The Frankish Reich

"Sources" are saying the shortlist is Rubio, Burgum, Vance. Let's assume Little Marco will be eliminated. Among other things, he's a Florida resident and sitting Florida senator, so he is constitutionally ineligible (unless he resigns/moves; Donald is not moving to NY state for obvious reasons) So do you prefer the former McKinsey consultant, Stanford MBA Microsoft officer, half-billionaire as your outsider ready to take on Davos Man? Or do you prefer the former McKinsey consultant, Yale J.D., Investment Banker, youngster worth about $10 million or more as your outsider to take on Davos Man? (you are being played)

In other words: beauty contests are a really gay thing; maybe we should just let them decide who can compete. It continues to amaze me that all these ostensibly straight men here are so, so locked in to gay culture. From a quick Google search: "do beauty pageants appeal to gay men"

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that maybe, just maybe, the only remaining core audience for this antiquated ritual is gay men.

We would like to think that the Supreme Court is made up of 9 wise men and women. A reminder about the conservative view of "wisdom" from the great GK Chesterton, often paraphrased as something like this: "Don't ever take down a fence unless you know the reason why it was put up in the first place." As the current Supreme Court works on its project to reorder long-existing balances in the roles of states vs. the federal government, and between Congress and the Executive, perhaps this is worth keeping in mind? Perhaps being a conservative means being concerned about the impacts of such radical restructuring? The full quote: “In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

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.