The Frankish Reich

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.

From Vivek’s lips to Rama’s ear.

Tourette girl is funny, whether voluntary or not. But I'm calling bs. The references to "Chris" specifically seem fake. As does flipping him off at the end.

FAILING PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE ENCOURAGES RELIGIOUS HATE CRIME

Personally, I will take my common sense from whatever unlikely source it emerges from. Go Lurch!

WR aging patterns: - traditional wisdom (which went on right up to about 5 years ago) was that WRs have much greater longevity than RBs - new analysis shows that 30 is kind of an inflection point. A lot of this has been done with respect to fantasy, which is not real life. But a lot of it is applicable to real life. I don't have time to provide links now, but maybe if I'm bored around Christmas I'll start a "WR Aging Patterns" thread that everyone can ignore ... Diggs just turned 30. Drops? I don't think that has anything to do with aging. As a long time receiver, that's statistical noise. His drop rate going forward will very likely be what his historic drop rate has been over the course of his career. That's a blip. But separation (earlier, page 8 somewhere, there was a comment showing Next Gen stats on separation by year) is probably a real effect, and one that is related to aging. Bottom line: he's likely into his decline phase, but I see no reason for worry for the rest of the season. But when the decline hits it often hits hard, which doesn't bode well for next season and beyond. Interesting point: big WRs, who tend to be possession receiver types, generally age better. That would apply to Gabe, except that Gabe has never really been used as a possession type receiver ...

Good one. But ... there's a lag time between an improving economy and the perception that the economy is, in fact, improving. Worrying for Biden supporters that we're now 11 months from the election and public opinion isn't showing any signs of shifting yet. But if we avoid recession (an the "soft landing" scenario is now the majority opinion of economists) there's a good chance that opinion does shift by summer. As with everything, we shall see.

Sometimes a player turns out to be exactly what he was projected to be. See Scouting Report, Davis, Gabriel. https://www.nfl.com/prospects/gabriel-davis/32004441-5632-9675-38f5-3e009da4e98e Big target with outstanding 2019 production in an offense that created favorable big play opportunities. Davis is a sideline threat with a good feel for creating space short and long through hand fighting. His build-up speed, ball-tracking and high-point talent can alter the success rate of deep throws for quarterbacks, but sluggish release quickness and predictable route usage are concerning. His size and downfield talent could push him up the board, but he won't get easy looks in the pros and may need more work and development than the 2019 production might indicate Strengths Had multiple touchdowns five times in 2019 Consistently catches with extended hands away from frame Expert hand fighter short and deep Creates space for outside press release with stiff jab Stacks cornerback and gives gentle push-offs for vertical separation Wins over the top with timing and high-point extension Catch radius to turn overthrows into catches underneath Size and strength for all blocking duties Smooth burst at stem to gain ground on post routes Skilled ball tracker deep Double moves feature fluid stop-start Weaknesses Excessive stutter-steps against soft press positioning Doesn't have threatening initial surge into routes Tight hips limit quickness into breaks Could struggle to find operating room as a pro Schemed into multiple one-on-one looks downfield Needs to get shoulders squared to throws to protect catch space Below-average talent after the catch Ran limited route tree Takes plays off when he's not primary target Projection: Average starter. Actual NFL history: Average starter.

I don't condemn hummus either. I like the spicy kind, smoky paprika. With pine nuts. And obviously the Up With People shite is always, well, shite. Jill wins!

Well, that'll be a Mitt Romney moment that is played over and over and over again in the general election run-up. Not really a fair comparison because everything Romney said (about roughly half of the US population not having skin in the game because they already don't pay federal income tax) was basically correct. Trump on the other hand is a mixture of fantasy and "vote for me and I'll make sure rich people do better." Not the best pitch to the working man or woman.

When did he make these remarks? By the way, there it is again: we're gonna cut taxes AND pay off the national debt. As I noted earlier in this thread, this is fantasyland.

And by the way I liked the blood red tree corridor by Melania. I mean, not a main blood red tree with presents under it. I think they had a regular old tree too. But that corridor was kind of cool.

Well, then you are proving my point. People hated on a nice Christmas display because it was associated with Trump. Just like you people are hating on a fun little performance because the group that put it on supports lefty causes.

You mean the one with blood-red trees?

Agreed. But reading down the thread, we see that new Republican Old Fogey-ism had to dig deep to find a reason to object. Is it an objection to having people who "don't look like regular Americans" tap dancing in the White House? Can't come right out and say that. Would be obviously racist, or homophobic, or both. Is it an objection to the desecration of that great gay Russian composer Tchaikovsky? After all Putin still loves him some Tchaikovsky as an example of the greatness of Russia, conveniently ignoring the gay thing. But no, that's not it either. Here's what it is: the dance group that put on the performance supports all manner of progressive causes! In other words, we can't just have fun and watch it; we have to fully investigate the political orientations of the performers before rendering our opinions. In other words, exactly what the other side does when they seek to ban some politically conservative artist from performing on their college campus.

Well played.

Kinda like Jeff Saturday on the Colts last year. Broadcaster to interim coach. Is Lee "Hacksaw" Hamilton available?

What I'm saying is that the House Republicans did some kind of focus group thing and realized that associating "Biden" with the term "Impeachment" helped. So a regular old fashioned congressional hearing is now officially an "Impeachment Inquiry." Go ahead and impeach him if you want. Then they can say both candidates have been impeached. I guess that's what they want, so just do it.

And right on cue: mortgage rates dip back under 7% All this election talk (impeachment inquiry! 91 indictments! abortion back on the stage! Ukraine! Israel!), and yet I have a strong feeling that it will come down to what the economy does. I was with the analysts saying a recession is a near certainty. Now the "soft landing" seems to be solidly back in play. If inflation remains in check going forward, growth stays steady, and everyone's 401k keeps on an upward trend, well, that will create a very different political picture come October when ballots start getting returned. EDIT: 10-year Treasury back under 4 percent too. The bond rally is on!