How many years ago did Steve Cohen write this immortal passage?

"Every Jew on the left will know that terrible syndrome whereby, whatever the context and wherever one is, we will be tested by being given the question "what is your position on Zionism?" Wanna support the miners—what's your position on Zionism? Against the bomb—what's your position on Zionism? And want to join our march against the eradication of Baghdad, in particular the eradication of Baghdad—what's your position on Zionism? And we all know what answer is expected in order to pass the test. It is a very strong form of anti-Semitism based on assumptions of collective responsibility. Denounce Zionism, crawl in the gutter, wear a yellow star and we'll let you in the club."

Cohen's insight is that this practice is not about ensuring overlapping values or common interests. It is about domination. That's why Cohen, who is in fact anti-Zionist, is deemed to fail the test -- he does not abase himself enough; he does not make it clear that he acknowledges being beneath those demanding his supplication.

And so too here. Leave aside the fact that last year's Rome Pride march saw the Jewish marchers attacked and harassed in despicable fashion. That is more standard-issue thuggery, albeit thuggery that is rightly viewed as part of the context for Rome Pride's decision this year. This year, Rome Pride demanded a show of self-abnegation from the Jews. The Jews refused to give them one, and Rome Pride deemed that unacceptable. That's what happened. Do not get caught up in thinking that there is some deeper or more essential ideological gap here. The submission was the point.

David Schraub@schraubd· Jun 3

Isn’t that what Weiss said when she left NYT? That it was essentially a constructive discharge? dsadevil.blogspot.com/2020/07/my-t...

In her letter, Weiss claims that the terms which describe what happened to her are "unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong." She is, indeed, no legal expert. The conduct she describes in the letter -- whether it is "wrong" or not -- would be very unlikely to sustain a legal complaint for unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, or constructive discharge.

Weiss' confusion is in line with something I've noticed from many conservative observers of anti-discrimination law. They wildly underestimate how high the barriers are to winning a discrimination claim -- probably because they're ideologically committed to the notion that minorities get their discrimination claims rubber-stamped (when the reality is such claims are overwhelmingly rejected by the courts, often before reaching a jury). So when they experience something that is in the family of discrimination, they assume that (a) it must be illegal ("if these whiny minorities are winning, surely my very real pain and trauma must present a winning case too!") and (b) if it isn't treated as illegal, that must be because of some latent anti-conservative(/white/male/whatever) bias, rather than the normal functioning of a legal system they generally endorse.

David Schraub@schraubd· Jun 2

Democrats -- Republicans