Es esperable que la salida de Kennedy, de 81 años, abra una fuerte partidario entre liberales y conservadores sobre el futuro del máximo tribunal.
Kennedy ha sido durante mucho tiempo y en muchas ocasiones el voto decisivo en casos estrechamente divididos. El récord de votos de Kennedy es de moderado a conservador
It is expected that the departure of Kennedy, 81, open a strong supporter between liberals and conservatives on the future of the highest court.
Kennedy has been for a long time and on many occasions the decisive vote in narrowly divided cases. Kennedy’s record of votes is moderate to conservative
Sorry, wrong Kennedy.
By now you probably heard about the executive order. This is pretty much what is all over the Spanish media, so I will start you out with this editorial:
En un psicodrama desplegado a escala gigante en la frontera de Estados Unidos con México, el gobierno del presidente Donald Trump está separando a los niños inmigrantes de sus padres y los mantiene bajo custodia. Los funcionarios lo explican como una política de “cero tolerancia” contra quienes llegan al país ilegalmente. Para mí, como biógrafo de Trump, se trata de una recreación del propio trauma infantil del mandatario y una prueba anecdótica de que una actitud abusiva hacia los niños puede pasar de una generación a otra. […]
En lugar de recibir el cuidado que merecen los extraños necesitados, las familias de inmigrantes están soportando el tipo de trato que reduce la capacidad de Estados Unidos por abogar a favor de los derechos humanos en todo el mundo. ¿Cómo un país que maltrata así a niños va a oponerse con credibilidad a los abusos de derechos humanos perpetrados por otros regímenes en el exterior? Evidentemente, debilita la credibilidad de EE.UU. en cualquier protesta contra las acciones autoritarias en Corea del Norte o Filipinas o Venezuela, por nombrar solo tres lugares donde Estados Unidos debe alzar la voz en defensa de los derechos humanos.
Dentro del país, la medida de Trump ignora tontamente el hecho de que la crueldad puede enfurecer y radicalizar a las víctimas y los espectadores e inspirarlos a defenderse (Los terroristas y criminales nacen de este tipo de trato). También genera un trauma moral a los ciudadanos estadounidenses que quieren creer que su nación representa algo mejor. ¿Cómo se supone que debemos mantener en nuestros corazones tanto la Estatua de la Libertad como las fotos de los niños encarcelados?
In a psychodrama deployed on a giant scale on the US-Mexico border, the government of President Donald Trump is separating immigrant children from their parents and keeping them in custody. The officials explain it as a policy of “zero tolerance” against those who arrive in the country illegally. For me, as Trump’s biographer, it is a recreation of the president’s own childhood trauma and anecdotal evidence that an abusive attitude towards children can pass from one generation to another. […]
Instead of receiving the care that needy strangers deserve, immigrant families are enduring the kind of treatment that reduces the ability of the United States to advocate for human rights around the world. How can a country that mistreats children like this go to oppose with credibility the human rights abuses perpetrated by other regimes abroad? Evidently, it weakens the credibility of the United States. in any protest against authoritarian actions in North Korea or the Philippines or Venezuela, to name just three places where the United States should raise its voice in defense of human rights.
Within the country, Trump’s move ignores foolishly the fact that cruelty can infuriate and radicalize victims and viewers and inspire them to defend themselves (Terrorists and criminals are born of this type of treatment). It also generates a moral trauma to American citizens who want to believe that their nation represents something better. How are we supposed to keep in our hearts both the Statue of Liberty and the photos of imprisoned children?
This pretty much goes on for a while….
17 States mount a legal challenge to Bush’sObama’sTrump’s The policy of separating children from the parents and taking their parents out back to shoot them.
El fiscal general de Washington, Bob Ferguson, dijo que liderará una coalición de estados en la demanda.
La medida, que según reportes se espera que sea presentada el jueves en el estado de Washington, alega que la administración de Trump violó los derechos del debido proceso de los padres y niños que fueron separados.
Ferguson calificó la política de “arbitraria y caprichosa” e “irracionalmente discriminatoria” porque se dirige a individuos cercanos a la frontera sur de Estados Unidos.
“Esta es una política deshonesta, cruel e inconstitucional”, dijo Ferguson en un comunicado. “Vamos a detenerlo”.
Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said he will lead a coalition of states in the lawsuit.
The measure, which according to reports is expected to be presented Thursday in Washington State, alleges that the Trump administration violated the due process rights of parents and children who were separated.
Ferguson called the policy “arbitrary and capricious” and “irrationally discriminatory” because it targets individuals close to the southern border of the United States.
“This is a dishonest, cruel and unconstitutional policy,” Ferguson said in a statement. “We are going to stop him.
Whatever, dude. Maybe you’ll have better luck than the last time a bunch of states filed a lawsuit over immigration policy.
Polls close for the Mexican election on 1 July. Fun fact: Mexico bans the sale of alcohol on election day.
A menos de una semana de las elecciones más grandes en la historia de México, donde alrededor de 89 millones de personas están convocados a elegir al nuevo presidente del país y a los representantes de 3,400 cargos públicos, las autoridades electorales detallaron cómo será el proceso de conteo de votos una vez que las urnas cierren el próximo domingo 1 de julio.
Less than a week away from the largest elections in the history of Mexico, where around 89 million people are called to elect the new president of the country and representatives of 3,400 public officials, the electoral authorities detailed how It will be the process of counting votes once the polls close next Sunday, July 1.
El caso de Meade es, de algún modo, el revés del candidato puntero, el izquierdista Andrés Manuel López Obrador (Morena-PT-PES), a quien sus críticos más duros lo desprecian por no hablar inglés y haberse tardado más de 10 años en acabar la universidad pública.
A pesar de esas ‘desventajas’, López Obrador hoy lidera las encuestas en casi 50% de intención de voto, llena plazas, sus discursos emocionan y la gente lo aclama.
A lo largo de los casi tres meses de campaña, Pepe Meade —como coloquialmente se le llama— se ha estancado en el tercer lugar de las preferencias electorales, con un 20% de intención de voto en promedio.
¿Sabes quién más hizo este gesto?
The case of Meade is, in some way, the setback of the leading candidate, the leftist Andrés Manuel López Obrador (Morena-PT-PES), whom his harshest critics despise him for not speaking English and having taken more than 10 years in finish the public university.
Despite these ‘disadvantages’, López Obrador today leads the polls in almost 50% of voting intentions, he fills seats, his speeches move and people cheer him.
Throughout the almost three months of the campaign, Pepe Meade – as he is colloquially called – has stagnated in the third place of the electoral preferences, with a 20% intention to vote on average.
Translation services available from the Alpha Beta Corporation. Who are still watching….all of you.
Comments
269 responses to “¡El miércoles Enlaces por la tarde reemplazando a BrettL!”
The Other Kevin
It also generates a moral trauma to American citizens who want to believe that their nation represents something better.
– For those of us who pay attention to all the wars we’re involved in, that ship sailed long ago.
Hyperion
Fearing a Venezuela on our border traumatizes me a bit more than that.
invisible finger
People refuse to learn the lesson – every socialist hellhole requires a large enough place or places to discard its deplorables. In other words – enablers. The rest of the world taking in Hitler’s untermesnch only prolonged Hitler’s grip on power. When the enablers say “no”, the socialist hellhole has no choice but to deploy the inevitable mass murder inherent in its ideology. Better to let such evil show itself as soon as possible instead of providing cover for it.
Involved in yes, But I should think the conduct of them is a bit better than most, if not all. I dug wells, built schools and handed out relief supplies (some sent voluntarily, some with your dollars, O, tax cattle) where the USSR killed, maimed, burned and destroyed.
I don’t like that we are places that we should have finished with a long time ago…but we ain’t exactly salting the Earth.
Hyperion
“critics despise him for not speaking English and having taken more than 10 years in finish the public university.”
Former bus driver?
Not Adahn
Tuition really is expensive, even for strippers
Negroni Please
So a ten term Dem power broker got ousted by a commie. SCOTUS punched unions in the dick and will now get more “conservative”
good day for liberal tears
Bob Boberson
Based on some of the articles from the morning links and some of those posted in the comments they’ve dialed up the autistic screeching to 12
Hyperion
What’s really sort of amusing is that a few of them, the ones that are not currently screeching at the sky in impotent rage, think that the dems can just make some argument that the GOP cannot nominate a new justice this close to an election. It’s totes OK though to continue with some bogus Russian collusion witch hunt though, right up until the election. Fortunately, that will not work on Trump, he’ll do it just to piss them off and McConnell will have to get it done.
R C Dean
They’ve already made that argument, conveniently forgetting that traditionally the Senate doesn’t approve new SCOTUS Justices this close to a Presidential election, not a mid-term election.
Count Potato
Considering one or other happens every two years, that wouldn’t leave much time to approve justices. I can only be done on odd-numbered years.
Tundra
Instead of receiving the care that needy strangers deserve, immigrant families are enduring the kind of treatment that reduces the ability of the United States to advocate for human rights around the world.
GFY. Why don’t you take care of them?
Bob Boberson
The beauty of collectivism is that it’s always someone else’s job.
Mad Scientist
What difference, at this point, does it make?
Hyperion
“Instead of receiving the care that needy strangers deserve”
Why do they deserve that for intentionally breaking our laws? Basically, this is saying that all you have to do is make it across the border and you ‘deserve’ taking care of. Horseshit, that won’t work anywhere else besides the US and Europe. But in case no one believes that, just walk into Mexico, go up to the authorities and demand being taken care of. If you like being inside a Mexican prison and probably having your family back home extorted to get you out, then go for it.
R C Dean
They are given food and shelter, and their children are protected from living in a potentially dangerous place. Sounds like the care that needy strangers deserve to me.
Massie is wrong. If he thinks liberty is in danger when the court is powerful and engaged, he must not be aware of what was going on when they were full of deference and restraint.
A Leap at the Wheel
When the Justices don’t have the balls to stand up to the mob, they start saying things like this:
We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.
Negroni Please
Buck v. Bell right? Good old Oliver Wendell
A Leap at the Wheel
He wrote it, but he wrote it for eight justices. When the Court won’t stop the Executive and the Legislative branch, you get men with gun facilitating the sterilization of rape victims. You get entire sub-populations put into pens. This is not hyperbole. This is what happens when a justice takes his eye off the prize. Their only job is to stop this kind of shit, which takes both guts and moral clarity. For all his faults, Kennedy had that.
WTF
Their only job is to stop this kind of shit, which takes both guts and moral clarity. For all his faults, Kennedy had that.
I know I’m corpse-fucking a dead thread, but Kelo says no.
Tundra
I read is as more of an indictment of how massively intrusive the government has become that we spend this much energy on SCOTUS decisions. The consequences are huge.
Dr. Fronkensteen
Isn’t that the fault of SCOTUS to begin with?
A Leap at the Wheel
Yes, that is what happens when bad justices sit on the court. If that’s not the definition “important,” nothing is. Their job has always been as a backstop, and some of their predecessors shit the bed. Each time, the Leviathan takes a nibble and grows larger.
Yusef drives a Kia
We are So Screwed……
Hi Tundra!
Tundra
Good afternoon, Yusef. I hope all is well on the roof!
Yusef drives a Kia
Thanks!, easy money today, now I get to wash dishes…….
Hyperion
I agree with him, to an extent, especially if you want to start talking about the lower courts. But, if they have to have that much power, then I’d rather they ruing lefties’s day than mine.
A Leap at the Wheel
I know Kennedy was hated by… well, just about everyone. But there are a lot of Justices that have done a lot more violence to the constitution and to the republic than he did. Not every compromise that both sides hate is a good compromise, but I think he was. He wasn’t a libertarian, but he was worried about liberty and the relationship between the government and the governed. The Gliberatti may not have the same conception of liberty as him, but its better than whatever is going on in the black heart of Alito and Breyer, who only disagree in what color the boot on your neck should be. Honestly, if it was Bork, there would be no McDonald or Heller, which I think is worth keeping in mind.
wdalasio
To some extent, what you’re saying is true. The problem I have with Kennedy is that his worrying about liberty was mighty selective. Even in cases where I agreed with his decision, he seemed (from what I read) to go out of his way to construct arguments that wouldn’t set “the wrong precedent”, even if that meant endorsing pretzel logic.
C. Anacreon
Shouldn’t dis Kennedy for liking him some Steely Dan.
Mexico’s behaviour in all this seems odd to me. Rather than case dispersions on Trump and the right for the USA to deal with its borders as it sees fit, maybe they can focus on what they can do to stem to flow. You know?
Dr. Fronkensteen
Like what? End corruption? Liberalize the economy? Legalize drugs?
Rufus the Monocled
I don’t know like be better overall?
If millions run for another country’s border I’d kinda look at it as a bad thing; a poor reflection of one’s own nation. Mexico has HUGE advantages being close to the USA like Canada does, it should be stable and prosperous. Maybe I’m looking at it all wrong.
Dr. Fronkensteen
The point is I don’t see much motivation of the powers that be to make the changes in Mexico that need to be made to make the best of those advantages. Yes I’m being pessimistic but history tells me I’m right.
Rufus the Monocled
You’re probably right because I don’t see Mexican leadership doing much. I do see them angry with Trump – which is completely unproductive and pointless.
invisible finger
Of course they’re pissed – he cut off the free shit spigot. Now they have to give him something he wants in exchange for us giving them all sorts of stuff. Dems were happy to take Mexicans themselves because votes.
invisible finger
“Mexico has HUGE advantages being close to the USA”
Yes, they have an easy place to dump the people that are a drain on their precious welfare state.
“Poor Mexico….so far from God, so close to America”
The Last American Hero
HUGE doesn’t begin to describe it.
1) Great climate, many scenic areas for tourism.
2) Shares border with most powerful economic military power in wold history, and said power not only doesn’t want to take your shit, but is willing to provide for your national defense and shovel shit tons of aid your way, and engage in mostly free trade.
3) Large areas where shit grow well.
4) Huge amounts of oil.
There is no excuse for that country being a shithole.
R C Dean
Saw a presentation about a year or so ago about Mexico and immigration. Seemed pretty solid, with the gist being that the Mexican economy and demographics are finally “growing up” and looking more like a developed country (smaller families, better GDP per capita, better capital formation, etc.) than an agrarian/undeveloped country.
The drags on this development are the one-two punch of the narcos and the historically corrupt government and heredity “elite”/ruling class. But it gave some room for optimism that Mexico’s natural advantages aren’t being entirely wasted.
Count Potato
It’s basically “silver or lead”. Due to the drug war, officials have two choices. Be corrupt, or get shot.
The Other Kevin
Didn’t the leading candidate in Mexico encourage Mexican citizens to cross the border illegally?
Rufus the Monocled
Yeh like shit like that.
That’s demeaning to the pride of a nation I reckon.
Hyperion
Umm, they are about to elect as president a bonafide full on lefty, of the Chavez, Maduro, Castro ilk. When the shit hits the fan, do you think they want all that anger directed at them? Nope, they’re going to need a place for people to flee to so they don’t wind up hanging from a lamppost.
Yusef drives a Kia
That’s the Fucker who told the Mexicans to Migrate Here, Why do they want there own people to leave?
Build a Wall………..
invisible finger
Plenty of leftists in the U.S. want a sub-section of American citizens – call them “deplorables” – to leave voluntarily.
Myshkin
Plenty of conservatives want that too, honestly.
Rufus the Monocled
Which means the USA needs to get its act together on this issue fast because if Venezuela is any indication of what’s to come, watch out.
R C Dean
About 1mm Venezuelans have left over the last few years, out of a population of @ 31mm.
There’s @ 130mm Mexicans. If there is a collapse/exodus, every one who leaves will come here. If its a proportional number to Venezuela, it will be 4mm in a matter of a year or so. Yeah, we better get our shit together.
Suggestion: we take a leaf from Mexico’s book, and put them on trains north, to Canada.
A Leap at the Wheel
OOOOooooo They said no one was trying to institute the North American Monetary Union, but they are!! You are probably sitting on a pile of Amero’s right now, aren’t you?
Bobarian LMD
Rufus can finally get his “MCGA, eh!” hat.
invisible finger
More like RCGE hat.
(rendez le Canada grand encore)
Bobarian LMD
That would obviously go on the other side.
Bobarian LMD
Or one on each of the ear-flaps.
The Last American Hero
We didn’t build that Transnational Superhighway just for kicks.
J. Frank Parnell
So if Mexico does elect a Chavez-type who turns Mexico into Venezuela, perhaps we can fix the immigration issue with an exchange program.
i.e., we’ll trade one lefty who wants to escape from Drumphitler’s Amerikkka and live in a beautiful Socialist worker’s paradise for one Mexican Kulak.
Lachowsky
Our lefties would never take the deal. They like their brown people to be isolated away from them.
The Last American Hero
I don’t think mowing the lawn or cleaning your toilets is really being isolated.
Rufus the Monocled
When is Ruth gonna pack it in?
Dr. Fronkensteen
Forget it. She’s a lich.
gbob
We just need to find her phylactery.
Endless Mike
That is some pure, uncut nerd humor, right there.
Grummun
::cuts up nerd humor in to lines::
**snoooooooorrt**
Mad Scientist
That sounds like a question only SugarFree can answer adequately.
Hyperion
Yeah, the walking dead is most def SF territory.
SugarFree
Ruth Bader Ginsberg will never die in the conventional sense. She will just continue to get smaller and denser as time goes on, finally compressing to an infinitely small point and then evaporating through the emission of Hawking radiation.
A Leap at the Wheel
There will be nothing left of her but a jabot, a scrunchy, and a pair of fishnet gloves.
BakedPenguin
And Breyer poking the long, black robe like Darth Vader
Mad Scientist
So, we have a few trillion years to go?
SugarFree
She has been shrinking at a pretty incredible rate. They already have to get her judicial robes in the Juniors section.
gbob
Well, I mean, it’s possible that someone may spill a bucket of water on her.
Bobarian LMD
On the last thread someone suggested that the Dems could use Madame Toussaud’s product and some disney animatronics to try to extend her, but I think they already did.
Lachowsky
She’s been dead for like 8 years I think. It doesn’t seem to stop her.
creech
Job for life, no? Seriously, suppose she was incapacitated and bed ridden at Walter Reed? Can she “work from home? Is there any precedent for a SCOTUS justice joining an opinion if he or she wasn’t there to hear the arguments but relied on transcripts? Would a vacancy occur if she was in a long term coma? Would Judge Napolitano care to answer?
It was great watching Keith actually have to answer some of these questions. Sure he completely lied about all of it, but at least viewers got to watch it and realize that he has less credibility than a pro wrestler.
Hyperion
Ellison and Perez are both dedicated commies, that’s what it takes to be in the new leadership of the dem party.
Dr. Fronkensteen
pro wrestler? What do you mean? The sport is pure as the driven snow.
Pope Jimbo
Jesse Ventura was way more honest than Ellison has ever been. I should have checked by privilege before maligning grown men in tights.
Tundra
Best governor of my lifetime.
Weird dude, though.
mexican sharpshooter
I don’t know about that. I find myself agreeing with him more often than I disagree. It’s just when I disagree its because he said something that makes him look like a crackpot.
Which concerns me because I have to consider that one day, I might sound like Jesse Ventura, and that I’m the crackpot.
invisible finger
Every elected official sounds like a crackpot at some point. The only difference is the ones from the elite political class are protected by the media.
Everyone calling for gun control is a crackpot, for example.
Bobarian LMD
Yeah… one day.
Pope Jimbo
Totes agree on him being the best governor I can remember.
The only thing I would worry about is that I know several folks who worked for Brooklyn Park back when he was the mayor and they all hated him. And these were people from both sides of the spectrum. They said he was a nut who couldn’t keep to any plan for more than a couple days.
I’d vote for him again if given the chance though. If for no other reason than to watch the bipartisan comity in our legislature when it came to blocking all his proposals.
A Leap at the Wheel
Its almost like we should stop electing politicians based on the quality of their hair and how personable they are.
nah, that’s crazy talk.
Tundra
Killing those fucking car inspections would get my vote again.
I think I’ve told this story before, but when Jesse was running I mentioned that I was gonna vote for him to my FIL (conservative). He freaked out at me about how irresponsible I was being, etc. Fast forward into his term, FIL and I are sitting in the boat fishing and he says “I was wrong about Ventura – he’s doing great.” He was disappointed that he didn’t run again.
How many of those AG’s who are suing are from states that have a GOP gov (I guess I’m assuming that all the AG’s are Dems)? What would happen if the state AG (D) joins one of these dumb law suits against Trump even if the governor (R) doesn’t want to? Any mechanism to reel them back in?
If not, I think that trying to win AG offices across the nation is really the Hail Mary play for the Dems. They get trounced for most state wide races, but by having the AG seat they can waste a lot of state resources on The Resistance.
Rufus the Monocled
I find this weird given the recent SCOTUS verdict? Aren’t they related?
If we had a GOP gov, would he be able to stop that nonsense? Or can the AG gut her budget to do things like that?
Tundra
However it works, I’m pretty sure we don’t want Keith to win.
Pope Jimbo
I’m still utterly baffled as to why he thinks he can win a statewide race.
He won a cushy seat in the only district that would put up with him. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him lose the primary to some no-name DFL-er.
A Leap at the Wheel
Its not like there’s any horrific material in his past that would turn off a huge swath of the voter base or anything…
A Leap at the Wheel
Different in different states. But generally, when an AG is directly elected, they can set their own agenda I believe. In practice, I think most of the most active AGs are from places like TX, NY, CA. That is, places that are bastions of TeamRed or TeamBlue.
So did Volokh. This will put the direct funding of public sector unions into the hands of the legislatures. Blue states will have it, red states won’t, and purple states will treat it like a football.
Given that state budgets are supposed to be the province of the legislature and not the courts, this is still a move in the right direction.
Rufus the Monocled
Yeh, what’s going on with him? He said the SCOTUS verdict on Trump’s travel ban was terrible.
A Leap at the Wheel
He’s a legal nerd first, second, and third. He’s a libertarian in the far, distant fourth. At least his blogging persona is. You have to interpret what he says through that lens. There are lots of legal nerd arguments about the steps taken to get to the response, and if someone is a legal nerd its those steps and arguments that get them hot under the collar.
Frankly, if you take your desired policy outcomes and then work backwards, that makes you a bad legal nerd. It makes you a normal person, but a bad legal nerd. That’s not what he’s doing.
Rufus the Monocled
I get he’s that way – which is why I enjoy him but didn’t realize how libertarianism fit in that. Thanks.
robc
but his legal nerdism seems to ignore the plain text of the constitution.
R C Dean
This will put the direct funding of public sector unions into the hands of the legislatures.
So, it will make the money laundering more overt.
A Leap at the Wheel
Yes.
A Leap at the Wheel
I don’t mean to suggest that that’s a good end result. Just better than where it was yesterday.
invisible finger
Wouldn’t every broke-ass state like Illinois be cheering the decision? I mean, the police and firefighters are never going to opt-out because mutually assured destruction, but teachers and janitors don’t rely on one another to hold up any end of the bargain.
grrizzly
My partner’s take-home pay (state university) will increase by $1300 annually. The SCOTUS decision directly benefits us.
Well, I suppose that makes the grizzly moniker more illuminating
grrizzly
Actually I’m so distant from the gay bear community that it didn’t even occur to me for years that my handle could be interpreted that way. We have plenty of diversity among gay glibs.
slumbrew
Otter, then.
Mad Scientist
Grizz is buying us all ice cream!
Rufus the Monocled
I LOVE frozen custard!
Michael
No it won’t! The greedy (((paymasters))) will reduce your partner’s income to starvation wages! False consciousness!
Bobarian LMD
Slate’s solution — Completely remove the Union members from the equation and just give the graft money directly to the Democtratic Party union leaders.
A government kickback to itself.
Grumbletarian
Curious how Slate’s solution is to end the requirement that pubsec unions represent all employees whether or not they want union membership.
Oh, wait, it’s not curious, it’s that other thing — obvious.
Grumbletarian
Er, is NOT to end the requirement, blah blah blah.
Pope Jimbo
So the state gives money to the unions directly. They pinky swear it is all for collective bargaining costs and would never use money to run ads for certain candidates who may have been the ones giving them money in the first place?
I don’t like Rush much, but this pretty much confirms his allegations that public unions are just a money laundering scheme for pols.
Thanks. I was happy about this ruling, but now I’m depressed because I see Minnesoda’s future:
1) We love our pubsec union brothers. We have to protect them in these days of the 4th Reich. Let’s implement this direct payment plan.
2) “Educates” us rubes about the plan. “you see if you were making $50K but paying $1K to the union, from now on you will only make $49K but the state will give your union the $1K”
3) Willful idiots will be for the plan
4) As it nears passage, the unions will complain that it isn’t fair to only make $49K (those teachers have to buy their own supplies don’cha know?)
5) A deal will be made that everyone gets to keep their current salary, but wages will be frozen for the next 5 years instead.
6) The very next year, the unions will cry about not being able to get even a COLA raise. They will wail about pubsec workers falling behind.
7) Pols will cave and go back to giving out raises every year.
R C Dean
Pope, I don’t any difference between that and the status quo, really. It pretty much boils down to politicians shoveling money at unions, doesn’t it?
Pope Jimbo
My father is a member of AFSME (state probation officer) and he is always pissed at the union leaders because they are (in his mind) far more interested in seeing the DFL grow in power than they are about bringing home the bacon for union members.
He said that he always wanted a GOP gov and legislature because then the union would push for giant raises in hopes that they could make the GOP look bad. When the DFL is in charge, they won’t do shit to upset the cart.
* You also forgot the part about the unions shoveling money back to the pols to get them re-elected.
whiz
If states do pay unions directly, perhaps they could be kept from making any political contributions, i.e., are only allowed to do collective bargaining. Any members who want to could form a separate political PAC (so they are not being disenfranchised), but that would be separate. You would have to pay close attention to avoid money laundering, but it could be good in the long run.
Gustave Lytton
Good luck with that. A) even in red states, voters will likely get pissy with their money getting directly funneled to unions. B) he who pays the piper, calls the tunes. C) employer unions are illegal under current federal labor law.
Winston
Mexico bans the sale of alcohol on election day
Canada did until recently. Booze is traditional bribe on election day. Also drunken supporters of the losing candidate would sometimes riot.
mexican sharpshooter
Most Americans learn this the hard way while taking a long weekend over 4th of July.
Rebel Scum
I’ve been lit while watching the results of every election since I was old enough. Otherwise it’s lame.
Also why is a Latin American leftist openly advocating emigration of people he (presumably?) likes?
Bobarian LMD
He doesn’t want them to be stuck in some shithole?
Yusef drives a Kia
Cause America has all the Free Shit, and they want there Fuckin human rights eh?
/FREE SHIT FOR ALL!
invisible finger
Every welfare state wants to rid itself of a select minority of its citizens.
Yusef drives a Kia
Mariel Boat lift is what I was thinking…
You want ScarFace, this is how you get ScarFace…
Winston
W.R. Burnett and Ben Hecht have a sad.
Also the real cause of Scarface is Commie Oliver Stone doing lots of cocaine.
C. Anacreon
So you’re saying Oliver Stone would like to introduce you to his little friend?
Pan Zagloba
Remittances don’t happen automatically (yet).
Also he might take a page from late Gaddafi and start charging the US yearly tribute to keep brown people away.
C. Anacreon
The US was paying tributes to Tripoli 200 years ago.
Lachowsky
“reduces the ability of the United States to advocate for human rights around the world.”
I can think of several countries who’s populations would be very happy if we would quit “advocating” for human rights within their borders.
Winston
How dare you question the benevolence of the Liberal World Order!
Winston
So SCOTUS. My concern is that why is SCOTUS so important? Why do five people have so much power? And can change all sorts of laws on a whim. I mean it would be nice if say that they shut down the welfare state and the drug war but they on the other hand could also declare that free speech is obsolete and that elections are undemocratic.
Also Kristen has talked about she thinks that judges are more important than elections. Problem is where are these judges going to come from and who will appoint them?
R C Dean
My concern is that why is SCOTUS so important?
They are a co-equal branch of Leviathan.
Why do five people have so much power?
The same reason one does, or 218 do, or 510 do – also Leviathan.
Winston
I recall a National Review article basically complaining that once Kennedy retires then SCOTUS will be seen as a “Liberal” or “Conservative” court and lose legitimacy from the opposing faction. Again thanks to the Leviathan.
Lachowsky
Because the government is so huge and intrusive, about the only way to roll it back is for one of the branches to start trimming the powers of the other. The legislatures are too beholden to their constituent grifters to ever force meaningful change.
The executive is beholden not only to the people, but also to the deep state and the media who have no desire to see the power of the executive diminished.
The judicial is beholden to only their conscience, and is small enough that one day it may actually possible to get a majority of them that actually give a fuck about liberty and the constitution. It hasn’t happened yet, but the odds are better of getting reform through 9 judges than through either the legislative or executive branch.
Winston
Except said executive branch will nominate said judges and said legislature will have to approve of said judges. Also which law schools will these judges come from?
Winston
Also remember FDR’s court packing scheme? While it failed there was nothing unconstitutional about it and SCOTUS started caving over it and FDR was able to appoint enough of them to swing the court anyway…
wdalasio
I understand the reasoning. But, I have to admit, I’m skeptical. Just as easily as they could develop a love of liberty, they could probably more easily gain a contempt for liberty. An unaccountable elite with an institutional bias toward collegiality and a career path fundamentally rooted in government doesn’t seem like a particularly fertile breeding ground for limited government thinking.
Lachowsky
You’re not wrong. I just think that getting the legislature or the executive to abdicate some of its power is impossible. Getting a court to rule against them is at least feasible, if not likely.
Winston
An unaccountable elite with an institutional bias toward collegiality and a career path fundamentally rooted in government doesn’t seem like a particularly fertile breeding ground for limited government thinking.
Yeah, I’ve been skeptical of libertarian elitism for this very reason. I mean the notion that we could find some bureaucrats and/or intellectuals that when given full powers over all of us will decide to leave alone is something I am pretty skeptical of. Even if we could find some people who really were this and full power did not corrupt but what about their successors? Also how will these TOP MEN deal with their opponents? And what is so libertarian about “listen to your betters” and have no real defence to their elitism than “well we are you betters so shut up!”
Also I am extra skeptical since I read Mencken’s slobbering over Bismarck, the Kaiser and Ludendorff. Mencken’s TOP MEN made some absolutely terrible decisions that eventually lead Germany to complete disaster. And furthermore his slobbering over the Bismarkian welfare state made me wonder if his attacks on the New Deal were anything but distaste for FDR’s non-TOP MEnness? Anyway Mencken does embody of my biggest dislikes of libertarianism: that their attacks on Big Government are nothing more than a desire for Real TOP MEN to rule us or some knee-jerk belief that Foreign TOP MEN are supposedly better than our corrupt incompetent regime.
Dr. Fronkensteen
The framers thought the people would keep their liberties through their elected officials. Since we the people haven’t been doing that the only branch of the Federal government historically that will restrict any part of the government is the Supreme Court.
Winston
The New Deal and Obamacare say otherwise…
Dr. Fronkensteen
Their the only ones that will attempt to restrict the government. Not that they always will. The point is that the Supreme Court is the valve controlling how much or how little Federal Government we’ll have. The other two branches are trying to figure out how much they can expand their power. That’s why the Supreme Court is so powerful.
It’s the greatest thing ever. That stupid fuckhole sowed the wind. Now he can reap the whirlwind…right up his stupid ass.
Tundra
They all think they’ll have a permanent majority. Epic stupidity.
F. Stupidity Jr.
Tony
@tonyggir
22 Nov 2013
More
Replying to @SenatorReid
@SenatorReid
Great job so glad you got rid of filibuster. Now you can get nominations on a majority vote. The Senate works again!!!
This doesn’t read like THE Tony, but I love the short-sightedness.
The Other Kevin
That is one of my pet peeves, Tundra. Once in power, they all think they’re doing such an awesome job that the other party will never win again. And yet, the pendulum swings back, every time.
Tundra
Yeah. The only way anything changes is to start shutting down Federal agencies. I think we can probably do with fewer than 430…
Education and Labor. But I think he needs to roll up Commerce in there.
And combine Interior and Transportation.
For starters.
Mad Scientist
And once you get them all in the same place, build a will around them and fill it with water.
Tundra
Add some sharks with frickin’ laser beams and I think you’re there!
mexican sharpshooter
Add some sharks with frickin’ laser beams and I think you’re there!
I am willing to settle for ill-tempered, mutated sea bass.
Not Adahn
SEA SMITH APPRECIATE BUFFET!
C. Anacreon
Today they announced some major restructuring of the FDA and Dept of Agriculture, putting food stamps under Health and Welfare, which of course makes more sense than having them in a farm bill. And no more “Food and Drug Admin.”, it will now be the “Federal Drug Admin” with food moving to appropriate location. Love it!!
Sean
That made me smile.
mexican sharpshooter
¡Muchas Gracias, Harry!
Pan Zagloba
“Repeate after me: Me today, you tomorrow.”
“Blue…wave?”
“No”
“Permanent majority?”
“No, ‘me today, you tomorrow’!”
“Still not seeing it.”
R C Dean
The fact that Harry Fucking Reid is bitching about this, when he is the one who changed the rules to allow it, is just too, too sweet.
So I was reading the FLQ manifesto. Lots of jibes at trade, immigration taking away good Quebecker jobs, American investment being evil, evil big business and saying that Bourassa and Turdeau Sr. are a bunch of homos. How PC and Trumpist of them. Oh the irony…
Turdeau Sr. was an opponent of NAFTA and complained about American investment in Canada. Two things that Jr. are in favor of supposedly…
Rufus the Monocled
Don’t ever compare what were a bunch of stupid, murderous far left commie fuckheads to the genius that is Trump:
Raymond was the great-grandson of the company founder and even worked there briefly before becoming an actor.
Gustave Lytton
Not quite. Raymond Massey is the greatgrandson of the founder of what would become Ferguson Massey, and his dad & uncles ran the company.
Rufus the Monocled
lol.
I ate that one good. I rarely if ever see those here.
I just want to expand on Pierre. He was trying to get Canada to invest in itself but the reality is – WITH EXCEPTIONS to Massey Ferguson – more often than not the rule was to rely on American capital – it was seen as a surer bet to go with their stamp of approval.
Bobarian LMD
Raymond’s dad Chester Massey was a founder of that company.
What kills me about all of these articles on how to save the pubsec unions is that none of them even question the idea of whether the union deserves to exist at all.
If the union was functioning as well as we are told it was, workers would be glad to chip in their dues. The fact that up to 70% of them don’t when given the chance should tell you a lot.
No union should ever get a chance to collectively bargain with the people whose campaigns they’ve donated to. Never, ever, ever. The entire concept is absurd and it’s a point conservatives and libertarians fail to bring up way too often.
Breet Pharara
“If the union was functioning as well as we are told it was, workers would be glad to chip in their dues.”
Basically this.
When iTunes was starting up, I remember people saying it wouldn’t work because you can just download all that stuff for free. Torrenting hasn’t gotten any harder, yet iTunes still draws money. Most people are completely willing to give money to something if they feel they are getting value from it, even when they can get the value for free. I don’t see why unions would be any different. I know I’d have no problem paying dues if (big IF) I thought the union was making my life better, even if I wasn’t required to.
R C Dean
none of them even question the idea of whether the union deserves to exist at all.
Someone with a twatter account should post some of the FDR quotes about government unions (he was opposed), and see what happens when you reveal that was FDR speaking, not (say) Scott Walker.
Rebel Scum
Government unions should never have been allowed because of the conflict of interest. In the private sector, if the employer or union negotiates too hard, everyone loses. This is not so in an industry (gov’t) that has a monopoly on violence.
whiz
As I mentioned elsewhere, pubsec unions might be acceptable if they were only allowed to collectively bargain, but not lobby or make political contributions. Union members who want to be active politically can form a separate PAC if they wish, but nobody would be forced to.
If I were Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch or Roberts, I’d hire a good taster and some Blackwater guys the minute a Dem is back in the WH.
I’m just saying…if you think the political climate is dangerous right now with some prominent leftists all but calling for violence, it’ll get a shitload worse then.
mexican sharpshooter
Aren’t federal judges already given protection from the US Marshalls?
Lachowsky
Who are under the directive of the executive…
mexican sharpshooter
Fair point
RAHeinlein
+1 Pelican Brief
Rebel Scum
it’ll get a shitload worse then.
Assuming strict constitutionalists appointed to the bench maintain their ostensible strict constitutionalism causing a return to some semblance of limited government, that is.
I hope they do a better job of implementation then we have. It’s been nearly 2 years since arkansas passed medical marijuana and there is still not one single grower or dispensary in the state. No licenses have been issued because the right palms haven’t been greased by the right people.
Not Adahn
Native Oklahoman, long time Texas Resident here.
Oklahomans remain the most polite and tolerant people I’ve met, especially compared to Texans. Compare a supermarket parking lot in OK and TX, and the one in OK will have all the carts put away while the one in TX will have carts left in the nearest location not likely to roll into the departing customer’s car. Working the renfair circuit, I saw some harassment of… non-gender conforming rennies by patrons at TX fairs, but none in OK. Not necessarily because they are more LGBT- friendly, but I think because the idea of “Mind your own business” still applies in much of the state there.
But holy fuckballs the OK govt is terrible, so much worse than TX.
I am convinced it’s because the TX leg is part time, whereas the OK one is full time. So you’ve got a self-selecting pool of busybodies working year round with few actual problems to fix.
Winston
Tell me Rufus what do you think of Quebec Solidaire? Also it looks like the CAQ might win in October…
Rufus the Monocled
They’re socialists. Like, real hard core. What do you think I think of them?
Yes, CAQ have momentum but I gotta say I like how the Liberals handled the economy. And they flat out said 15hr/min wage is impractical.
C. Anacreon
It would be great if opponents created bumper stickers saying “SUCK CAQ”
Winston
Speaking of Raymond Massey I recently saw 49th Parallel/The Invaders of TCM Monday night. Massey appears at the end playing a AWOL Canadian soldier on train a going over the border at Niagara Falls (oh the irony). He actually gets to play a Canadian! And a bit of goofball yokel which is not the sort of character he usually played even as when he was a good guy. He also speaks with a broader accent then he normally did such as saying “Toronto” like “Toronno”.
So on my ride home I realized that there’s a chance that Trump may wind up being one of the most influential presidents for a long time. Two Supreme Court nominations already, with a chance of two more in the next 6 years. I also realized what the ultimate punishment for Obama may be… appointing him to the supreme court with 6 strict Constitutionalists. He would be basically powerless, while not being able to do anything about it.
The Last American Hero
Ultimate punishment for Obama would be shunning.
mexican sharpshooter
No. Forgetting about him altogether.
Florida Man
Who?
mexican sharpshooter
Exactly.
C. Anacreon
Let’s forget him better still….
/Tommy
R C Dean
I think there’s a very real possibility that Trump gets three in his first term alone. Consider:
Justice Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg is 85 (DOB: 15 March, 1933).
Justice Stephen Gerald Breyer is 79 (DOB: 14 August 1938).
And those are just the two oldest. Thomas and Alito are also in their late 60s, but replacing them would be unlikely to result in much of an improvement.
Nephilium
Just looked it up. Reagan and Nixon were the last to have more then 2 confirmed appointments. And (at least according to Wikipedia) Garland was the last nominee who was a “Democrat” replacing a “Republican”.
Rebel Scum
violated the due process rights of parents and children who were separated.
The parents are being arrested for a crime and given due process via prosecution. The children are necessarily “separated” (housed and given food/clothing/toiletries/etc…) for their protection.
**blood pressure rising at shear lack of honesty**
Breet Pharara
“violated the due process rights of parents and children who were separated.”
So when does the convicted rapist get released to be with his children? It’s the logical continuation of this view.
Breet Pharara
Sorry, I guess the logical conclusion would be: when does the accused rapist who is a massive flight risk get to be reunited with his children. Once convicted the Due process is given.
Rebel Scum
It’s the logical continuation
Through years of research, observation and debate I have determined that “logic” is not a leftist’s strong point.
R C Dean
the due process rights of parents and children who were separated.
What Rebel said. Due process doesn’t apply to the outcome (parents and children separated). It applies to what happens before the outcome. There is no conceivable “due process” right that gets you to “parents and children must be reunited after 30 days”. That’s outcome, not process.
Honestly, I think a lot of people just use words like “due process” as shibboleths. They don’t have any understanding of their meaning, but they throw them out there because they have a vague idea that it sounds good.
I guess if anyone runs this past me, I’ll ask them what hearings, filings, etc. they think need to be put in place to give due process. Of course, nobody pushing this gives a shit about process; they only care about the outcome, so the sputtering should be at least mildly entertaining.
J. Frank Parnell
Wait, last I heard “due process” was code for “letting right-wing terrorists buy as many AK-15 Machine Guns as they wanted”… did they change the definition again? I can’t keep up.
Shit. I just realized the Kennedy retirement announcement took all the air out of the Strozk testimony. That sucks. Does anybody have any insight on what was said?
mexican sharpshooter
Here is the WAPO article on the subject. TW: WAPO.
Breet Pharara
Without clicking…”questioning the FBI integrity is dangerous to the very institution of democracy and the US. My texts were out of context and I have a perfect FBI record therefor trust me.”
Can you imagine a Supreme Court decision written as a series of questions?
This Machine
So I guess word on the streets is Trump’s potential pick for SCOTUS is the guy who wrote the dissenting opinion saying the CFPB is unconstitutional. So far, so good.
[two dissenting judges] argue that constraining the ability of the President to remove the head of an agency like the CFPB unduly constrains executive power … Judge Henderson [argued that] first principles must control… [and] argues the CFPB should be invalidated in its entirety.
I’m guessing that judge? Judge Karen Henderson – oppose her nomination, you misogynists!
SoberPhobic
74YO ? i’m gonna lean not
slumbrew
Whoops, missed that fact. Love her thinking, but that’s disqualifying, I’m sure. The other dissenting judge’s thinking was far squishier (“precedent” and “just remove that bit”)…
I’m not sure how “staunch” of a conservative judge he is, based on the the thinking displayed in the dissent Volokh wrote about.
SoberPhobic
I want gnashing of teeth, clawing of hair kind of conservative. Not just the “normal” screeching.
slate has already claimed that new justice “ensures” roe overturned. That’s just not good enough.
Grumbletarian
I want Janice Rogers Brown for the epic lulz of watching progs attack a woman of color and still pretend to be holding the high ground over it.
whiz
Yes, she would be epic; too bad she’s 69.
Semi-Spartan Dad
So it seems like McConnell is going to hold the vote at the end of September, before the midterms.
I find it interesting how prior to that statement all of the articles I read initially talked about how this vote will reshape the midterms… now that midterm language is all dropped. I couldn’t figure out what possible reason there would be for postponing the vote until afterwards. I’m going to take the least generous interpretation that the media were just being partisan shit stains as usual.
R C Dean
The Court reconvenes in October, so there is a good reason to get the new Justice seated in September.
Nikki BAEley?️
Nikki BAEley?️
@libertarianQN
Replying to @JusticeWillett
I look forward to Democrats’ ridiculous questions about Eminem at your eventual SCOTUS confirmation hearings.
KibbledKristen
LOL!
Count Potato
It looks like he hasn’t tweeted in a long time.
KibbledKristen
No – only once or twice since his nom to the 5th circuit, and those were “serious” Tweets. I can’t seem him getting back on Twitter if he gets SCOTUS. But I’d rather have him on the court than read his Tweets, any day.
In a psychodrama deployed on a giant scale on the US-Mexico border, the government of President Donald Trump is separating immigrant children from their parents and keeping them in custody. The officials explain it as a policy of “zero tolerance” against those who arrive in the country illegally. For me, as Trump’s biographer, it is a recreation of the president’s own childhood trauma and anecdotal evidence that an abusive attitude towards children can pass from one generation to another. […]
Comments
269 responses to “¡El miércoles Enlaces por la tarde reemplazando a BrettL!”
It also generates a moral trauma to American citizens who want to believe that their nation represents something better.
– For those of us who pay attention to all the wars we’re involved in, that ship sailed long ago.
Fearing a Venezuela on our border traumatizes me a bit more than that.
People refuse to learn the lesson – every socialist hellhole requires a large enough place or places to discard its deplorables. In other words – enablers. The rest of the world taking in Hitler’s untermesnch only prolonged Hitler’s grip on power. When the enablers say “no”, the socialist hellhole has no choice but to deploy the inevitable mass murder inherent in its ideology. Better to let such evil show itself as soon as possible instead of providing cover for it.
What wars?
/progressives recalling Obamas 2 terms
Involved in yes, But I should think the conduct of them is a bit better than most, if not all. I dug wells, built schools and handed out relief supplies (some sent voluntarily, some with your dollars, O, tax cattle) where the USSR killed, maimed, burned and destroyed.
I don’t like that we are places that we should have finished with a long time ago…but we ain’t exactly salting the Earth.
“critics despise him for not speaking English and having taken more than 10 years in finish the public university.”
Former bus driver?
Tuition really is expensive, even for strippers
So a ten term Dem power broker got ousted by a commie. SCOTUS punched unions in the dick and will now get more “conservative”
good day for liberal tears
Based on some of the articles from the morning links and some of those posted in the comments they’ve dialed up the autistic screeching to 12
What’s really sort of amusing is that a few of them, the ones that are not currently screeching at the sky in impotent rage, think that the dems can just make some argument that the GOP cannot nominate a new justice this close to an election. It’s totes OK though to continue with some bogus Russian collusion witch hunt though, right up until the election. Fortunately, that will not work on Trump, he’ll do it just to piss them off and McConnell will have to get it done.
They’ve already made that argument, conveniently forgetting that traditionally the Senate doesn’t approve new SCOTUS Justices this close to a Presidential election, not a mid-term election.
Considering one or other happens every two years, that wouldn’t leave much time to approve justices. I can only be done on odd-numbered years.
Instead of receiving the care that needy strangers deserve, immigrant families are enduring the kind of treatment that reduces the ability of the United States to advocate for human rights around the world.
GFY. Why don’t you take care of them?
The beauty of collectivism is that it’s always someone else’s job.
What difference, at this point, does it make?
“Instead of receiving the care that needy strangers deserve”
Why do they deserve that for intentionally breaking our laws? Basically, this is saying that all you have to do is make it across the border and you ‘deserve’ taking care of. Horseshit, that won’t work anywhere else besides the US and Europe. But in case no one believes that, just walk into Mexico, go up to the authorities and demand being taken care of. If you like being inside a Mexican prison and probably having your family back home extorted to get you out, then go for it.
They are given food and shelter, and their children are protected from living in a potentially dangerous place. Sounds like the care that needy strangers deserve to me.
¿Sabes quién más hizo este gesto?
Francisco Franco (still dead)?
The Kennedy thing is potentially great, but our pal Massie provides an important reminder.
Massie is wrong. If he thinks liberty is in danger when the court is powerful and engaged, he must not be aware of what was going on when they were full of deference and restraint.
When the Justices don’t have the balls to stand up to the mob, they start saying things like this:
Buck v. Bell right? Good old Oliver Wendell
He wrote it, but he wrote it for eight justices. When the Court won’t stop the Executive and the Legislative branch, you get men with gun facilitating the sterilization of rape victims. You get entire sub-populations put into pens. This is not hyperbole. This is what happens when a justice takes his eye off the prize. Their only job is to stop this kind of shit, which takes both guts and moral clarity. For all his faults, Kennedy had that.
Their only job is to stop this kind of shit, which takes both guts and moral clarity. For all his faults, Kennedy had that.
I know I’m corpse-fucking a dead thread, but Kelo says no.
I read is as more of an indictment of how massively intrusive the government has become that we spend this much energy on SCOTUS decisions. The consequences are huge.
Isn’t that the fault of SCOTUS to begin with?
Yes, that is what happens when bad justices sit on the court. If that’s not the definition “important,” nothing is. Their job has always been as a backstop, and some of their predecessors shit the bed. Each time, the Leviathan takes a nibble and grows larger.
We are So Screwed……
Hi Tundra!
Good afternoon, Yusef. I hope all is well on the roof!
Thanks!, easy money today, now I get to wash dishes…….
I agree with him, to an extent, especially if you want to start talking about the lower courts. But, if they have to have that much power, then I’d rather they ruing lefties’s day than mine.
I know Kennedy was hated by… well, just about everyone. But there are a lot of Justices that have done a lot more violence to the constitution and to the republic than he did. Not every compromise that both sides hate is a good compromise, but I think he was. He wasn’t a libertarian, but he was worried about liberty and the relationship between the government and the governed. The Gliberatti may not have the same conception of liberty as him, but its better than whatever is going on in the black heart of Alito and Breyer, who only disagree in what color the boot on your neck should be. Honestly, if it was Bork, there would be no McDonald or Heller, which I think is worth keeping in mind.
To some extent, what you’re saying is true. The problem I have with Kennedy is that his worrying about liberty was mighty selective. Even in cases where I agreed with his decision, he seemed (from what I read) to go out of his way to construct arguments that wouldn’t set “the wrong precedent”, even if that meant endorsing pretzel logic.
Shouldn’t dis Kennedy for liking him some Steely Dan.
agreed
¿Sabes quién más hizo este gesto?
Bellamy.
Mexico’s behaviour in all this seems odd to me. Rather than case dispersions on Trump and the right for the USA to deal with its borders as it sees fit, maybe they can focus on what they can do to stem to flow. You know?
Like what? End corruption? Liberalize the economy? Legalize drugs?
I don’t know like be better overall?
If millions run for another country’s border I’d kinda look at it as a bad thing; a poor reflection of one’s own nation. Mexico has HUGE advantages being close to the USA like Canada does, it should be stable and prosperous. Maybe I’m looking at it all wrong.
The point is I don’t see much motivation of the powers that be to make the changes in Mexico that need to be made to make the best of those advantages. Yes I’m being pessimistic but history tells me I’m right.
You’re probably right because I don’t see Mexican leadership doing much. I do see them angry with Trump – which is completely unproductive and pointless.
Of course they’re pissed – he cut off the free shit spigot. Now they have to give him something he wants in exchange for us giving them all sorts of stuff. Dems were happy to take Mexicans themselves because votes.
“Mexico has HUGE advantages being close to the USA”
Yes, they have an easy place to dump the people that are a drain on their precious welfare state.
“Poor Mexico….so far from God, so close to America”
HUGE doesn’t begin to describe it.
1) Great climate, many scenic areas for tourism.
2) Shares border with most powerful economic military power in wold history, and said power not only doesn’t want to take your shit, but is willing to provide for your national defense and shovel shit tons of aid your way, and engage in mostly free trade.
3) Large areas where shit grow well.
4) Huge amounts of oil.
There is no excuse for that country being a shithole.
Saw a presentation about a year or so ago about Mexico and immigration. Seemed pretty solid, with the gist being that the Mexican economy and demographics are finally “growing up” and looking more like a developed country (smaller families, better GDP per capita, better capital formation, etc.) than an agrarian/undeveloped country.
The drags on this development are the one-two punch of the narcos and the historically corrupt government and heredity “elite”/ruling class. But it gave some room for optimism that Mexico’s natural advantages aren’t being entirely wasted.
It’s basically “silver or lead”. Due to the drug war, officials have two choices. Be corrupt, or get shot.
Didn’t the leading candidate in Mexico encourage Mexican citizens to cross the border illegally?
Yeh like shit like that.
That’s demeaning to the pride of a nation I reckon.
Umm, they are about to elect as president a bonafide full on lefty, of the Chavez, Maduro, Castro ilk. When the shit hits the fan, do you think they want all that anger directed at them? Nope, they’re going to need a place for people to flee to so they don’t wind up hanging from a lamppost.
That’s the Fucker who told the Mexicans to Migrate Here, Why do they want there own people to leave?
Build a Wall………..
Plenty of leftists in the U.S. want a sub-section of American citizens – call them “deplorables” – to leave voluntarily.
Plenty of conservatives want that too, honestly.
Which means the USA needs to get its act together on this issue fast because if Venezuela is any indication of what’s to come, watch out.
About 1mm Venezuelans have left over the last few years, out of a population of @ 31mm.
There’s @ 130mm Mexicans. If there is a collapse/exodus, every one who leaves will come here. If its a proportional number to Venezuela, it will be 4mm in a matter of a year or so. Yeah, we better get our shit together.
Suggestion: we take a leaf from Mexico’s book, and put them on trains north, to Canada.
OOOOooooo They said no one was trying to institute the North American Monetary Union, but they are!! You are probably sitting on a pile of Amero’s right now, aren’t you?
Rufus can finally get his “MCGA, eh!” hat.
More like RCGE hat.
(rendez le Canada grand encore)
That would obviously go on the other side.
Or one on each of the ear-flaps.
We didn’t build that Transnational Superhighway just for kicks.
So if Mexico does elect a Chavez-type who turns Mexico into Venezuela, perhaps we can fix the immigration issue with an exchange program.
i.e., we’ll trade one lefty who wants to escape from Drumphitler’s Amerikkka and live in a beautiful Socialist worker’s paradise for one Mexican Kulak.
Our lefties would never take the deal. They like their brown people to be isolated away from them.
I don’t think mowing the lawn or cleaning your toilets is really being isolated.
When is Ruth gonna pack it in?
Forget it. She’s a lich.
We just need to find her phylactery.
That is some pure, uncut nerd humor, right there.
::cuts up nerd humor in to lines::
**snoooooooorrt**
That sounds like a question only SugarFree can answer adequately.
Yeah, the walking dead is most def SF territory.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg will never die in the conventional sense. She will just continue to get smaller and denser as time goes on, finally compressing to an infinitely small point and then evaporating through the emission of Hawking radiation.
There will be nothing left of her but a jabot, a scrunchy, and a pair of fishnet gloves.
And Breyer poking the long, black robe like Darth Vader
So, we have a few trillion years to go?
She has been shrinking at a pretty incredible rate. They already have to get her judicial robes in the Juniors section.
Well, I mean, it’s possible that someone may spill a bucket of water on her.
On the last thread someone suggested that the Dems could use Madame Toussaud’s product and some disney animatronics to try to extend her, but I think they already did.
She’s been dead for like 8 years I think. It doesn’t seem to stop her.
Job for life, no? Seriously, suppose she was incapacitated and bed ridden at Walter Reed? Can she “work from home? Is there any precedent for a SCOTUS justice joining an opinion if he or she wasn’t there to hear the arguments but relied on transcripts? Would a vacancy occur if she was in a long term coma? Would Judge Napolitano care to answer?
William O. Douglas.
Well, if she’s at Walter Reed, she won’t last long.
10 Years of college? The was no draft. Anyway obligatory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjIH1jdx2_A
Ha! I was expecting this.
I want pie now.
Does Pie want you to want him?
Maybe you can write her?
Like a mini version of Libya,
KhadafiKeith Ellison learns that it is not a good idea to give up yourWMD’sseat in Congress.CNN’S Jake Tapper gets pretty frontal with Brother Keith about his relationship with Farrakan.
The local guys at Powerline are on the case with specifics on Keith’s lies.
It was great watching Keith actually have to answer some of these questions. Sure he completely lied about all of it, but at least viewers got to watch it and realize that he has less credibility than a pro wrestler.
Ellison and Perez are both dedicated commies, that’s what it takes to be in the new leadership of the dem party.
pro wrestler? What do you mean? The sport is pure as the driven snow.
Jesse Ventura was way more honest than Ellison has ever been. I should have checked by privilege before maligning grown men in tights.
Best governor of my lifetime.
Weird dude, though.
I don’t know about that. I find myself agreeing with him more often than I disagree. It’s just when I disagree its because he said something that makes him look like a crackpot.
Which concerns me because I have to consider that one day, I might sound like Jesse Ventura, and that I’m the crackpot.
Every elected official sounds like a crackpot at some point. The only difference is the ones from the elite political class are protected by the media.
Everyone calling for gun control is a crackpot, for example.
Yeah… one day.
Totes agree on him being the best governor I can remember.
The only thing I would worry about is that I know several folks who worked for Brooklyn Park back when he was the mayor and they all hated him. And these were people from both sides of the spectrum. They said he was a nut who couldn’t keep to any plan for more than a couple days.
I’d vote for him again if given the chance though. If for no other reason than to watch the bipartisan comity in our legislature when it came to blocking all his proposals.
Its almost like we should stop electing politicians based on the quality of their hair and how personable they are.
nah, that’s crazy talk.
Killing those fucking car inspections would get my vote again.
I think I’ve told this story before, but when Jesse was running I mentioned that I was gonna vote for him to my FIL (conservative). He freaked out at me about how irresponsible I was being, etc. Fast forward into his term, FIL and I are sitting in the boat fishing and he says “I was wrong about Ventura – he’s doing great.” He was disappointed that he didn’t run again.
Of course it is!
/doesn’t want to end up like John Stossel
These. Never. Get. Old.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8Od4oPBhuM
How many of those AG’s who are suing are from states that have a GOP gov (I guess I’m assuming that all the AG’s are Dems)? What would happen if the state AG (D) joins one of these dumb law suits against Trump even if the governor (R) doesn’t want to? Any mechanism to reel them back in?
If not, I think that trying to win AG offices across the nation is really the Hail Mary play for the Dems. They get trounced for most state wide races, but by having the AG seat they can waste a lot of state resources on The Resistance.
I find this weird given the recent SCOTUS verdict? Aren’t they related?
I was talking mostly in general. For instance, our beacon of righteousness Lori Swanson (Minnesoda’s AG) is joining the suit over the FCC’s NN laws.
If we had a GOP gov, would he be able to stop that nonsense? Or can the AG gut her budget to do things like that?
However it works, I’m pretty sure we don’t want Keith to win.
I’m still utterly baffled as to why he thinks he can win a statewide race.
He won a cushy seat in the only district that would put up with him. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him lose the primary to some no-name DFL-er.
Its not like there’s any horrific material in his past that would turn off a huge swath of the voter base or anything…
Different in different states. But generally, when an AG is directly elected, they can set their own agenda I believe. In practice, I think most of the most active AGs are from places like TX, NY, CA. That is, places that are bastions of TeamRed or TeamBlue.
I think TN is the only state without an elected AG.
A quick web search tells me that there are 7 appointed state AGs.
Incorrect. NH is appointed.
Any mechanism to reel them back in?
Legal/administrative, probably not.
Political, since AGs are elected? Maybe. Start campaigning against them, is probably about the only recourse.
Hello Glibs, since so many of you insist on listening to the wrong music, here is some of the correct music for you to put in your ear hole.
I managed 6 minutes, when the singing kicked back in on track 3 I couldn’t take it anymore.
Funny, I don’t remember ever hearing of that band, but I had about 4 or 5 of the albums on the sidebar as a kid.
You may enjoy: https://www.reddit.com/r/Metal/comments/1vwydp/marcos_guide_to_united_states_power_metal_uspm/
Interesting, but I can’t believe he picked Riot’s Thundersteel over Fire Down Under.
Slate ate, like, a whole bag of ‘shrooms.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/supreme-courts-janus-decision-how-blue-states-can-still-save-public-sector-unions.html
So did Volokh. This will put the direct funding of public sector unions into the hands of the legislatures. Blue states will have it, red states won’t, and purple states will treat it like a football.
Given that state budgets are supposed to be the province of the legislature and not the courts, this is still a move in the right direction.
Yeh, what’s going on with him? He said the SCOTUS verdict on Trump’s travel ban was terrible.
He’s a legal nerd first, second, and third. He’s a libertarian in the far, distant fourth. At least his blogging persona is. You have to interpret what he says through that lens. There are lots of legal nerd arguments about the steps taken to get to the response, and if someone is a legal nerd its those steps and arguments that get them hot under the collar.
Frankly, if you take your desired policy outcomes and then work backwards, that makes you a bad legal nerd. It makes you a normal person, but a bad legal nerd. That’s not what he’s doing.
I get he’s that way – which is why I enjoy him but didn’t realize how libertarianism fit in that. Thanks.
but his legal nerdism seems to ignore the plain text of the constitution.
This will put the direct funding of public sector unions into the hands of the legislatures.
So, it will make the money laundering more overt.
Yes.
I don’t mean to suggest that that’s a good end result. Just better than where it was yesterday.
Wouldn’t every broke-ass state like Illinois be cheering the decision? I mean, the police and firefighters are never going to opt-out because mutually assured destruction, but teachers and janitors don’t rely on one another to hold up any end of the bargain.
My partner’s take-home pay (state university) will increase by $1300 annually. The SCOTUS decision directly benefits us.
Bah, that is just crumbs. 😉
Mama Grizzly is bringing the salmon home.
I don’t think there’s a Mama Grizzly. 😉
Somebody is paying attention at home.
Xe Grizzly?
Well, I suppose that makes the grizzly moniker more illuminating
Actually I’m so distant from the gay bear community that it didn’t even occur to me for years that my handle could be interpreted that way. We have plenty of diversity among gay glibs.
Otter, then.
Grizz is buying us all ice cream!
I LOVE frozen custard!
No it won’t! The greedy (((paymasters))) will reduce your partner’s income to starvation wages! False consciousness!
Slate’s solution — Completely remove the Union members from the equation and just give the graft money directly to the
Democtratic Partyunion leaders.A government kickback to itself.
Curious how Slate’s solution is to end the requirement that pubsec unions represent all employees whether or not they want union membership.
Oh, wait, it’s not curious, it’s that other thing — obvious.
Er, is NOT to end the requirement, blah blah blah.
So the state gives money to the unions directly. They pinky swear it is all for collective bargaining costs and would never use money to run ads for certain candidates who may have been the ones giving them money in the first place?
I don’t like Rush much, but this pretty much confirms his allegations that public unions are just a money laundering scheme for pols.
Thanks. I was happy about this ruling, but now I’m depressed because I see Minnesoda’s future:
1) We love our pubsec union brothers. We have to protect them in these days of the 4th Reich. Let’s implement this direct payment plan.
2) “Educates” us rubes about the plan. “you see if you were making $50K but paying $1K to the union, from now on you will only make $49K but the state will give your union the $1K”
3) Willful idiots will be for the plan
4) As it nears passage, the unions will complain that it isn’t fair to only make $49K (those teachers have to buy their own supplies don’cha know?)
5) A deal will be made that everyone gets to keep their current salary, but wages will be frozen for the next 5 years instead.
6) The very next year, the unions will cry about not being able to get even a COLA raise. They will wail about pubsec workers falling behind.
7) Pols will cave and go back to giving out raises every year.
Pope, I don’t any difference between that and the status quo, really. It pretty much boils down to politicians shoveling money at unions, doesn’t it?
My father is a member of AFSME (state probation officer) and he is always pissed at the union leaders because they are (in his mind) far more interested in seeing the DFL grow in power than they are about bringing home the bacon for union members.
He said that he always wanted a GOP gov and legislature because then the union would push for giant raises in hopes that they could make the GOP look bad. When the DFL is in charge, they won’t do shit to upset the cart.
* You also forgot the part about the unions shoveling money back to the pols to get them re-elected.
If states do pay unions directly, perhaps they could be kept from making any political contributions, i.e., are only allowed to do collective bargaining. Any members who want to could form a separate political PAC (so they are not being disenfranchised), but that would be separate. You would have to pay close attention to avoid money laundering, but it could be good in the long run.
Good luck with that. A) even in red states, voters will likely get pissy with their money getting directly funneled to unions. B) he who pays the piper, calls the tunes. C) employer unions are illegal under current federal labor law.
Canada did until recently. Booze is traditional bribe on election day. Also drunken supporters of the losing candidate would sometimes riot.
Most Americans learn this the hard way while taking a long weekend over 4th of July.
I’ve been lit while watching the results of every election since I was old enough. Otherwise it’s lame.
^THIS^
Does this warm Rufus’ heart?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_the_Parliament_Buildings_in_Montreal
It would probably work well to warm his hands.
All I know is the Lafontaine Tunnel is the worst.
Also why is a Latin American leftist openly advocating emigration of people he (presumably?) likes?
He doesn’t want them to be stuck in some shithole?
Cause America has all the Free Shit, and they want there Fuckin human rights eh?
/FREE SHIT FOR ALL!
Every welfare state wants to rid itself of a select minority of its citizens.
Mariel Boat lift is what I was thinking…
You want ScarFace, this is how you get ScarFace…
W.R. Burnett and Ben Hecht have a sad.
Also the real cause of Scarface is Commie Oliver Stone doing lots of cocaine.
So you’re saying Oliver Stone would like to introduce you to his little friend?
Remittances don’t happen automatically (yet).
Also he might take a page from late Gaddafi and start charging the US yearly tribute to keep brown people away.
The US was paying tributes to Tripoli 200 years ago.
“reduces the ability of the United States to advocate for human rights around the world.”
I can think of several countries who’s populations would be very happy if we would quit “advocating” for human rights within their borders.
How dare you question the benevolence of the Liberal World Order!
So SCOTUS. My concern is that why is SCOTUS so important? Why do five people have so much power? And can change all sorts of laws on a whim. I mean it would be nice if say that they shut down the welfare state and the drug war but they on the other hand could also declare that free speech is obsolete and that elections are undemocratic.
Also Kristen has talked about she thinks that judges are more important than elections. Problem is where are these judges going to come from and who will appoint them?
My concern is that why is SCOTUS so important?
They are a co-equal branch of Leviathan.
Why do five people have so much power?
The same reason one does, or 218 do, or 510 do – also Leviathan.
I recall a National Review article basically complaining that once Kennedy retires then SCOTUS will be seen as a “Liberal” or “Conservative” court and lose legitimacy from the opposing faction. Again thanks to the Leviathan.
Because the government is so huge and intrusive, about the only way to roll it back is for one of the branches to start trimming the powers of the other. The legislatures are too beholden to their constituent grifters to ever force meaningful change.
The executive is beholden not only to the people, but also to the deep state and the media who have no desire to see the power of the executive diminished.
The judicial is beholden to only their conscience, and is small enough that one day it may actually possible to get a majority of them that actually give a fuck about liberty and the constitution. It hasn’t happened yet, but the odds are better of getting reform through 9 judges than through either the legislative or executive branch.
Except said executive branch will nominate said judges and said legislature will have to approve of said judges. Also which law schools will these judges come from?
Also remember FDR’s court packing scheme? While it failed there was nothing unconstitutional about it and SCOTUS started caving over it and FDR was able to appoint enough of them to swing the court anyway…
I understand the reasoning. But, I have to admit, I’m skeptical. Just as easily as they could develop a love of liberty, they could probably more easily gain a contempt for liberty. An unaccountable elite with an institutional bias toward collegiality and a career path fundamentally rooted in government doesn’t seem like a particularly fertile breeding ground for limited government thinking.
You’re not wrong. I just think that getting the legislature or the executive to abdicate some of its power is impossible. Getting a court to rule against them is at least feasible, if not likely.
Yeah, I’ve been skeptical of libertarian elitism for this very reason. I mean the notion that we could find some bureaucrats and/or intellectuals that when given full powers over all of us will decide to leave alone is something I am pretty skeptical of. Even if we could find some people who really were this and full power did not corrupt but what about their successors? Also how will these TOP MEN deal with their opponents? And what is so libertarian about “listen to your betters” and have no real defence to their elitism than “well we are you betters so shut up!”
Also I am extra skeptical since I read Mencken’s slobbering over Bismarck, the Kaiser and Ludendorff. Mencken’s TOP MEN made some absolutely terrible decisions that eventually lead Germany to complete disaster. And furthermore his slobbering over the Bismarkian welfare state made me wonder if his attacks on the New Deal were anything but distaste for FDR’s non-TOP MEnness? Anyway Mencken does embody of my biggest dislikes of libertarianism: that their attacks on Big Government are nothing more than a desire for Real TOP MEN to rule us or some knee-jerk belief that Foreign TOP MEN are supposedly better than our corrupt incompetent regime.
The framers thought the people would keep their liberties through their elected officials. Since we the people haven’t been doing that the only branch of the Federal government historically that will restrict any part of the government is the Supreme Court.
The New Deal and Obamacare say otherwise…
Their the only ones that will attempt to restrict the government. Not that they always will. The point is that the Supreme Court is the valve controlling how much or how little Federal Government we’ll have. The other two branches are trying to figure out how much they can expand their power. That’s why the Supreme Court is so powerful.
They’re
Has this been posted yet? I just scrolled to the bottom.
https://twitter.com/senatorreid/status/403615847190921216?s=21
Priceless.
It’s the greatest thing ever. That stupid fuckhole sowed the wind. Now he can reap the whirlwind…right up his stupid ass.
They all think they’ll have a permanent majority. Epic stupidity.
This doesn’t read like THE Tony, but I love the short-sightedness.
That is one of my pet peeves, Tundra. Once in power, they all think they’re doing such an awesome job that the other party will never win again. And yet, the pendulum swings back, every time.
Yeah. The only way anything changes is to start shutting down Federal agencies. I think we can probably do with fewer than 430…
Agencies? Shut down entire departments.
Works for me. Wasn’t Literally Hitler talking about combining a couple? It would be a start.
Education and Labor. But I think he needs to roll up Commerce in there.
And combine Interior and Transportation.
For starters.
And once you get them all in the same place, build a will around them and fill it with water.
Add some sharks with frickin’ laser beams and I think you’re there!
Add some sharks with frickin’ laser beams and I think you’re there!
I am willing to settle for ill-tempered, mutated sea bass.
SEA SMITH APPRECIATE BUFFET!
Today they announced some major restructuring of the FDA and Dept of Agriculture, putting food stamps under Health and Welfare, which of course makes more sense than having them in a farm bill. And no more “Food and Drug Admin.”, it will now be the “Federal Drug Admin” with food moving to appropriate location. Love it!!
That made me smile.
¡Muchas Gracias, Harry!
“Repeate after me: Me today, you tomorrow.”
“Blue…wave?”
“No”
“Permanent majority?”
“No, ‘me today, you tomorrow’!”
“Still not seeing it.”
The fact that Harry Fucking Reid is bitching about this, when he is the one who changed the rules to allow it, is just too, too sweet.
Aged like a fine egg.
McConnel has been consistent.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/21/harry-reid-senate-rules-republican-filibusters-nominations
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/394364-mcconnell-votes-arent-there-to-nix-filibuster
So I was reading the FLQ manifesto. Lots of jibes at trade, immigration taking away good Quebecker jobs, American investment being evil, evil big business and saying that Bourassa and Turdeau Sr. are a bunch of homos. How PC and Trumpist of them. Oh the irony…
Turdeau Sr. was an opponent of NAFTA and complained about American investment in Canada. Two things that Jr. are in favor of supposedly…
Don’t ever compare what were a bunch of stupid, murderous far left commie fuckheads to the genius that is Trump:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LibRNYJmZ-I
Piere was an idiot on American capital because Canadians had sold their soul down the river decades before. Canada needed it to develop its resources.
Think of it. A country of our size and know how and we NEVER developed our own John Deere.
To me that says a lot.
Does Raymond Massey mean nothing to you?
I don’t get it. You have to hold my hand on that one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massey_Ferguson
Wrong Massey. Yours is an actor.
Raymond was the great-grandson of the company founder and even worked there briefly before becoming an actor.
Not quite. Raymond Massey is the greatgrandson of the founder of what would become Ferguson Massey, and his dad & uncles ran the company.
lol.
I ate that one good. I rarely if ever see those here.
I just want to expand on Pierre. He was trying to get Canada to invest in itself but the reality is – WITH EXCEPTIONS to Massey Ferguson – more often than not the rule was to rely on American capital – it was seen as a surer bet to go with their stamp of approval.
Raymond’s dad Chester Massey was a founder of that company.
Raymond
What kills me about all of these articles on how to save the pubsec unions is that none of them even question the idea of whether the union deserves to exist at all.
If the union was functioning as well as we are told it was, workers would be glad to chip in their dues. The fact that up to 70% of them don’t when given the chance should tell you a lot.
No union should ever get a chance to collectively bargain with the people whose campaigns they’ve donated to. Never, ever, ever. The entire concept is absurd and it’s a point conservatives and libertarians fail to bring up way too often.
“If the union was functioning as well as we are told it was, workers would be glad to chip in their dues.”
Basically this.
When iTunes was starting up, I remember people saying it wouldn’t work because you can just download all that stuff for free. Torrenting hasn’t gotten any harder, yet iTunes still draws money. Most people are completely willing to give money to something if they feel they are getting value from it, even when they can get the value for free. I don’t see why unions would be any different. I know I’d have no problem paying dues if (big IF) I thought the union was making my life better, even if I wasn’t required to.
none of them even question the idea of whether the union deserves to exist at all.
Someone with a twatter account should post some of the FDR quotes about government unions (he was opposed), and see what happens when you reveal that was FDR speaking, not (say) Scott Walker.
Government unions should never have been allowed because of the conflict of interest. In the private sector, if the employer or union negotiates too hard, everyone loses. This is not so in an industry (gov’t) that has a monopoly on violence.
As I mentioned elsewhere, pubsec unions might be acceptable if they were only allowed to collectively bargain, but not lobby or make political contributions. Union members who want to be active politically can form a separate PAC if they wish, but nobody would be forced to.
If I were Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch or Roberts, I’d hire a good taster and some Blackwater guys the minute a Dem is back in the WH.
I’m just saying…if you think the political climate is dangerous right now with some prominent leftists all but calling for violence, it’ll get a shitload worse then.
Aren’t federal judges already given protection from the US Marshalls?
Who are under the directive of the executive…
Fair point
+1 Pelican Brief
it’ll get a shitload worse then.
Assuming strict constitutionalists appointed to the bench maintain their ostensible strict constitutionalism causing a return to some semblance of limited government, that is.
Those yokels across the border finally did it.
https://5newsonline.com/2018/06/26/oklahoma-voters-approve-medical-marijuana/
I hope they do a better job of implementation then we have. It’s been nearly 2 years since arkansas passed medical marijuana and there is still not one single grower or dispensary in the state. No licenses have been issued because the right palms haven’t been greased by the right people.
Native Oklahoman, long time Texas Resident here.
Oklahomans remain the most polite and tolerant people I’ve met, especially compared to Texans. Compare a supermarket parking lot in OK and TX, and the one in OK will have all the carts put away while the one in TX will have carts left in the nearest location not likely to roll into the departing customer’s car. Working the renfair circuit, I saw some harassment of… non-gender conforming rennies by patrons at TX fairs, but none in OK. Not necessarily because they are more LGBT- friendly, but I think because the idea of “Mind your own business” still applies in much of the state there.
But holy fuckballs the OK govt is terrible, so much worse than TX.
I am convinced it’s because the TX leg is part time, whereas the OK one is full time. So you’ve got a self-selecting pool of busybodies working year round with few actual problems to fix.
Tell me Rufus what do you think of Quebec Solidaire? Also it looks like the CAQ might win in October…
They’re socialists. Like, real hard core. What do you think I think of them?
Yes, CAQ have momentum but I gotta say I like how the Liberals handled the economy. And they flat out said 15hr/min wage is impractical.
It would be great if opponents created bumper stickers saying “SUCK CAQ”
Speaking of Raymond Massey I recently saw 49th Parallel/The Invaders of TCM Monday night. Massey appears at the end playing a AWOL Canadian soldier on train a going over the border at Niagara Falls (oh the irony). He actually gets to play a Canadian! And a bit of goofball yokel which is not the sort of character he usually played even as when he was a good guy. He also speaks with a broader accent then he normally did such as saying “Toronto” like “Toronno”.
I thought it was ‘Toronna’ or ‘T’ronna.’
Tucker: The Worldwide Excuse Tour Rages Onward!!
One woman’s rage is another mans pleasure…or something…Anyway Her Shrillness is still unable to cope.
Candace Owens drops the hammer
Also, would.
Then she could dox you.
So on my ride home I realized that there’s a chance that Trump may wind up being one of the most influential presidents for a long time. Two Supreme Court nominations already, with a chance of two more in the next 6 years. I also realized what the ultimate punishment for Obama may be… appointing him to the supreme court with 6 strict Constitutionalists. He would be basically powerless, while not being able to do anything about it.
Ultimate punishment for Obama would be shunning.
No. Forgetting about him altogether.
Who?
Exactly.
Let’s forget him better still….
/Tommy
I think there’s a very real possibility that Trump gets three in his first term alone. Consider:
Justice Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg is 85 (DOB: 15 March, 1933).
Justice Stephen Gerald Breyer is 79 (DOB: 14 August 1938).
And those are just the two oldest. Thomas and Alito are also in their late 60s, but replacing them would be unlikely to result in much of an improvement.
Just looked it up. Reagan and Nixon were the last to have more then 2 confirmed appointments. And (at least according to Wikipedia) Garland was the last nominee who was a “Democrat” replacing a “Republican”.
violated the due process rights of parents and children who were separated.
The parents are being arrested for a crime and given due process via prosecution. The children are necessarily “separated” (housed and given food/clothing/toiletries/etc…) for their protection.
**blood pressure rising at shear lack of honesty**
“violated the due process rights of parents and children who were separated.”
So when does the convicted rapist get released to be with his children? It’s the logical continuation of this view.
Sorry, I guess the logical conclusion would be: when does the accused rapist who is a massive flight risk get to be reunited with his children. Once convicted the Due process is given.
It’s the logical continuation
Through years of research, observation and debate I have determined that “logic” is not a leftist’s strong point.
the due process rights of parents and children who were separated.
What Rebel said. Due process doesn’t apply to the outcome (parents and children separated). It applies to what happens before the outcome. There is no conceivable “due process” right that gets you to “parents and children must be reunited after 30 days”. That’s outcome, not process.
Honestly, I think a lot of people just use words like “due process” as shibboleths. They don’t have any understanding of their meaning, but they throw them out there because they have a vague idea that it sounds good.
I guess if anyone runs this past me, I’ll ask them what hearings, filings, etc. they think need to be put in place to give due process. Of course, nobody pushing this gives a shit about process; they only care about the outcome, so the sputtering should be at least mildly entertaining.
Wait, last I heard “due process” was code for “letting right-wing terrorists buy as many AK-15 Machine Guns as they wanted”… did they change the definition again? I can’t keep up.
Shit. I just realized the Kennedy retirement announcement took all the air out of the Strozk testimony. That sucks. Does anybody have any insight on what was said?
Here is the WAPO article on the subject. TW: WAPO.
Without clicking…”questioning the FBI integrity is dangerous to the very institution of democracy and the US. My texts were out of context and I have a perfect FBI record therefor trust me.”
Judge Nap. for SCOTUS
Can you imagine a Supreme Court decision written as a series of questions?
So I guess word on the streets is Trump’s potential pick for SCOTUS is the guy who wrote the dissenting opinion saying the CFPB is unconstitutional. So far, so good.
From http://reason.com/volokh/2018/01/31/en-banc-dc-circuit-upholds-constitutiona
I’m guessing that judge? Judge Karen Henderson – oppose her nomination, you misogynists!
74YO ? i’m gonna lean not
Whoops, missed that fact. Love her thinking, but that’s disqualifying, I’m sure. The other dissenting judge’s thinking was far squishier (“precedent” and “just remove that bit”)…
Yeah, news says that’s the guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh
I’m not sure how “staunch” of a conservative judge he is, based on the the thinking displayed in the dissent Volokh wrote about.
I want gnashing of teeth, clawing of hair kind of conservative. Not just the “normal” screeching.
slate has already claimed that new justice “ensures” roe overturned. That’s just not good enough.
I want Janice Rogers Brown for the epic lulz of watching progs attack a woman of color and still pretend to be holding the high ground over it.
Yes, she would be epic; too bad she’s 69.
So it seems like McConnell is going to hold the vote at the end of September, before the midterms.
I find it interesting how prior to that statement all of the articles I read initially talked about how this vote will reshape the midterms… now that midterm language is all dropped. I couldn’t figure out what possible reason there would be for postponing the vote until afterwards. I’m going to take the least generous interpretation that the media were just being partisan shit stains as usual.
The Court reconvenes in October, so there is a good reason to get the new Justice seated in September.
Can we please – PLEASE – get this on SCOTUS
We could, and probably will, do so much worse.
I put this on now and again because lol.
THat is awesome!!
Nikki BAEley?️
Nikki BAEley?️
@libertarianQN
Replying to @JusticeWillett
I look forward to Democrats’ ridiculous questions about Eminem at your eventual SCOTUS confirmation hearings.
LOL!
It looks like he hasn’t tweeted in a long time.
No – only once or twice since his nom to the 5th circuit, and those were “serious” Tweets. I can’t seem him getting back on Twitter if he gets SCOTUS. But I’d rather have him on the court than read his Tweets, any day.
*see