The Conversation -- March 4, 2024
Tom Sullivan of Hullabaloo: "The New Yorker [Monday] morning offers a peek behind ... closed doors. John Harwood tweets that the interview, like his own last fall, 'shows talk of his alleged mental decline as utter bullshit.' Evan Osnos writes: 'If you spend time with [President] Biden these days, the biggest surprise is that he betrays no doubts. The world is riven by the question of whether he is up to a second term, but he projects a defiant belief in himself and his ability to persuade Americans to join him.'... Republicans mean to fuck you over and gut your freedoms. What are you prepared to do about it? At a minimum, get off your ass." MB: If you can access New Yorker articles, this would be a place to do so.
Supreme Court Rules for Trump re: Colorado Ballot. New York Times liveblog: ~~~
Adam Liptak: "The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that ... Donald J. Trump should remain on Colorado's primary ballot, rejecting a challenge to his eligibility for another term that could have upended the presidential race by taking him off ballots around the nation. Though the justices offered different reasons, the decision was unanimous. The decision was the court's most important ruling concerning a presidential election since Bush v. Gore handed the presidency to George W. Bush in 2000."
Charlie Savage: "The essence of the majority per curium opinion is that in order to invoke Section 3 to disqualify people from holding or seeking federal office, it is 'critical' that Congress first pass legislation to implement how that enforcement works and under what standards."
Savage: "... the three liberal justices -- Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson -- filed their own joint opinion concurring in the judgment."
Abbie VanSickle: "The court's three liberal justices signed on to the decision, agreeing that a state cannot invoke Section 3 to keep a presidential candidate off the ballot because that would 'create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our nation's federalism principles.' But they noted that they disagreed with how far the majority went: 'We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment.'"
VanSickle: "In their separate concurring opinion, the three liberal justices ... wrote that although they agreed with the outcome, they thought the majority could have decided the case more narrowly." ~~~
~~~ Savage: "But they criticize the majority for going further and saying that Section 3 can only be enforced at the federal level via a congressional statute, arguing that it was unnecessary to decide that 'other potential means of federal enforcement' are not permissible."
Savage: "Even though she agrees with the three liberals, Justice Barrett has written a (very short) separate opinion rather than joining theirs because she did not like their tone."
~~~ The CNN liveblog of the Supreme Court's decision is here. Politico's report is here. The Washington Post's story is here. ~~~
~~~ You can read the decision & concurring opinions here, via the Court.
Monday was a good day in court for others in Trump's insurrection gang, too:
~~~ Wisconsin. Sophia Tareen of the AP: "Two attorneys for ... Donald Trump orchestrated a plan for fake electors to file paperwork falsely saying the Republican won Wisconsin in a strategy to overturn Joe Biden's 2020 victory there and in other swing states, according to a lawsuit settlement reached Monday that makes public months of texts and emails. Under their agreements, Kenneth Chesebro and Jim Troupis turned over more than 1,400 pages of documents, emails and text messages, along with photos and video, offering a detailed account of the scheme's origins in Wisconsin. The communications show how they, with coordination from Trump campaign officials, replicated the strategy in six other states including Georgia, where Chesebro has already pleaded guilty to charges stemming from the 2020 election. The agreements settle a civil lawsuit brought by Democrats in 2022 against the two attorneys and 10 Republicans in Wisconsin who posed as fake electors. The Republicans settled in December.
Ben Protess, et al., of the New York Times: "Allen H. Weisselberg, a longtime lieutenant to ... Donald J. Trump, pleaded guilty to felony perjury charges in a Manhattan courtroom on Monday, the latest twist in his tortured legal odyssey. Mr. Weisselberg, who for years has remained steadfastly loyal to Mr. Trump in the face of intense prosecutorial pressure, is not expected to implicate his former boss. That unbroken streak of loyalty has frustrated prosecutors and already once cost him his freedom. Mr. Weisselberg, who was led into the courtroom in handcuffs wearing a blue surgical mask and a dark suit, conceded that in recent years he had lied under oath to the New York attorney general's office when it was investigating Mr. Trump for fraud." This is an update of a story linked earlier today. The AP's report is here.
Marianna Spring of the BBC: "BBC Panorama discovered dozens of deepfakes portraying black people as supporting [Donald Trump].... But there's no evidence directly linking these images to Mr Trump's campaign. The co-founder of Black Voters Matter, a group which encourages black people to vote, said the manipulated images were pushing a 'strategic narrative' designed to show Mr Trump as popular in the black community.... Unlike in 2016, when there was evidence of foreign influence campaigns, the AI-generated images found by the BBC appear to have been made and shared by US voters themselves." MB: So gratifying to know we're in another post-Sputnik-type era, where U.S. "scientists" catch up with and eventually may surpass Russian technological advances. U.S.A.! U.S.A.!
Leslie Josephs & Rebecca Picciotto of CNBC: "JetBlue Airways and Spirit Airlines on Monday said they were terminating their merger agreement weeks after losing a federal antitrust lawsuit that challenged the deal."
~~~~~~~~~~
Presidential Race
Adam Liptak of the New York Times: "The Supreme Court announced on Sunday that it would issue at least one decision on Monday, a strong signal that it would rule then on ... Donald J. Trump's eligibility for Colorado's primary ballot. The announcement said Monday's opinion or opinions would be posted online starting at 10 a.m. 'The court will not take the bench,' it said. The court's usual practice, though one suspended during the pandemic, is to announce decisions in argued cases from the bench." The AP's story is here. MB: IOW, these bastards are so unwilling to face the public that they'll issue the Trump opinion not just behind closed doors but with the doors barricaded against us barbarians & with the justices themselves hiding out in undisclosed locations.
Maureen Dowd of the New York Times has a dream. It's not gonna happen, and it's not gonna happen because no matter how decent a person is, unless he's a saint, once he's tasted power, he just can't relinquish it. And he's damned sure he's better at wielding that power than is anybody else.
Mariana Alfaro of the Washington Post: "Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley won her first contest in the Republican presidential nomination race on Sunday after triumphing in D.C.'s primary. It is not likely to change the contest's trajectory. After three days of voting, polls in the Washington race closed at 7 p.m. Eastern time on Sunday. Though only 19 delegates were at stake, Haley perhaps had her best chance of defeating Trump [in D.C.]... With all the votes counted, Haley got 63 percent of the vote to 33 percent for Trump == and she won all of the delegates." The AP story is here.
Gustaf Kilander of the Independent: "The crowd of Trump supporters gathered in Richmond, Virginia to hear Donald Trump speak on Saturday night went silent as the former president appeared to mix up Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama yet again. 'Shortly after we win the presidency, I will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled,' Mr Trump said on Saturday. 'I know them both very well and we will restore peace through strength. Get that war settled. It's a bad war. And Putin has so little respect for Obama that he's starting to throw around the nuclear word,' Mr Trump added, seemingly in the false belief that Mr Biden's former boss remains in charge." MB: On the plus side, the repeated slip-ups work toward proving Trump's point that he's "the least racist person in the world"; when even mockery doesn't stop a person from confusing a black President with a white one, that person must be color-blind.
Jonathan Cooper & Summer Ballentine of the AP: "... Donald Trump continued his march toward the GOP nomination on Saturday, winning caucuses in Idaho and Missouri and sweeping the delegate haul at a party convention in Michigan. Trump earned every delegate at stake on Saturday, bringing his count to 244 compared to 24 for former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. A candidate needs to secure 1,215 delegates to clinch the Republican nomination." (Also linked yesterday.)
Trump Allies Are Working to Rig the Election. Alexandra Berzon & Nick Corasaniti of the New York Times: "A network of right-wing activists and allies of Donald J. Trump is quietly challenging thousands of voter registrations in critical presidential battleground states, an all-but-unnoticed effort that could have an impact in a close or contentious election. Calling themselves election investigators, the activists have pressed local officials in Michigan, Nevada and Georgia to drop voters from the rolls en masse. They have at times targeted Democratic areas, relying on new data programs and novel legal theories to justify their push.... The ... activists are part of an expansive web of grass-roots groups that formed after Mr. Trump's attempt to overturn his defeat in 2020. The groups have made mass voter challenges a top priority this election year, spurred on by a former Trump lawyer, Cleta Mitchell, and True the Vote, a vote-monitoring group with a long history of spreading misinformation."
** Ben Protess, et al., of the New York Times: "Allen H. Weisselberg, a longtime lieutenant to ... Donald J. Trump, has reached an agreement with Manhattan prosecutors to plead guilty to perjury charges as soon as Monday, according to people with knowledge of the matter. Ye Mr. Weisselberg, who for years has remained steadfastly loyal to Mr. Trump in the face of intense prosecutorial pressure, is not expected to implicate his former boss. That unbroken streak of loyalty has frustrated prosecutors and already once cost him his freedom. Mr. Weisselberg, 76, is now expected to concede that he lied on the witness stand in Mr. Trump's recent civil fraud trial -- but not cooperate against the former president. He might also admit to misleading investigators from the New York attorney general's office, which brought the fraud case against Mr. Trump." CNN's story is here; @7:45 am ET, this is a breaking story that will be updated.
~~~~~~~~~~
North Carolina Governor's Race. There's this: ~~~
~~~ Hannah Knowles of the Washington Post: "Even in a Republican Party that, under ... Donald Trump's leadership, has often rewarded crude insults, baseless claims and incendiary language, [North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark] Robinson stands out among candidates this year for the volume of his bigoted attacks and vicious diatribes[:]...: The deluge of offensive comments that made such a declaration necessary. There was the time he called school shooting survivors 'media prosti-tots' for advocating for gun-control policies. The meme mocking a Harvey Weinstein accuser, and the other meme mocking actresses for wearing 'whore dresses to protest sexual harassment.' The prediction that rising acceptance of homosexuality would lead to pedophilia and 'the END of civilization as we know it'; the talk of arresting transgender people for their bathroom choice; the use of antisemitic tropes; the Facebook posts calling Hillary Clinton a 'heifer' and Michelle Obama a man. Robinson is heavily favored to clinch the GOP nomination for governor in next Tuesday's primary and, at a Saturday rally with Trump, got the former president's formal endorsement." (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ And there's this:
~~~ Phillip Nieto of Mediaite: "... Donald Trump described North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, who is Black, as 'Martin Luther King on steroids,' adding that he was 'better than' the civil rights leader." (Also linked yesterday.)
Texas GOP. David Goodman of the New York Times: "Rarely have intraparty battles between Republicans in Texas been as bitter, protracted and consequential as the primary contests culminating in Election Day on Tuesday. The fights have primarily focused on members of the Texas House who angered many conservative voters last year by impeaching the Republican attorney general, Ken Paxton, on charges of corruption and abuse of office. Mr. Paxton, who was acquitted in the Texas Senate, vowed revenge, and number one in his sights has been the house speaker, Dade Phelan. Gov. Greg Abbott has also been going after a number of Republicans in the Texas House, seeking to unseat those who opposed his plan to use public money to help families pay for private and religious schools. Aggressive campaigning by both statewide leaders is amplifying tensions that have simmered for years between the party's old guard and a more socially conservative faction aligned with ... Donald J. Trump...."
Texas. Colbi Edmonds of the New York Times: "A judge on Friday temporarily blocked the Texas attorney general from forcing an L.G.B.T.Q. organization to turn over documents on transgender minors and the gender-affirming care they may be receiving. In Texas, medical care for gender transition is prohibited for minors under a law passed last year. As part of an investigation into violations of the ban, the office of Attorney General Ken Paxton demanded early last month that the nonprofit PFLAG National, which supports families in accessing gender-affirming care for children, provide information on minors in the state who may have received such treatments. But on Friday, Judge Maria Cantú Hexsel of Travis County District Court issued an injunction against Mr. Paxton, just days after PFLAG sued to block the request, saying turning over the documents would cause 'irreparable injury, loss or damage' to the group. The judge added that such an ask would infringe on the group's constitutional rights and that its members would be subject to 'gross invasions' of privacy."
~~~~~~~~~~
France. Liberté, Egalité, Sororité. Karla Adam of the Washington Post: "Womens rights groups on Monday were gearing up to celebrate France becoming the first country in the world to explicitly enshrine abortion rights in its constitution -- an effort galvanized by the rollback of protections in the United States. On Monday evening, French lawmakers will vote in a special meeting at Versailles on whether to add abortion to the constitution as a 'guaranteed freedom.' The bill needs the approval of three-fifths of lawmakers. But because the lower and upper houses already overwhelmingly endorsed it in separate votes, there is little suspense about the outcome of the joint session." MB: Adieu, Freedom Fries.
Israel/Palestine, et al.
The Washington Post's live updates of developments Monday in the Israel/Hamas war are here. The New York Times' live updates for Monday are here. CNN's live updates are here.
Daniel Wu of the Washington Post: "In a tonal shift for the Biden administration, Vice President Harris on Sunday demanded that Israel allow more aid into the besieged Gaza Strip and told Hamas to accept a deal for a six-week cease-fire that would allow such aid to reach people who are cut off from food, water and medical care.... Harris also rebuffed Israel over conditions in Gaza, showing signs that Washington's relationship with one of its closest allies has frayed as the humanitarian crisis in Gaza deepens and President Biden faces opposition at home for his support of Israel as it conducts a punishing military campaign. 'The Israeli government must do more to significantly increase the flow of aid,' Harris said. 'No excuses.'" NPR's story is here.
Share Article
Reader Comments (23)
The BBC has an article on the use of AI in the U.S. election focusing on it's use so far. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68440150
I don't know if this Florida man is Donald Trump or not, but if you
Google florida man and your birth date you'll find it interesting.
Mine is: florida man february 20
Funny piece about Fatty, who has never paid a bill in his life, lecturing others about the importance of paying your bills.
Polls, Schmolls, and other refuse.
Another day, another ☠️ poll about the Orange Monster crushing Joe Biden, to go along with four or five more stories in the NY Both Sides Times about how Joe Biden is old and in the way, right next to an unfactchecked story about Trump lies in which his mumbles and verbal potato mashes are corrected to make them readable, meaning garbled syntax is corrected and five-shot stroke victim expressions are fixed: oh-eyede isha ray door is helpfully made to seem as if Dementia Boy could actually say “Joe Biden is a traitor”.
So we can’t do much about the latter problem. The number of times the press helps Trump, like a kindly boy-scout pushing a wheelchair bound catatonic across the street, is inversely proportional to the number of times they push Biden into oncoming traffic.
But the polls? Just fuggedaboutit. Here’s a useful reminder that polling is largely built on unsupported assumptions and statistical sophistry.
Analysts writing in Fortune after the 2022 Red Wave predicted by all major polls point out that “…many media commentators regard the election forecasts put out by the domestic political polling industry as the product of highly sophisticated data analysis, providing breathless horse-race coverage based on who is up and who is down in the most recent poll…” when in fact what we get is statistical wanking.
Some examples:
The average poll in the week before election day had Mehmet Oz beating John Fetterman by nearly 1% in Pennsylvania when in reality Fetterman beat Oz by nearly 5%
The average poll had Adam Laxalt beating Catherine Cortez Masto in Nevada by 1.5% when in reality Cortez Masto is projected to win. In fact, not a single poll in the week before election day projected a Cortez Masto victory.
The average poll had Herschel Walker beating Raphael Warnock in Georgia by 1% when in reality Warnock outperformed Walker by 1%; and not a single poll in the week before election day projected a Warnock victory.
The average poll had Maggie Hassan beating Don Bolduc in New Hampshire by only 2% when in reality Hassan soundly routed Bolduc by 15%. Two mainstream polls in the week before election day, including the seminal, admired Saint Anselm poll, even predicted Bolduc victories.
Even weirder, supposedly trustworthy polling proponents give the thumbs up to nakedly partisan hacks:
“The GOP-funded Trafalgar Group, as Slate showed, not just heavily failed in their overall calls but wrongly pronounced swings to the GOP among millennials and Hispanics when the opposite happened.
Two years ago, the New York Times warned that “Trafalgar does not disclose its methods, and is considered far too shadowy by other pollsters to be taken seriously.” Undeterred, however, polling aggregator Nate Silver’s site rated them an A-.”
The oft quoted Sienna poll, which the other day predicted a big jump in support for the Fat Fascist, in 2022, declared that women were mad for the GOP. In fact, the biggest losses by PoT candidates were the result of women giving these anti-abortion clowns a collective middle finger.
The writers go on to break down the specific problems with polling but don’t forget to point to an essential factor: motivation to be considered authoritative.
“The motives of the pollsters–and their sponsors-can be questionable, with tradeoffs between attention and accuracy. Not only are many polls commissioned by partisan groups with obvious biases, but some polling outfits also use provocative polling results to gain the prominence of stature and the expert academic authority that they lack. High-profile polls help lower-profile institutions compete commercially in the attention economy.”
Recent commentary on the No More Mister Nice Blog site takes a closer look at the way polling questions are constructed to arrive at particular outcomes. And this ain’t the Joe Shit the Ragman Poll, this is the venerable and much referred to Harris Poll:
“Mark Penn is the chairman of the Harris Poll and the husband of No Labels CEO Nancy Jacobson. [something I didn’t know!] He's regarded as a Democratic pollster largely because he's worked with both Bill and Hillary Clinton, though he later became a Fox News contributor and Trump apologist. His latest survey has Trump leading Joe Biden by 6 in a two-candidate race, by 7 with Robert Kennedy Jr. in the race, and by 9 with a filed [sic] that includes Biden, Trump, Kennedy, Cornel West, and Jill Stein.”
Man, you gotta read the way these questions are worded. Fuck me. The questions might as well be “Do you think it’s bad that Joe Biden might be a crook?”
It’s really that bad.
They start out by reminding poll takers that Biden is a bad guy. That sets things up.
“Do you think, if Joe Biden and his sons were make millions from Ukraine and the Chinese government, that it would be a bad thing?”
Of course, this is AFTER it’s come out that the Gym N Jim shitshow impeachment fail was working with a Russian spy!!!
Other questions are designed to dry clean Trump’s crimes.
“No one was harmed, Trump paid back all his loans. Do you think it’s bad that the Democrats are going after him for that?”
Are you fucking kidding me? Poll questions like this could get Jeffrey Dahmer elected County Food Inspector.
And this is the fucking Harris Poll!!!
So pay no attention to these polls. The problem is so many others do. And outlets like the Times and the Washington Post breathlessly report the results of bullshit push polls without even bothering to look under the hood.
Despicable.
Oops, long post about polling seems to have vanished. I’ll try it later.
Lotsa complicated things in our world, but might there be there some simple ones, too?
Like: Does the impression I have that all the election rigging and interference stories involve Republicans actually mean something?
It's refreshing in a sad way. Sad because it's refreshing. It seems a rare occasion when both-siderism takes a vacation.
@Akhilleus: Thanks for letting me know. I resurrected your post from the spam graveyard.
Marie,
Thanks ✊
The Confederate court has done everything in it's power to promote dysfunction and Republican extremism in Congress and now they say that only the pro-insurrectionists there have the power to keep Trump off the ballots. Isn't that nice?
Is there a guide anywhere that lets you know what parts of the Constitution are to be read literally and which ones have the National Treasure secret invisible ink that only shows up when you where a black robe and are in the presence of Leonard Leo?
*wear
So it looks like the Constitution only counts when Traitors in Congress say it does.
That’s how it works now anyway.
@Akhilleus: Yes, and now it comes with a yellow warning label from Amy Phony Barrett urging dissenters to "say it nicer."
"The institutions of government aren’t going to protect democracy
And to this date — including this date, in fact — Trump has in no significant way been held accountable. That includes government institutions that are the product of our democracy proving unwilling or unable to implement any accountability.
One would assume that a democratic system predicated on checks and balances would have some process in place to enforce punitive measures when democracy itself was threatened or undermined, but it does not. It has decisions from motivated actors, enough of whom agree politically or ideologically with Trump that his specific actions are waved away. Instead of a defense of democracy, we are repeatedly asked to believe that anything short of Trump retaining power doesn’t count as a substantive challenge to democracy and, therefore, that his participation in the democratic process should be defended.
Had he retained power after Jan. 20, 2021? Then, perhaps, his efforts to do so would have been considered a legitimate threat. And by then, the system that we would assume might hold him to account would already be destroyed."
It is all up to the voters, fingers crossed.
Hey, I guess now we can see a spate of Trump’s Jan. 6 thugs run for office again. The Supremes say the 14th Amendment doesn’t really mean what it says so all you traitors in elected office who helped Trump try to steal the election, the decks are cleared. You can start your fund raising to get re-elected without that nasty old pain in the ass Constitution to worry about. Happy days!
Have to assume ACBarrett prefers the calming influence of the man who dressed her in her robe. He certainly never sounds angry or the least bit put out. Nothing but oil on troubled waters from that guy.
On the waters he and his followers have themselves troubled.
What bullshit.
With Trump being allowed to remain on state ballots I'm wondering how long before the argument that SCOTUS has ruled in effect that he did not act in insurrection and therefore the DC trial on January 6 be tossed?
Sorry, but I hear leaps of illogic all the time down here.
The more I think of this, the more pissed I am.
On the question of whether or not Trump deserves to be tried as an insurrectionist, which he clearly is, and whether he has king-like total immunity for life, which he clearly does not, perhaps the most important case before this court in a half century, there is no sense urgency, no sense that the entire nation needs to know the outcome of these questions, immediately! But on the question of whether that fat fuck can shove his name on the ballot of a state that has found that action to be unconstitutional, they hop right on it, to make sure their treason-friendly decision is handed down from their thrones in time for the Colorado primary. Whew! That was close!
So they drill down on a technical issue rather than concerning themselves with the overarching question of whether or not this asshole is a goddam fucking traitor to the constitution and the United States of America. They’re using their inch wide focus on a ten mile wide constitutional question to help a prick who said he would SUSPEND the fucking thing.
Help me understand this, because this makes NO SENSE.
This is like a case where a guy shoots his wife but what they’re concerned about is whether or not he legally owned the weapon. He did? Okay. No problem. He’s free to go.
Just turn this around.
Say it was a Democrat who tried to overturn an election he lost. The state of Mississippi, after a careful fact finding, determines that according to the 14th amendment, his treasonous ass cannot stand for election in that state. Then along comes the Supreme Court and says “No, no, no, no, no, Mississippi, you’re causing “Kay-oss”! We’re overruling you. He can run and you have nothing to say about it. Neither does any other state who tries to use the clear, unarguable language of the Constitution to keep him off the ballot.”
The screams of “Guv’mint overreach!!!” could be picked up by Voyager I, 785 billion miles away. Fox would be hair on fire wild 24/7.
But, ooooh…we have to do everything we can to help the Fat Traitor win. Cuz if we did things fair and square, by the book, and according to the Constitution, he’d have no chance.
I’m beyond outraged. Whatever is beyond outraged, I’m there. No. I’m five steps beyond that.
I said the other day, after they said “Immunity? Meh…we’ll get to that later…” that they weren’t through helping this crook.
And they’re still not through. “Any other legal, ethical, Constitutional, or moral roadblocks we can move for you, Donald? Just let us know. We’re there for you. American people? You can just fuck off. Any more complaints and we might just name him President without the election. We’ve done it before!”
Bobby Lee,
You are not wrong. In a normal world I’d say that was way over the line. But today? In Trump World? With this court? I’d say the odds of them saying no insurrection occurred is about 3 to 1. It’s not even 50-50.
To clarify…
They can hardly say no insurrection occurred after hundreds of Trump thugs have been convicted, but they can declare that poor little Donnie-poo had nothing to do with it. Like that poor innocent Hitler had nothing to do with Kristallnacht.
@Akhilleus: What the Supremes in their wisdom ruled was not that an insurrection didn't occur but that the Congress had to decide what constituted an insurrection and how, under the 14th Amendment, such insurrection would serve to disallow a former oath-taker from serving in public office again.
Now, that might sound all democracy-like to the uninformed -- that is, having elected officials rather than appointed officials make the determination.
But there's this: (1) Many members of the very Congress whom the Court pretends must pass such a law are insurrectionists themselves. Who thinks Gym Jordan is going to bar himself from public office. (And The president* must sign the bill unless 2/3rds of the both houses override his veto.)
And there's this: (2) Even if the Congress passed some kind of anti-insurrection law based on the 14th Amendment, it's up to the Supreme Court to determine whether or not the hypothetical law passes muster. So what we have is a shell game run by a bunch of street hucksters who work for mob boss Trump pretending they're deferring to the People's Representativess when in fact they're just making sure Donald Trump can be president* again.
And, in a tangentially-related matter, Jeanne wrote a few days ago that she could not stand to write the word "Supreme" again. At first, I thought that might be a little far-out. Then I realized how silly I think it sounds when Iran talks about its "Supreme Leader." Well, Supreme Leader/Supreme Court: not much difference. Both silly.
I am so angry about all of this. That the high court consists of two sexual predators, one weak-tea leader, one 16th century monk-priest who despises women but luvs whatever is in utero, one guy who thought a guy should be enslaved to a truck he drove and die with it, three women with no power, one sexual predator that also is bought and paid-for, is a liar and hates his skin color, and ALSO is married to a treasonous obnoxious woman, several that see nothing wrong with royal decrees, and one handmaiden whose family belongs to a religious cult, and has a horrible whiney speaking voice, and three of 'em who gave us George WTF when he plainly lost...this all defies belief, doesn't it?? What a group. And thanks, Marie-- they are now simply the high court. Maybe they ARE high. On what, I wonder...
Opps "Supreme Court Inadvertently Reveals Confounding Late Change in Trump Ballot Ruling
The Supreme Court’s decision on Monday to keep Donald Trump on Colorado’s ballot was styled as a unanimous one without any dissents. But the metadata tells a different story. On the page, a separate opinion by the liberal justices is styled as a concurrence in the judgment, authored jointly by the trio. In the metadata of the link to the opinion posted by the court, however, this opinion is styled as an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, authored not by all three justices but by Sonia Sotomayor alone.
Why did a stand-alone Sotomayor dissent transform into a three-justice concurrence? Here, the most rational intuition is that Kagan and Jackson were keeping their votes fluid in the hopes of striking a bargain to avert a gratuitously broad opinion effectively repealing the insurrection clause. This bargain may have been simple; the two justices might have joined with Barrett to seek a fifth vote for a narrow holding, presumably from Roberts. All the while, Sotomayor worked on the fallback option: a partial dissent chastising the majority’s overreach. When Kagan and Jackson realized they couldn’t nab a fifth vote for the narrow position, they teamed up with Sotomayor, making a few changes and signing their names as authors in a show of force and agreement within the progressive bloc."
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/04/us/politics/bipartisan-spending-bill-shutdown.html
Sub headline that should be in BOLD ALL CAPS: GOP forced spending cuts [to] the FBI.
“Law and Order,”my ass.