The Frankish Reich

Jokes on you ... I have no idea who Rick Wilson is.

In other words, it is a sh!thole, but it is our shi!thole. Not the way I view patriotism, but to each his own.

Imitation Cramps. I mean, still good, but Imitation Cramps.

I'm calling bs. That's no argument, it's just contradiction!

Very interesting, and it actually sounds like a legitimate error (uploaded the wrong file?). By the way, the abortion decisions are driving us right over the new Dred Scott cliff. Thousands and thousands of Texas women are going to NM to have abortions. Texas law allows any person to bring a case against any person in Texas who facilitates an abortion contrary to Texas law. Like Dred Scott, does fleeing to a "free [abortion] state" insulate you (and the person driving you, paying for your gas, etc.?) from liability? We also have the federal/state issues like this one, and soon the banning of medication abortion access. Justice Alito, you just opened a really dangerous can of worms ...

Thanks for acknowledging that. When the facts (as I understand them, or misunderstood them) change, I may change my mind. Not addressed to me, but that's never stopped me from responding ... ... I agree with the first sentence. It was political. If he wasn't Donald Trump, he wouldn't have been prosecuted. In fact, even if he was Donald Trump, former President and retired from politics, it probably wouldn't have been prosecuted. But I don't agree with the second sentence. We've seen that Trump got away with an awful lot of chicanery and illegality over the years. A lot of crimes that probably weren't prosecuted because he was the uber-connected (with both parties) Donald Trump. At some point, the calculation changes; do you continue to ignore all that past illegality and let him run again, claiming (as he did in his impeachments) that he'd never ever done anything wrong, much less illegal? I didn't like the Bragg prosecution. I thought it was ill-advised - arguable on the law, fairly weak on the facts. I'm now convinced that it was strong on the facts, but still very arguable on the law. But he wasn't railroaded. He got the benefit of the doubt for a long time, not just on this, but on all the other shady (some probably criminal) deals he's been involved with. Sometimes who you are gets you a pass. Sometimes who you are gets you an indictment. Trump has played both roles in that drama.

Alito also masterminded Dobbs by raising - on his own - an issue that wasn't even raised by the petitioner. He has no problem manufacturing standing just so he can make sure he can change the law in his own likeness. Thomas (say what you will about him) pays at least some regard to the formal rules of the Court. Those rules are important because they enforce separation of powers and avoid creating a Super Legislature in the Supreme Court.

Good jazz funk fusion. Thanks for the share!

Pure jazz joy.

Wow, talk about on brand. The 14 year old who discovered Rush (and in turn Ayn Rand) in 1976 is the 62 year old right-wing Trumpy conspiracy theorist in 2024. Who would've guessed? EDIT: I guess I should be thankful that he approves of Geddy Lee taking puberty blocking drugs in his own childhood.

The Holy Trinity of contemporary country: Tyler, Sturgill, Chris.

The 16 Nobel economists specifically state that they believe a Trump presidency would increase inflation. This is not terribly surprising given that Trump was pretty much a deficit dove, and that he is now pitching the most extreme tariffs we've seen since Smoot-Hawley. (By the way, it's taking an awfully long time for the righty critics to point out that one of the 16 - Akerlof - is Janet Yellen's husband. So there. I did it for you.)

I'm not sure about that. If you look at it purely as "adopted the conservative side/adopted the liberal side," that may be true. But there's kind of another type of analysis, the "institutionalist" vs. "agent of change" axis. We've seen the "agent of change" opinions like Alito's decision in Dobbs, which recognized the half century of precedent in Roe but basically said it doesn't matter since the Roe court was so clearly wrong (in his opinion). Decisions like the social media case today are more on the "institutionalist" side: the Supreme Court rejects the claim on the basis of the plaintiffs not showing a concrete injury directly attributable to government action. In other words, standing. That is a very old fashioned gatekeeping doctrine. I haven't looked at all his decisions by any means, but it seems to me that Roberts and Kavanaugh are very much on the institutionalist side of things; Alito/Thomas/Gorsuch/Sotomayor (too soon to tell with Jackson) on the "agent of change" side of things. Kagan and Barrett seem to tend institutionalist, although clearly on opposite sides of the political spectrum.

Exactly. It can be hard to establish the quid pro quo unless you have a complete confession. But when we have an official (governmental) act that clearly benefits a specific private party, followed immediately thereafter by a "gift" to the official, it seems obvious that we should infer a that this was, in reality, a bribe. A decision that emboldens corrupt officials.

Important to note that this is the result of an unusual alignment of conservative and liberal justices: Barrett wrote the opinion, joined by Roberts, Kavanaugh, Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson.

Julie Kelly suddenly worried about the Supreme Court acting in a "political manner" after it took its sweet time on the immunity issues, thereby ensuring that a trial cannot be held until after the election. Which seems to me to be acting in a political manner.

UPDATE: Lee DaVinci down to 5 monthly Spotify listeners. Go MAGA, go broke?

Trump is ostensibly leading, but he and his supporters now seem to be in panic mode. Does he know something we don't? How do we know that? Watch them bring up Hunter's laptop again!

Talk about not answering the question. Three people are prosecuted for crimes = COMMUNISM! Your Twitter friend is an idiot looking for clicks. And you will always take the bait.

She tells them what they want to hear. They believe that the Trump indictments are all a political ploy to keep Trump from regaining the presidency. So she is Ms. Confirmation Bias. She leaps to unfounded conclusions that feed the outrage machine. I used to think this was because she was in over her head; now I realize she is knowingly creating fake outrage stories.

Good news: the Dems look like they're ready to send one of their congressional clowns back home. Bad News: the Reps look like they're ready to reward their #2 clown, Lauren Boebert, with reelection in a new district.

Not really. There's the close the border thing, in which he implies that he'd go back to the Title 42 thing, which was based on a declaration of a COVID health emergency. There's the occasional quarter-baked tax stuff. Last week he was eliminating the income tax and going to a full tariff-based revenue system. This week he was keeping the Paul Ryan tax amendments in place. In other words, not eliminating the income tax, but keeping it in its current form and adding new taxes (tariffs), which isn't exactly lowering taxes except in Trump's mind. We let the states decide on abortion! Yeah, and New Mexico now is the abortion capital of America as Texans go there. So if you think abortion is baby killing, well, you accomplished nothing except raising the cost a bit. What's next? You'll end the Ukraine-Russia war in 24 hours. In other words, you'll pull all U.S. assistance and tell Ukraine to waive the white flag. And they eat it up, don't they.

Borders, well, ok. She does realize that no-cash bail is a NY state thing? That she may just be substituting one emotional response for another?

Our friend Julie was also behind the fake outrage over "authorized use of deadly force" warrant thing. It isn't reporting. It's agitprop.

It's basically an insult comic routine. Long digressions like some old monologue comedian. Everyone's heard the shtick before but they still fake laugh and applaud. Sharks. Electric boats. Ramps that he thought were too slippery. Joe Biden doesn't know where he is. Hillary is a crook. We beat Obama. Wiry looking immigrants are really cage fighters. Blah blah blah It's a bonding experience for them. People who look like me! He plays to people like us! He's paying attention to us! Yes, a cult experience. I went to one political rally in my life. Believe it or not it was Mike Dukakis 88. I was working downtown where the rally was. Most boring stupid thing ever. Kept waiting for him while people like Darryl Hannah said things like "we need a guy like Mike who'll roll up his sleeves and work for us." I barely caught Dukakis before I had to go back to work. Why anyone attends these things is beyond me.