The Frankish Reich

The concept is it isn't Alabama's money. It's the kid's money. He is selling the rights to use his name/image/likeness. What bothers you is that the people paying him that money for the right to use his NIL aren't really interested in that. They're interested in paying him to play for Alabama an no one else. I suppose the boosters/car dealerships/whatever could write it into a contract that they'll pay a kid $200,000 with the contract to terminate if he no longer plays football for the University of Alabama. Which is just one more step toward making it clear that he is paid to play football, and not to lend his NIL to some advertiser. No one really cares if Caitlin Clark goes to Iowa instead of, say, UConn. She's a celebrity now. She's doing national ads. No one cares if Bronny James leaves USC. He'll do ads with his dad even if he goes to Northwest Podunk State. Kadyn Proctor is not marketable if he isn't at Alabama, at least not to Alabama boosters. He is not promoting his own name, image, and likeness. He is being paid to play for Alabama. Sorry, Tide, I can't feel real sorry for you because you are breaking the spirit of the rules and demand loyalty from those kids benefiting from that.

You forgot Obama. That "I have a pen and I have a phone" moment opened the floodgates. Oh, those gates had creeped open before, but after that it was "anything goes that I can get away with." And it continued under Trump and now Biden, and there's really no reason to think it will stop under a future administration, whichever one that may be.

Very good. It is the second type - no one really cares as long as it's their guy breaking the law. In other words, as long as it fits their agenda. The last two types are quite different, and you know it. For example: a court (maybe even the Supreme one!) tells you to do something, or refrain from doing something, and you say "you and whose army."

Still illegal. But who has standing to challenge it? The WSJ nails it. https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-student-loan-forgiveness-karine-jean-pierre-supreme-court-7e74383f?mod=hp_opin_pos_1 Mr. Biden’s new loan forgiveness is still illegal. The High Court stressed that student loan forgiveness is a major question that requires clear authorization from Congress. But Mr. Biden seems to believe he can jam the courts by automatically forgiving debt before a judge has time to stop him. The White House says most borrowers won’t even have to apply for loan relief. Sometime before the November election, Mr. Biden will simply declare their debt forgiven. That means a future Congress and a President Trump might be unable to undo the lawless act. Where are the press scolds who warn about a President who threatens democracy? Mr. Biden is setting an awful precedent that Donald Trump will no doubt exploit. If courts say he can’t re-purpose defense money to build a wall on the southern border, he could simply use another means to do so. The right will cheer him on as the left is Mr. Biden. The rule of law and taxpayers are the losers. By the way, this would cancel student loan debt for borrowers who have been in repayment for 20+ years. It took me more than that to pay off my student loans, but I knew that when I consolidated them into a 30-year repayment plan. That was the point! To make my debt manageable. Which it was, until I decided that it made financial sense to pay off what remained (only about 6K by then) in a lump sum after about 24 years. I was one of the suckers who took my obligations seriously ....

A rare case in which Big Mollie is correct. The one-sentence summary is simply not correct. Dobbs didn't purport to ban states from doing what their elected representatives or voters think is right. Larger picture: why did Trump's statement - otherwise clear about the federal government not getting involved - end with a comment about "but we've got to win elections?" That suggests a public opinion driven position, not a clear issue of constitutional law and the separation of state/federal powers. Hence ... skepticism.

No, they're not Trump. But a lot of Republican Senators are on the record as supporting a 20-week federal abortion ban. And that includes Ted Cruz, supposedly a strict constitutionalist and constitutional lawyer. So he apparently believes there is some federal constitutional authority allowing Congress to legislate abortion bans. https://www.cruz.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sens-cruz-graham-colleagues-introduce-20-week-abortion-ban By the way, this is, of course, Trump tacking toward the center after wrapping up the nomination early. I usually think that's a good thing, and it is a good thing here. But ... I thought that was happening in the 2016 general election as well, and then Trump went all, well, Trumpy once he was in office, firing his "my generals" and his Reince Priebuses etc. If he wins and sees his popularity slipping (he'll never have a majority), watch him try to shore up the base by once again moving right on abortion.

Thanks. That's what I thought. Same thing, different name. Maybe I'll live long enough to see it change again!

I'm kinda old. When did the X, Y, Z nomenclature take over? WR1, TE, Slot Or from my early days: Split End, Tight End, Flanker (that one was before my time, but I knew what it meant) Isn't it all the same thing, different name? Or am I missing some subtlety here?

Well, you either have constitutional authority to legislate or you don't. You see my basis for skepticism about Trump's latest position? Obviously as the campaign continues he'll be asked those questions, the ones like "if Congress presents you with legislation protecting the right to abortion through 15 weeks, will you sign it?"

Partially correct. They ruled that the right to have an abortion was not something deeply rooted in American history and tradition. In other words, it is not a substantive due process right. They didn't rule on whether the federal government may have some constitutional basis (the commerce clause, etc.) to regulate abortion, and they certainly didn't rule on whether things like medication abortion can be controlled by the federal government through statutory authority (the FDA's enabling statute, etc.) Well, yes. Look, strong 2nd Amendment advocates would be right to be suspicious of a Presidential candidate who campaigns on a platform that the states and federal government have no authority to restrict gun ownership, but who had previously expressed interest in federal legislation restricting that right.

But more to the point: why should we trust that Trump's latest "completely a matter for the states to decide" will be his position as President? What if Republicans take the Senate and keep the House, and send Trump a bill outlawing abortion nationally after 15 weeks? Would he sign it? He previously suggested he would.

I don't know. I didn't hijack the thread. I'm just responding to a clearly false claim. To return to the point of the thread: Trump's latest position is consistent with the arguments put forth by the anti-Roe litigants in Dobbs: it is an issue for the states. The problem is that his earlier position - voiced out loud, and often - was that there should be some kind of national compromise, enforced by federal law, guaranteeing the right of women to have an abortion up to 15 weeks, and outlawing it after hat. In other words, some theory that the federal government ultimately can (under delegated constitutional powers) and should impose standardized rules on the 50 states. So when liberals say they're suspicious of Trump's motives here, they're not exactly just making it up. If you are a strict constitutionalist - the federal government only has powers that is has been expressly assigned by the constitution - you never, ever, ever would have suggested that the federal government can and should step into the fray. So either he's not a strict constitutionalist or he's just trying whatever to get elected, implicitly reserving his right to change his mind again.

No, I haven't seen any credible reports of that. In fact, I've seen Dominion settle libel claims against Fox News for nearly a billion dollars.

The reference was to the "rigged election" being proved in court. So ... where? When?

Where? When?

Another thread in which we discover that socialist Glenn Greenwald really, really likes that he can make money off feeding the right-wing media what it wants. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/26/bolsonaro-accused-of-inciting-hatred-with-gay-paradise-comment “If you want to come here and have sex with a woman, go for your life,” Bolsonaro reportedly told journalists in the capital, Brasília. “But we can’t let this place become known as a gay tourism paradise. Brazil can’t be a country of the gay world, of gay tourism. We have families,” Bolsonaro added, according to the Brazilian magazine Exame. The comments – made during a breakfast meeting with Brazilian reporters – sparked an immediate reaction from LGBT campaigners. “This is not a head of state – this is a national disgrace,” said David Miranda, a leftist congressman and LGBT activist. Miranda said the president’s remarks simultaneously endangered members of Brazil’s LGBT community by “putting a target on their backs” and promoted the sexual exploitation of Brazilian women. “He is staining the image of our country in every imaginable way,” Miranda said. Hmm, David Miranda. Where have I heard that name before? https://www.queermajority.com/illustration/glennanddavidstory For my entire career, I have always been a leftist in people’s eyes. It is only a fairly recent thing that some Americans accuse me of being a Republican mouthpiece or a pro-Trump journalist. J'accuse.

You are generally a pretty reasonable commenter here, and I understand what you're saying. But let's say you are a public figure. You're All Pro Bills, and you really are a retired former All-Pro football player. You have an adult daughter; she herself is not a public figure, and has never sought out media attention. She has had a troubled history and has kept a diary on the advice of her rehab counselors. She puts her trust in a guy also in rehab; he abuses that trust by stealing her diary and selling it for personal gain, presumably to embarrass you. Should he be prosecuted? I think you'd say yes. I would say yes too if my daughter were in that situation.

Not "slander" religion. But I will point out that when zealots (and yes, there are plenty of ultra-Orthodox Jewish zealots in Israel, and due to the weakness of Netanyahu he must pander to them) take these ancient words about things we consider abusive and horrific today literally - and even try to turn them into official policy - they are practicing a kind of religious primitivism that has no place in the modern world.

I first heard of this diary a couple years ago. And I don't think anyone who's looked at it has any doubts that it's real. But here's what happened: she was in rehab. Another guy in rehab (maybe she had a relationship with him) stole the diary and sold it. It's boring except for that one comment. That apparently came out of some therapy session - some kind of prompt like "is there anything in your childhood that may explain how you got here?" It's in the category of a recovered/"suppressed" memory. It is in the category of Blasey-Ford's recovered memory about Brett Kavanaugh. I didn't put any credence in that, and I don't in this. Ashley Biden is not continuing to advance some theory about her father being sexually inappropriate. Because of that, it's really inappropriate to keep publicizing private writings of a drug addict (at the time) who had those writings stolen by another drug addict.

[Sigh.] I am someone who believes we are experiencing global climate change. (Actually not a "belief"; it's a fact.) And I believe the evidence shows that a significant part of that is human-created. Exactly how large a part, I don't know. But I'm also a climate optimist. One big reason: geoengineering. Yes, there are risks. There are also risks associated with doing nothing and hoping that nature reverses course all by itself. That's why it's depressing to see people putting geoengineering into the category of what "woke scientists" (see above) do. It's kind of the opposite. It's "we're looking for a way to cancel out greenhouse gas emissions so that we don't have to shut down the fossil fuel economy to prevent the worst impacts of global warming." I'm for it; you should be for it. But here we have "if the government is doing it is is automatically suspect and bad."

The truth: no one cares about who The Rock endorses or doesn't endorse. Other than, of course, the Trumpy commentariat, which is apparently obsessed with the opinions of an aging action film star. After endorsing Biden in 2020, look at the wonderful cinematic successes, financial and artistic, that those Democratic voters brought him: Jungle Cruise. Red Notice. Black Adam. Another few years and he'll relaunch The Expendables franchise with a 90 year old Sylvester Stallone.

Yes. That's exactly what both parties do now.

That actually wouldn't bother me. What I want to see from people seeking pardons for J6 is what we always traditionally have wanted to see: some admission that they broke the law, and some expression of contrition. "I'd do it again in a heartbeat" should be a disqualifier.

The "J6 Praying Grandma" goes down: https://gazette.com/news/crime/verdict-colorado-springs-area-resident-found-guilty-on-all-charges-in-capitol-breach-trial-in/article_41e439fe-f0fc-11ee-9887-4fc0904851b5.html "she carried God inside the Capitol" The jury actually took its time on this one. Close, but no cigar. And how's this for a batting average: If she had been found not guilty, Lavrenz would have been the first Jan. 6 defendant in a jury trial to be acquitted of federal charges. Two bench trials have been acquitted, and some defendants in jury trials have had charges reduced. Some people believe that irregularities in the 2020 election tabulation process skewed the results. No substantial evidence of election tampering has been found. Of the 64 cases brought forward by former President Donald Trump and his supporters challenging the 2020 results, they prevailed in one lawsuit in Pennsylvania, which did not include enough votes to overturn the result. In the 63 other cases, 20 were dismissed before a hearing on the merits, 14 were voluntarily dismissed and 30 included a hearing on the merits. “Multiple tipsters alerted the FBI” in the days following Jan. 6, 2021, that Lavrenz was among the crowd who entered the Capitol, according to court documents, and FBI agents confirmed her presence on the site by tracing her cell phone and identifying her in video footage. Another beautifully crowd-sourced investigation, identifying her and providing info to the feds. Oh, and another preposterous right-wing Trumpy hero in the making.

She brings the heat, that's for sure.