The Frankish Reich

Ahh, I'm always a sucker for a quick-witted Irish Lass. I see I'm not going to find her here. BURN!

I think that's right. They will target second and third rank relatives and supporters.

That's exactly what I'm saying. There's certainly gray areas. I'm not saying everything Obama/Trump/Biden/Trump did/will do in the area of expanding presidential authority is "unconstitutional." But all of the things I pointed to do, at a minimum, violate long-standing understandings of the limits to presidential power. Those understanding - norms - were important, and we're now marching blind into unmapped territory. Note that this is a conservative take, in the sense of "conserve and protect the principles upon which our system of government operates."

I don't like it. I'm all about snark on a day like this. But here's a serious comment. Obama started it. I'll admit it. The expansion of what were understood to be the limits to Presidential power. He said he was being lobbied hard by immigrant rights groups to give undocumented young people status, but that he couldn't do that without an act of Congress. Then he needed an energized left to beat Romney, and he did exactly what he said he lacked the authority to do. Pen and phone, etc. Trump carried it further in numerous ways, exceeding the long-understood limits to presidential authority. And it led to the ultimate conclusion of his presidency: the notion that the president/vice president can pick and choose which electoral slates to count. Biden took Trump's use of unappropriated funds for political purposes (the wall) a few steps further, with student loan forgiveness, etc. And took the willy-nilly use of the pardon power beyond Trump's summary grants to political dirty tricksters on his side (Manafort/Stone) to preemptive grants to his own family members. The power to pardon is now the power not to undo "errors" of the past, but to direct the future too. And the Supreme Court helped all this along with its creation of a new presidential immunity. I hope someday we'll look back on the period of 2012-now as an aberration in American politics. Both parties have done America and its political institutions a great disservice. Jimmy Carter, our nation turns it's lonely eyes to you?

Inauguration observations: Melania as some kind of bizarro Victorian crossing guard from a 1970s porn movie, with her hat conveniently turning Don's cheek pecks into air kisses Trump hand as his side while two - count 'em, two! - Bibles sit in Melania's cold hands. Fingers crossed! We all knew it. JD Vance's wife sitting stone-faced as we celebrate our Jewish-Christian (and Christian-Catholic) heritages. Where's our guru's invocation? When did I miss Biden's growth spurt? Or Trump's age-shrink? Biden was at least as tall, sometimes looked taller than Trump. Prune-faced Mike Johnson can't pull off a credible smile. JD's mom is a weird little druggie dwarf. Limo had to at Eastern Market for her to score heroin? That's all. For now. I'll be here all week.

Gonna double down here ... ... and JD Vance taking a private oath on the Bhagavad Gita

She said she didn't know the words. Teleprompter fail? No second verse. Meanwhile, Trump retreats to the inner sanctum to take real oath on Satanic Bible. https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/trump-inauguration-president-2025/card/trump-takes-oath-without-touching-bible-R4Nv0QALlSoCBs4ifVM7?mod=WSJ_home_supertoppertop_lctimeline

Home field/bad weather won it for us. That's what you play the regular season for.

No. Just reminiscing about times with their common friend. Jeffrey Epstein.

Because Trump is known for forming lasting, loving relationships

I have to agree, but it needs to be a constitutional amendment. (Remember those, like the ERA? The most recent one to be ratified? haha)

Yeah, on second thought, I'm just gonna get one of those iPads where I swivel the screen to the defendant: 18%, 22%, 25%

They seem to have no problem finding the Caribbean waters all by themselves

Ground Chuck wins! The passing attack: Fergy 12-20, 102 yards, 1 TD The ground attack: Cribbs, 18 carries, 128 yards.

Actually we were thinking about quitting our law jobs and becoming waiters. Or maybe putting a tip jar on the counsel tables.

Something makes me think that JD's not gonna like having Vivek primed for a run at the presidency ...

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/iceland-greenland-name-swap#:~:text=“In the summer%2C Erik left,of a medieval marketing scheme. Calling it "Greenland" was nothing more than a medieval marketing scheme to try to get people to move there.

Maybe someone out there would like to have a rational, informed discussion? Yeah, right. But here's the thing: Presidents, demented or otherwise, do this type of thing. Biden declares that the ERA is the law of the land. In the next few months, some private litigant - a woman (whatever that is) files a lawsuit, arguing that the ERA is part of the Constitution. She cites Biden's statements in support of that position. Maybe a court agrees. Who knows, maybe the issue makes it to the Supreme Court. And maybe the Supreme Court decides that this "time limits on ratification" thing that was attached to the ERA is nowhere to be found in the constitution (it isn't) and that as long as enough states eventually ratify, it is part of the constitution. A strict textualist - most of the Supreme Court today, at least in their own opinions - would probably find exactly that. Meanwhile, check back on Monday. New President Trump is likely to issue an Executive Order undoing birthright citizenship. That's pretty clearly unconstitutional as the constitution has been interpreted so far. But he knows that the constitution means only what today's Supreme Court says it means. Some poor schmuck born here of illegal aliens parents will apply for a passport, and may be denied it because he's not a citizen under Trump's EO. He'll sue, and the case will percolate up to the Supreme Court, which may decide birthright citizenship is a constitutional requirement. Or it may decide that birthright citizenship as a matter of constitutional law was a mistake, just like Roe v. Wade was all a big mistake. I don't like the President trying these things, tee'ing up issues for appeal. But it's a perfectly rational political thing to do, and it happens a lot more at the beginning and the end of administrations. We're Americans; we legalize every political issue.

Simple. Win: "Lamar can't win the big one." Lose: "Josh can't win the big one."

The concept of the CBP One app is good: rather than having swarms of people show up at a land Port of Entry (think TIjuana) all asking for asylum at once, "meter" them to ensure that we have the capacity to process everyone's claim. It is sort of a "remain in Mexico for as long as it takes" rule. The problem is the implementation by the Biden administration often amounted to "take your number and get in line to be allowed into the United States to file your asylum claim." There is nothing that says an asylum applicant has the right to be free in the United States. Congress made detention pending a decision the rule, and release the exception to the rule. Biden allowed the exception to swallow the rule. So ... Congress should not eliminate CBP One. It should trust the new administration to implement it correctly.

2020: Tik Tok is a way for the CCP to gather highly personal or even sensitive personal information and to use it to compromise U.S. national security! 2025: Do I get to sit next to the Tik Tok CEO?

I was talking with friends at a restaurant last night. Let's say the check is $500. We would typically tip 20% or so. So that's $100. The server would net maybe $80 if she's in a 20% tax bracket. No tax on tips? She'd net the full $100. So should we reduce the percent we're tipping to take that into account?

And avoids having the new press secretary hilariously insist that the embarrassingly small crowd is the “largest ever.”

Personally, I never saw the need to ban Tik Tok or force its sale to a U.S. investor. But Trump 45 issued an Executive Order based on his Emergency powers, finding that Tik Tok posed an unacceptable national security risk while under Chinese control. That was shot down by the courts. Then Congress made essentially the same national security findings, passed the ban/sale legislation, and Biden signed it into law. It sailed through Congress, and Senators including Cory Booker and Ron Wyden voted for it. Now all of a sudden Trump, Booker, Wyden and others are saying "we didn't really mean it." Apparently the hope was a sale of some manner would proceed and push would never come to shove. A cautionary tale: be careful what you wish for. Trump and Congress made "findings" about national security threats that were largely bs, and now they're stuck with them. So the Supreme Court says go ahead, if you didn't really mean it, well, repeal the legislation. You made this mess, you clean it up.

Supreme Court unanimously refuses to intervene in Tik Tok Death Legislation.