The Frankish Reich

Agreed. AFC is wide open. Objectively the Ravens look the best overall, but we'll see how they handle playoff football. The NFC is different, as the Niners are clearly the class not just of the NFC but the whole NFL too. But it'll be a first for playoff Purdy, so who knows.

I agree in general. A lot of it is just situational luck evening out. Basically the same good/solid but flawed team all year long, remarkably healthy on the offensive side (the line has been together all year, and really only Knox has missed significant time; Damien Harris too but he's totally forgotten as other RBs stepped up), remarkably unhealthy on the defensive side. Who's clearly better in the AFC? Chiefs? No. We've seen that. Dolphins? Same (and they've been remarkably healthy up till now). Bengals? They were looking the part until Burrow went down. Jags? Obviously not. Ravens? Maybe, but we'll see ...

All true. With one caveat: the level of the competition isn't the same. Granted, the Chargers without Herbert are pretty damn poor. But Eagles-Chiefs-Cowboys ain't Pats-Giants-Jets ...

On punt returns: 66 fumbled punts in the NFL so far this season. 14 punts returned 40+ yards. Of course, not all fumbled punts are recovered by the kicking team. But still ... if you are clearly the better team (which the Bills were last night), isn't it better to just fair catch every one or let it roll? If you are the worse team, you take the chance on a big special teams play. I don't get why NFL teams refuse to pound this into their punt/kickoff returners.

That's why I prefer a punt catcher to a punt returner. How many game-changing punt returns do we see each year? How many game-changing fumbled punts? Micah Hyde (if healthy) > Deonte Harty

A lot of people seem to be drawing unfounded conclusions here. Trump tweeted (truth-socialed?) something about how the Supreme Court thankfully decided to follow "our great constitution" There is nothing implicating the constitution here. The constitution established the Supreme Court and authorized Congress to set up lower (trial and initially appeals) courts. Congress did that. So the normal rules of court (NOT of the constitution) say you appeal first to the first-level appeals court, then if your appeal is denied you can ask the Supreme Court to hear it. Rules, not "our great constitution." And like any rules, there's exceptions. Usually you have to wait for the trial court to hear the entire case before you can appeal. So it's verdict (guilty/not guilty), then sentencing, then appeal. But the rules allow you to ask a higher court to hear an appeal of a particular issue before the final judgment. That's called an "interlocutory appeal" (fancy word for "an appeal in the middle of a trial court proceeding"). It's unusual to grant these requests. Here, I think the Supreme Court should have agreed to hear the issue of immunity. As I said, it is a pure issue of law: is the President immune from prosecution from any and everything illegal he may have done while he was President? There's no issues of fact that need to be decided by the trial court first. By denying to hear the case now, it makes things even messier. If the Supreme Court had said yes, he's immune, the case is dismissed. Over. Done. If they say no, he's not immune, Trump's defense team can concentrate their resources on other issues of fact and law. What happens now? A lot of people seem to think that the trial judge will kick the case forward indefinitely. I don't think so. I think the first level appeals court probably also says it's premature to hear the appeal. And so we're back to square one. Maybe with some delay, but trial by late spring/early summer. Or maybe (worst case scenario) after the convention. Or even worse: in the lame duck period if Trump wins. That's something everyone should want to avoid. The constitution says nothing about whether the Supreme Court should have stepped in now. It's a pure judgment call. I think it was a mistake for them not to.

Quite the opposite. This is what would be called a "pure question of law" - the extent to which the President has immunity for acts taken while he was President. Why not clear up the issue right here and now? Why have a trial (if we get to that in the next 13 months) in which Trump may be found guilty of one or more counts, only to have the Supreme Court decide he was immune?

I took a look back at that famous "gotcha" question and answer. You know what? As a pure matter of logic, the Ivy League Presidents answered correctly! The question was: Would calling for genocide constitute harassment or bullying? The question was not: Would calling for genocide be offensive speech? So the logical answer is: "It depends on the context." - If @Doc some bar somewhere far away drunkenly calls for genocide of the white guys born in Buffalo, and he has no reason to think that I'd hear him, has he bullied or harassed me? Of course not. - If he finds out where I live, drives up to my house at night, grabs a megaphone, and keeps shouting "death to the Buffalo white guys" for two hours, has he bullied and/or harassed me? Of course so. That is, it depends on the context. Congresswoman Stefanik was given far too much credit here. If she wanted to know whether President Gay thinks calling for the genocide of a people is per se offensive speech, well, that's what she should have asked.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/tenant-vs-tenet-difference-usage#:~:text=Tenant usually refers to someone,one of the basic tenets

People who get all of their news from righty Twitter streams just love to say "if you only read the mainstream media, you'd never know this happened." Of course, they never read the mainstream media. Because if they did, they would know that it was covered all over the place. Here's a popular news aggregator showing at least a dozen links. Everything from CNN to LGBT publications. But I guess it's better to rely on what "Oilfield Rando" says. NBC News: Senate staffer alleged by conservative outlets to have had sex in a hearing room is no longer employed – Discussion: Paige Skinner / HuffPost: Senate Staffer Caught Having Sex And Filming It In Hearing Room Business Insider: Senate staffer fired after X-rated video appeared to show him having sex in famous Congress hearing room Andy Ngo / The Post Millennial: ANDY NGO REPORTS: Fired Democrat Senate staffer who made sex tape in iconic Senate room has long history of making porn Ryan King / New York Post: Ex-Senate staffer in alleged sex tape snafu may have exposed himself to legal trouble: expert CNN: Senate aide out of job after purported sex tape apparently filmed in Senate hearing room Matt Vespa / Townhall: Here Are the Reactions to a Dem Staffer Getting Caught Having Gay Sex in a Senate Hearing Room P.J. Gladnick / Newsbusters: Politico Handles Senate Gay Sex Tape Scandal Very, Very Delicately Brodigan / Louder With Crowder: NBC News blames “conservative outlets” for video of male senate staffer getting banged by some dude in senate hearing room Jim Hᴏft / The Gateway Pundit: Fired Aide to Democrat Sen. Ben Cardin Reportedly Under Investigation and May Face Criminal Charges for Filming Gay Sex Tape in Senate Building Sam J. / Twitchy: Jonathan Turley's STRAIGHT-Fire Thread Shows Just How Bad the Staffer Sex SNAFU REALLY is for Democrats Paul Bois / Breitbart: Fired Senate Staffer Who Filmed Gay Sex Tape in Hearing Room Cries Homophobia Caleb Howe / Mediaite: NBC News Blames Democrat Gay Porn Video Scandal On ‘Conservative Outlets’ Nick Arama / RedState: Liberal Media Take on ‘Sex in the Senate Hearing Room’ Is Everything You'd Expect, Including GOP Pouncing Daily Mail: Democrat congressional aide Aidan Maese-Czeropski is FIRED by Maryland Senator Ben Cardin after gay sex tape filmed in Senate swept the internet The National Pulse+: Senate ***** Staffer Fired, Calls Anal Sex in Capitol ‘Poor Judgment’. Abril Elfi / One America News Network: Senate Staffer Fired From Ben Cardin's Office After Allegedly Filming Video Of Sex Act In A Hearing Room TMZ.com: U.S. Senate Staffer Ousted After Sex Tape Filmed in Hearing Room Leaks Kerry Picket / Washington Times: Dem staffer out from Senate job after revelation of sex video shot in Capitol Hill hearing room Jason Cohen / Daily Caller News Foundation: Dem Senate Staffer Who Reportedly Filmed Gay Porn In Hearing Room Is Out Of A Job Jessica Schladebeck / New York Daily News: Congressional staffer fired after leaked sex tape filmed in Senate hearing room Justin Baragona / The Daily Beast: Staffer Accused of Filming Sex Tape in Senate Hearing Room Is Out of Job Misty Severi / Washington Examiner: Democratic senator's staffer accused of filming hearing room sex act ‘no longer employed’ Kayla Gallagher / The Messenger: Senate Staffer Ousted After Sex Tape in Hearing Room Collin Anderson / Washington Free Beacon: Was That Wrong? Cardin Staffer Fired Over Senate Smut Film Says He ‘Would Never Disrespect My Workplace’ Christopher Wiggins / Advocate: U.S. Capitol Police Investigating Video of 2 Men Having Sex in Senate Hearing Room Rachael Bade / Politico: Cardin staffer linked to sex tape leaves Senate

You are apparently unfamiliar with the intellectual capacity of most criminals.

Wisdom of the crowd.

Really good economic news. Has the Fed engineered that soft landing? The markets say "I think it has."

Bad news for Trump = More Stupid Memes from NC.

What I loved about Brady vs. Dorsey: Dorsey would've followed what he considered the conventional wisdom. "Hey, we've got the running game working; time to use a little play action and let Josh take some shots down field." What Brady and Josh did was more what Belichick used to do to us: "Their personnel is not equipped to stop the run; we'll double down on that until they show they can stop it." I remember those games where Belichick used a fullback and heavy set to do that to us, and to other teams. Tom Brady would get his 300 yards on some other Sunday. A refreshing change. A blowout victory with < 100 passing yards. The old "they've shown they can win in different ways."

It's really not hard to say something sensible if you're a halfway decent appellate lawyer. "Justice Gabriel, this is a case of first impression. It makes sense to look to the historical context in which the insurrection clause was ratified - the open rebellion against US authority by the southern states that brought on a horrific Civil War. What happened on January 6 simply does not compare." But that would be conceding that there was something wrong with what happened on January 6, which Trump will never admit. You do realize that this cuts the wrong way (from your perspective)?

Ouch. As someone who has practiced before appeal courts, this is just a cringe-worthy response.

As far as being convicted of "insurrection" - the only federal statute I see that makes "insurrection" a crime was created in 1946, after WWII. In other words, some three quarters of a century AFTER the 14th Amendment exclusion for participating in insurrection. So arguing that a conviction is necessary is clearly wrong.

As a starting point: I don't think it is a good idea to exclude Trump from the primary (and then, logically, the general election) ballot. So how did the Colorado Supreme Court get there? 1. By applying the Colorado state laws on ballot qualification. 2. By looking to the standard definitions of "insurrection" at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified after the Civil War. That's because the 14th Amendment itself did not define the term. Bigger picture: this is, weirdly, the logical endpoint of conservative "textualism" in interpreting the Constitution. We all know the historical background of the 14th Amendment: it was to prevent the rebellious southern states from electing their secessionist leaders all over again. But a textual approach says that historical context isn't important. We apply the plain language of the text, which in this case bars anyone who engaged in "insurrection." Not "anyone who was involved in or encouraged the efforts of the states that purported to secede from the United States of America." No. "Insurrection" in general. And so according to conservative legal doctrine the courts look to what "insurrection" in general was understood to mean in America at the time the Amendment was ratified by the states. That's why the Colorado Supreme Court cites 1860s American dictionary definitions of 'insurrection." This is the same approach that got us to an expansive definition of the Second Amendment. Forget about all that "militia" stuff and the historical context of state militias c. 1789. Instead, let's just read the words and decide what "right to bear arms" was understood to mean in 1789. Historical context is relevant only with respect to what we believe certain words meant to people of that era, not to why the Amendment was promulgated and then ratified. So here we are. I read the Colorado Supreme Court decision, including the three dissents that would have decided the case in the opposite way. I can't see any clear legal error in what the majority decision did. The trial level Court found that Trump had engaged in "insurrection." The Colorado Supreme Court said they review whether there was "substantial evidence" in support of that finding. (NOTE: the standard is not "clear and convincing evidence." It takes more to overturn an NFL call than a finding of a state trial court.) They said yes, there was. They review questions of law without deference to the trial court's findings. Therefore, they found that the President of the United States is an "officer" of the United States, which is a pretty damn reasonable decision, although the U.S. Supreme Court may decide otherwise. They said there was due process - a 5-day trial in which Trump and his proposed electors had a fair opportunity under Colorado law to challenge evidence and put on their own evidence. Applying Colorado evidence law, they said there was a clear exception to the rule barring hearsay and that allowing the January 6 committee report was therefore fair. The law was applied fairly, and the result is perfectly defensible. Should Presidential candidates have to answer to the separate ballot exclusion provisions in all 50 states (plus, I guess, Puerto Rico and DC)? In my opinion, no. Our electoral laws are antiquated and we need new ones. But based on the ones we have, it is the height of hypocrisy for Trump supporters to argue that the state legislatures had the authority to reject certified Biden electors and accept their own slates, and to now argue that the states cannot make their own decisions as to who qualifies for their own damn ballots and who does not. Hoist by their own petard. I think that's the expression.

Of course due process exists in civil cases. I don't even know where to begin to shoot down this fundamental misunderstanding.

I watched Maher's season-ending monologue. I think this mischaracterizes his point. He was saying that the "river to the sea" rhetoric is just not productive now. Israel will not cease to exist. The Jews in Israel will not move/be moved elsewhere. Israel will continue to exist. So the point was this: knowing that, acknowledging that, what can we do that is productive? He pointed out that Arafat shot down the Clinton brokered plan back in 2000, a plan that would have created a real Palestinian state with control over the vast majority of disputed territory. And that since that time there really hasn't been a viable two-state solution plan advanced by either side - not by the increasingly militant, West Bank settler-driven Israelis, nor by anything resembling leadership among the Palestinians. It wasn't "move on from your dream of having your own country." It was "move on from your fantasy of taking control of the entirety of the West Bank AND the entirety of Israel.

Exactly.

Here's what I don't understand: Clarence Thomas is 75. He has been earning a Supreme Court Justice's salary (currently $285,400) for over three decades. His wife is younger, works as a political consultant, and apparently makes plenty of money doing so. I know it's expensive to live in DC. But not that expensive. He has his lavish vacations largely paid for. He got some kind of sweetheart deal on that deluxe RV. Why on earth is he broke?

He's become his brother in his prime. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iiTCYpwZZw

I asked my daughter (who seems to know about all these TikTok things) and the consensus is what you thought: she has Tourette’s, but definitely seems to be embellishing now. Apparently there is some history of documented fake Tourette’s in other TikTokkers. Weird world we live in … Ouch.