BREAKING: Knicks Fans climb and smash Yellow cab - while holding Palestinian flag - on 7th Avenue in NYC after Knicks win Game 4 of the NBA Finals. Mamdani is proud.

Israel’s judicial reform debate isn’t really about legal procedures. It’s about some of the most profound questions Israelis have been asking since before the state’s founding. A new Tablet podcast by @liel explores what’s actually at stake.

When New York State Legislature passed our modern criminal code in 1970, it explicitly forbade judges from detaining people (pre-trial) according to their estimated level of threat to society--no "dangerousness" standard. [^1] The dangerousness standard was opposed by the Legal Aid Society, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and the NYC Bar Association, among others. Why bring this up? Because it is the single best entry point I know of that shocks most regular people into interest in New York's criminal justice system. As it exists, the system clearly cannot prevent regular public injuries by known public menaces. So many people are used to seeing headlines about a terrible crime--and they just know the details will often confirm that the person was a known menace, that they were receiving state attention, but not restraint, and that as a result the government once again defaulted on its most fundamental responsibility of securing the public. The solution here is not as simple as "instate the dangerousness standard." That could be part of the solution, but the shape of a criminal procedure that would confine known menaces--while preserving the liberty interests of those who come before a court but otherwise deserve to not be confined--requires several changes, and those changes have to be carried out by multiple parties--district attorneys (elected), criminal court judges (appointed by the mayor), and more. But the fundamental lack of a dangerousness standard, and the continued organized opposition to it to this day, points to the larger flaws in New York's criminal procedure. I'll note: this shape of criminal procedure was enacted on a bipartisan basis, even if it is maintained on a largely unipartisan basis today. [1] Judges have latitude to detain individuals prior to trial only based on whether they are a "flight risk." As a result, judges definitely used their flight risk discretion to detain clearly dangerous individuals (they just have to not say "I did this because the person was dangerous"). However, whether and when judges can even do that has changed substantially in the past several years. Personally, I think it just makes basic sense to have a dangerousness standard, and then to observe when and how it's used. Modern opposition to it is based on the fear that it will be abused on the basis of various prejudices--this is a relevant consideration, but it should not lead to "no dangerousness standard," either in pre-trial or parole-type releases.

1/ I'm not really the "make up a cute catchphrase" type of writer, but in this case, it maps so closely onto reality, that I made an exception. "Let's call it The Platner Paradox. (1) The Democrats perceive that they need to run candidates who are straight White Christian men to win in certain jurisdictions- and maybe even nationally. (2) No normal straight White Christian man today would want to be deeply involved with the Democratic Party." You can read the rest at the link below

With contributions from Ian Frazier, Sterling Holywhitemountain, Walter Kirn, Krist Novoselic, David Gates, Kurt Loder, Anne Fadiman, Meaghan Garvey, Jeff Weiss, David Samuels and more, it’s America’s ultimate 250th birthday book. Order your copy today! countyhighway.com/hardciderp…

Decision Desk HQ projects Adam Hamawy wins the NJ US House 12 Democratic Primary #DecisionMade: 9:20 PM EDT

Now that Carney included Omar Alghabra in the Council for combating antisemitism, it is time for a quick resume: Omar Alghabra was born in Saudi Arabia to a Syrian family, immigrated to Canada in the 1980s, but brought his virulent antisemitism with him as luggage. Upon his arrival, he worked for CAF (Canadian Arab Federation) – a group so antisemitic that their federal funding was taken away by the court. For nearly 20 years Alghabra has been almost consistently elected to the Canadian Parliament. He held various positions, such as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade Diversification. At the same time, he often stated that Hamas and Hezbollah are not terrorist organizations and should be removed from the Canadian terrorist entities list. He tried to censor Canadian journalists, who call Hamas a terrorist organization. Alghabra publicly mourned Yasser Arafat.  In his Arabic interview he expressed disappointment that Canadian Muslims are insufficiently vocal in demanding Sharia law in Canada. Alghabra called the Toronto officials to boycott Jewish charity events and opposed the collaboration between the Canadian police force and Israeli anti-terrorist units (obviously, if you don’t consider Hamas and Hezbollah – terrorists, no anti-terrorist work is required either). Even following the October 7 massacre, even when directly questioned, Alghabra refused to condemn Hamas, but he uses every opportunity to label Israel “brutal and cruel.” I wonder who the rest of the Council members are.

BREAKING: Spencer Pratt’s odds to advance in the Los Angeles mayoral election have risen to 80%