The Frankish Reich

I'm sure Ginni Thomas Epps agrees

If only more of them would follow that example. This is perhaps the most results-oriented decision we've seen from the Supreme Court in decades. Justice Barrett writes a powerful dissent basically saying this: conservatives, you've been preaching for years that we should follow the text of a statute. That's what Jack Smith did here! Now, now you decide that we need to ignore the plain text and try to figure out exactly what 435 representatives and 100 senators were thinking 14 years ago when they passed a new law?

Just checked the transcript of the debate. Trump never said her name! What an incredibly uncaring person.

Never thought I'd see the day when conservative giant Scalia's opinions are decried as being unconstitutional. He did write Chevron ...

This is where the Trumpistas will be parroting Marx: History repeats; the first time as tragedy, the second as farce.

Well, you seemed to think that he'd be jacked up on some PEDs and would turn in a State of the Union yelling performance. Which, by the way, he seemed to be doing at a rally today. Teleprompter? I guess, I don't know. I still stand with Nate Silver: even if propped up by his staff he's preferable to Trump. Better still, a whole new nominee.

I just watched the whole thing. All I can say is: I refer you to John Stewart (usually not my guy, but spot-on here), and to Nate Silver: https://www.natesilver.net/p/joe-biden-should-drop-out And it’s not just that Joe Biden is 81 now — it’s that he’s seeking a second term and wants to continue being president until he’s 86! Michael Jordan wasn’t awful with the Wizards, but he also wasn’t about to ask for a four-year contract extension. An 86-year-old president is a ridiculous and untenable proposition. Few world leaders are anywhere close to that old, other than in authoritarian countries — and none of them are the American president, the hardest job in the world. Is an 86-year-old Biden being president as ridiculous and untenable as an 82-year-old Trump being president? (Trump just turned 78 so would be 82 by the end of his second term.) For me, the answer is still no. In fact, although this is an increasingly unpopular view, I think Biden’s had a pretty good first term. And if I lived in a swing state2, I’d still vote for Biden — if for no other reason than because I think January 6 is so disqualifying to outweigh everything else.

Wait, give me a minute to tuck up my hair under my hat first ...

No, but I've got some left over prednisone. Thinking of grinding it up and snorting it before the debate. If I seem a little more frantic than usual on here, please send me the helpline number.

Yep, that's what I'm guessing. By the way, do your research! Steroids are magic. I suspect both candidates are consumers. From an article I posted a little while ago (a pro-Biden article), referring to "Candy Man" Dr. Ronny: If Jackson was known as the “candy man,” it’s reasonable to ask how much candy Trump has eaten—before, during, and after Jackson’s years in the White House. It’s also worth noting that since Jackson and Trump have revealed themselves to be strong political allies, there’s little reason to trust Jackson’s diagnosis of Trump’s cognitive health. In October 2020, Trump started to tweet even more erratically than usual, upsetting both the political and business elite. At the time, The New York Times reported: “Some White House staff members wondered whether Mr. Trump’s behavior was spurred by a cocktail of drugs he has been taking to treat the coronavirus, including dexamethasone, a steroid that can cause mood swings and can give a false level of energy and a sense of euphoria.”

Maybe the RNC people can just give us a list of prohibited World Presidential Debating Society banned drugs. Mountain Dew? Diet Pepsi? Ozempic? Adderall?

Here's one (many report likewise): https://www.yahoo.com/news/jd-vance-other-trump-vp-151841705.html

Now do B-Man's Twitter feed.

"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!