Saturday, September 06, 2025

The Dumbest Timeline

William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”

Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Blumenthal: In New Jersey, they’ve exhausted the 120 days for Alina Habba, and so they’ve tried to make her acting US Attorney. But the statutes simply don’t authorize that. A judge has concluded she is without authority for any of the actions she’s taken. For a US Attorney to be making taking actions without authority means those prosecutions, when brought to court, could be challenged successfully. Everything she’s done could be challenged. Everything her assistant US attorneys have done could be challenged. It’s a major upheaval — a cause of chaos in that district — for these kinds of shenanigans and manipulations to go on.
Chaos not just in one district:
Noting that seven prominent cases have already been stymied by grand juries, he admitted there is no way to know what transpired in grand jury deliberations; nonetheless, a trend is becoming very apparent.

According to former U.S. S Attorney Barbara McQuade, what is happening during Bondi’s tenure — both the aggressiveness of the prosecutions as well as the frequency of failures to get a true bill –- is extraordinary.

“First of all, it is exceedingly rare for any grand jury to reject a proposed indictment because ordinarily prosecutors use discretion in only bringing cases that are strong and advance the interests of justice. I have seen this maybe once or twice in my career of 20 years, but this is something different,” the popular cable TV legal analyst offered.

“My guess is that these grand jurors are seeing prosecutorial overreach and they don’t want to be part of it,” she suggested.

The Trump administration’s efforts are also being stymied by judges who are growing weary of being led astray by the DOJ prosecutors.

“The erosion of this trust — known in legal parlance as the presumption of regularity — has been widespread in the many civil cases challenging Mr. Trump’s political agenda, where judges have repeatedly accused Justice Department lawyers of misleading them or violating their orders,” Feuer wrote before adding, “But now the phenomenon has started to crop up in criminal cases, too.”

According to federal Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui, who is in a pitched battle with controversial U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro over multiple cases that have been shot down by grand juries, “Blind deference to the government. That is no longer a thing. Trust that has been earned over generations has been lost in weeks.”

Friday, September 05, 2025

“Numbers Always Tend To Benefit The Left”*

But I’ll tell you what’s going on here with tariffs. Chuck, a coffee shop owner, was telling me that a big burlap sack of beans that used to cost $2.50 now costs $7 — and as he put it, that’s because Trump got into some fight with the Brazilian president. So now he’s going to have to raise prices on everyone.

Prices are not going down. In fact, we’re seeing them go up everywhere, and I think that trend is only going to continue. The jobs numbers have been bad. We lost about 10,000 jobs in New Jersey. And we’re a really resilient economy — so if that’s happening here, I can only imagine what it looks like in the rest of the country.
Meanwhile: *
CNN: When the jobs report comes out shortly, are you going to believe the numbers?

REP. RANDY FINE: Um, I'm going to look at the numbers. Look, the people who put these numbers together are human and fallible and make mistakes

CNN: It wasn't that they make mistakes

FINE: Numbers always tend to benefit the left

“The First Thing We Do, Let’s Kill All The Lawyers”

 This is pretty much the outcome Shakespeare meant:

THE LETHAL STRIKE on a boat in the Caribbean on Tuesday was a criminal attack on civilians, according to a high-ranking Pentagon official who spoke to the Intercept on the condition of anonymity.

The Trump administration paved the way for the attack, he said, by firing the top legal authorities of the Army and the Air Force earlier this year.

“The U.S. is now directly targeting civilians. Drug traffickers may be criminals but they aren’t combatants,” the Department of Defense official said. “When Trump fired the military’s top lawyers the rest saw the writing on the wall, and instead of being a critical firebreak they are now a rubber stamp complicit in this crime.”
And that’s only the beginning:
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth offered his own justification for the strike the same day. “Every boatload of any form of drug that poisons the American people is an imminent threat. And at the DoD our job is to defeat imminent threats,” he told a group of journalists. “A foreign terrorist organization poisoning your people with drugs coming from a drug cartel is no different than Al Qaeda, and they will be treated as such as they were in international waters.”

Two U.S. government officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that Hegseth’s justification – which one called “completely unserious” – took shape after the attack.

Experts said Hegseth’s rationale was flimsy, if not farcical. “Tren de Aragua being designated as a foreign terrorist organization is a purely domestic law enforcement designation. It offers no authority for the military to use deadly force,” said Todd Huntley, who was an active-duty judge advocate for more than 23 years, serving as a legal advisor to Special Operations forces engaged in counterterrorism missions around the world. “Under international law, there’s no way this even gets close to being a legitimate use of force.”
So?
Hegseth said the attack would be followed by others. “It won’t stop with just this strike,” he told Fox News on Wednesday. “Anyone else trafficking in those waters who we know is a designated narco-terrorist will face the same fate.”
Oh, and about the lawyers:
Hegseth fired the Air Force’s and Army’s top judge advocates general (JAGs) in February to avoid “roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander in chief.” The next month he commissioned his personal lawyer, Timothy Parlatore, as a Navy JAG and empowered him to help overhaul the JAG corps, reportedly pursuing changes that would encourage lawyers to approve more aggressive tactics and take a more lenient approach to those who violate the law of war. Parlatore’s prior claim to fame was successfully defending Eddie Gallagher, a Navy SEAL accused of first-degree murder in the death of a captured ISIS fighter as well as the attempted murder of civilians in Iraq. Distinguished former JAGs and members of Congress have repeatedly spoken out about Hegseth’s efforts to undermine the independence of military legal counsel and subvert military justice.
This is fine. Right? Sure. This is fine.

“Everybody Outta The Gene Pool! We Gotta Scrub It Down!”

 The reigning theories are:

A) Trump appointed Kennedy because Kennedy endorsed him.

B) Trump appointed Kennedy because MAHA is a power base in MAGA.

Or could it be because Kennedy is a conspiracy theorist? Promoting eugenics? And trying to "clean" the gene pool? Kennedy was explicitly okay with that.
“Every child who gets measles gets a headline,” Kennedy said during the visit alongside Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins. “When I was kid, there were 2 million measles cases a year and nobody wrote about them.”

Over the last few months, Kennedy has been criticized for his response to the measles outbreak, which has been largely centered in Texas. He has questioned the role measles had in the deaths of three individuals confirmed by the Centers for Disease Control this year. He has praised private medical providers who have used alternative treatment methods on measles patients, to ease some symptoms including vitamin A and budesonide, an inhaled steroid typically used for asthma but does not “cure” measles.
Racism is usually concerned with purity. Stephen Miller wants to remove all the non-white people from America that he can. He doesn’t mean “occupied” by white people.

Trump is a notorious racist. Kennedy is a notorious eugenicist.* Eugenics is just racism dressed up as science.

Maybe the reality is not that Trump thought he owed Kennedy, nor that he’s trapped by MAHA and can’t stop Kennedy. Maybe the reality is, that Trump is fine with Kennedy. It’s a GOP thing. Birds of a feather, and all.


*
The causes of autism spectrum disorder, a range of neurological and developmental conditions that usually center on how people interact, communicate, learn and behave, have already been identified as genetic in the vast majority of cases.

Even so, Kennedy announced at a cabinet meeting last week that the new study had been launched.

“By September, we will have some of the first answers. Within six months of that, we will have definitive answers,” Kennedy said.

Smith worries that the database and research could worsen stigma around autism, and it could keep individuals and families from seeking diagnoses and care.

“And at worst, I worry that we’re on a slippery slope to eugenics,” Smith said. “My mind immediately goes to history and things that happened in Nazi Germany. That’s extreme, but it feels like a possibility.” Disabled people were the first to be targeted then, he pointed out.

Opponents also wonder about privacy and security measures, which have not been detailed by health agencies, and how individuals’ information could be used against them.

“Are you going to use this as an excuse to take away my rights, to hold me against my will, to prevent me from having children, to take away my right to manage my own finances?” Marschall asked.
The reference to the Nazis is ironic, because America put eugenics into law first. “Three generations of imbeciles is enough!” Buck v Bell concerned a state law requiring persons below a statutory IQ limit be involuntarily sterilized. The Nazis studied our laws to write their own.

It “can’t happen here”? It already has.

Confirmed: The GOP Is On The Side Of The Most Notorious Pedophile In American History

Screw the victims and their compelling stories, right? I guess the next step is to smear them the way Dershowitz did to get Epstein off with a wrist slap (if that) in Palm Beach.

Remember the interviews with Ghislaine Maxwell that proved Trump was a gentleman? Neither does anyone else.

These guys need new terms to describe their failures. “Incompetence” is not good enough. “Self-destructive” and “self-immolation” are on deck. They may yet prove insufficient. We’re gonna have to reach back to Ancient Greek terms, like “hubris.” Only without any connection to tragedy. These guys aren’t Oedipus or Lear; they’re just stupid all the way down to the bone.

So far Trump has avoided any mention of the victims of Epstein and Maxwell. How long is that going to last?

If Trump gets a Democratic majority in Congress in 2027, they are going to rip those files out of the hands of the DOJ.

🍿

🎶When you wish upon a star…🎶

A) RFK, Jr. is out 
B) Trump has absolutely no fucking idea how government works.
Pretty sure Melania is married to that guy. ‘Cause the other one is Bill Gates. And she interprets English for him. I’m waiting for him to realize it’s Biden’s fault. 🎶When you wish upon a star…🎶 Yeah. That’s it. 🙄 Now we know why Trump said we’ll get the “real” numbers in a year. When in doubt, send in Baghdad Bob. Florida, man.
Maybe if Trump is fundraising on going to heaven Democrats should fundraise to send him to hell.

Thursday, September 04, 2025

We’re Going To War With The World

Led by civilian armchair warriors.

Right Said Fred

 Been in and out of the car today, listening to MSNBC between stops. There was a discussion about “what Democrats need to do” (besides not running black women for POTUS at the 11th hour?), and I realized it all sounded a lot like this:

About that sensible, anyway. Big, sweeping, groundless, stupid generalizations. Even MAGA is beginning to realize Trump is a lame duck and the GOP is living on borrowed time.

Like, 2028 is when it all ends. From 2027 on, he could be just a whipping boy.

Democrats just need to realize the truth of Tip O’Neil’s bromide: “All politics is local.”

It’s not that complicated. Trump is not a feral genius. Democrats just need to stop shooting themselves in the foot in a blind panic over their presidential candidate.

Okay, okay, it is that complicated….

Time To Talk About Rosie O’Donnell Again

HUGE NEWS FOR “MY GUYS AND GALS”!!! NEWSOM UNIVERSITY IS OPENING VERY SOON. ENROLLMENT IS ALREADY THROUGH THE ROOF. EVERYBODY WANTS IN (EVEN THE LOSERS) BUT ONLY THE SMARTEST, MOST TALENTED STUDENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED (NO LOW IQ DING-DONGS LIKE JD “JUST DANCE” VANCE OR LAURA “LOW RATINGS” INGRAHAM). NEWSOM UNIVERSITY WILL BE THE MOST INCREDIBLE CAMPUS THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN, TRUST ME THAT I'VE HIRED THE BEST CONTRACTORS TO BUILD. COURSES INCLUDE THE ART OF "MAPS," HOW TO TRIGGER “SLUMPY” SEAN HANNITY (VERY EASY COURSE, DAY ONE!), ADVANCED HAIR GEL APPLICATION (TAUGHT BY THE BEST), AND HOW TO BE SUCCESSFUL LIKE ME — GAVIN C. NEWSOM — AMERICA’S “HOTTEST” GOVERNOR (MANY PEOPLE SAY IT, NOT JUST ME!). DING DING, THE SCHOOLBELL RINGS — CLASSES START THIS FALL!!! MANY PEOPLE ARE SAYING "THANK YOU! THANK YOU DEAR GOVERNOR!!!" TO WHICH I SAY, YOU’RE WELCOME, AMERICA!!! — GCN
Now that’s entertainment!

More Complicated Moral Debates, Please!

 Well, okay:

Speaking to MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace on Thursday, Frum called Trump's tariff actions "the most extreme thing that he's ever done in this way."

"If there's one idea that runs through the American legal tradition and before that, the English legal tradition, it's that the executive cannot impose taxes without the consent of the legislature," he noted. "When Charles I in England, did it in the 1600s, the English cut off his head. When George III tried to do it in his own way, the United States started the American Revolution. This is the foundational idea."
But Amy Coney Barrett needs to know if there’s a “complicated moral debate” about it that “distinguishes it from other rights more traditionally recognized as fundamental that enjoy broad public support, including ‘the rights to marry, have sex, procreate, use contraception.’” Or, you know, does she need to pay attention to Art. I of the constitution, at all? Because if they can make up Presidential immunity, they can make up anything and say it’s in the Constitution.

In fact, does Art. I enjoy broad public support. ‘Cause that might be grounds to overrule it…🤔

Or maybe there’s a “complicated moral debate” over Art. I. Which is a principle of law as ancient as the Magna Carta. Isn’t it? Well, it should be, anyway.

Darth Vader Finds Your Lack Of Faith Disturbing

 Draining the swamp:

Today, Senate Republicans refused to have RFK Jr. sworn in under oath to give his testimony.

I find it telling that Republicans refuse to take even symbolic steps to show they care about transparency and truth from the man in charge of the agency tasked with America's health.

Has Anyone Explained to Pirro…

 …that she’s not on FoxNews anymore?

Let me tell you about this Judge Faruqui...

This is a judge who by his own words is trying to justify felons illegally carrying firearms in one of the most violent cities in America.

He has repeatedly indicated his allegiance to those who violate the law and carry illegal guns, justifying the possession of these guns and constantly pushing for the release of these dangerous criminals back into our communities.

In speaking about a defendant possessing an illegal gun in his view if you are a felon just holding an illegal gun “I don’t think that makes you a danger” and “They said the worst thing a judge can have is (sic) they release somebody and they go out and they do something terrible. I don’t think that’s the worst thing. I think the worst thing is that I don’t give you a shot.”

This judge took an oath to follow the law, yet he has allowed his politics to consistently cloud his judgment and his requirement to follow the law. America voted for safe communities, law and order, and this judge is the antithesis of that.
I wonder whether the Chief Justice is concerned about this?

(And yes, I’m a little confused about the firearms claim, since Pirro announced no prosecutions if open carry of long guns. Then again, when was FoxNews ever internally consistent?)

D.C. Is Crime Free!

Except for the criminal practice by the DOJ in the courtroom.

As Plausible As The Maxwell Interview Transcript

It’s on the official DOJ Twitter feed, so it must be true, right?

Sure, why not?

Mene, Mene, Tekel, Uparshin

In September 2021, about a year after she joined the Supreme Court and six months before she cast the deciding vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, Justice Amy Coney Barrett attempted to assure anxious members of the public that the alignment between this seemingly inevitable result and the policy platform of the Republican Party was merely a coincidence.

“My goal today is to convince you that this Court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks,” she told an audience at the University of Louisville. (An ambitious argument to make, given that Barrett was speaking at the McConnell Center, named for the Republican Senate Majority Leader who rammed through her confirmation just days before President Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, and who literally introduced Barrett prior to her remarks.) Barrett went on to complain about “hot takes on Twitter” that make Supreme Court decisions “seem results-oriented,” and she distinguished between the “judicial philosophies” that purportedly guide the Court’s work, and “political” considerations that ostensibly have nothing to do with it.

“Sometimes, I don’t like the results of my decisions,” Barrett said. “But it’s not my job to decide cases based on the outcome I want.”

Now, Barrett has written an entire book about the subject: Listening to the Law, which publishing industry sources described to Politico in 2021 as—I swear this is real—an exposition on her belief that “judges are not supposed to bring their personal feelings into how they rule.” As a Supreme Court justice, Barrett’s salary is around $300,000. For Listening to the Law, her publisher reportedly paid her a $2 million advance.
Let me start with that book title. It’s a cute metaphor, but a misbegotten one. The problem is, the law doesn’t speak. You can’t listen to it. You can only read it, and that’s an act of interpretation. So is listening, for that matter. How do I know the music I’m listening to is the same music I hear?  My memories, my experiences, my knowledge, all affect the act of listening. Am I listening? Does it move me the way it did before? Is it new, and I have to decide what I think?

All acts of interpretation; and inescapably so.

This is the problem I have with the “Scalia” school of jurisprudence. Scalia called it “originalism,” but you don’t need to be a philosopher or a student of jurisprudence to pick apart the problems with it. Even an English major can spot the flaws.

Literary criticism, the sort of bastard step-child of philosophy, once professed an “objective” stance toward literary criticism. Kierkegaard put a hole on “objectivity” (who has an objective view of their own existence? And what is more important to an individual than their own existence?) that eventually led “Modernism” (as action in literary criticism) to discard it as a fiction.

The problem with lawyers is that too few of them study literary criticism or philosophy. Being lawyers, they (some, to be fair) think they know all they need to know. Ignorance is never replaced by specialized knowledge. And being unable to think critically about philosophy (any more than one ignorant of science can think critically about quantum mechanics), they think they know all they need to know. So you get stupid statements like: “judges are not supposed to bring their personal feelings into how they rule.” 

Lawyers don’t generally even study jurisprudence. Legal realism recognizes that judges can’t ignore their personal feelings, that they are lying to themselves to say they do. Scalia’s dodge was to say he could divine the “original intent” of legislation or constitutional provisions, and that made his judicial opinions “objective” and sound. But again, literary criticism abandoned trying to determine authorial intent when it abandoned the fiction of objectivity. Authorial intent is always interpreted through the subjective lens of the critic. Literary criticism finally accepted that the as author writes the work, and the reader interprets it, and that interpretation is the one that can be criticized, but cannot be “objectively” disproven. One can only make stronger, or weaker, arguments. If that leaves you feeling like you are wandering a post-apocalyptic hellscape where nothing has meaning and everything is subject to endless argument, welcome to post modernism. 

(It’s actually not that bad. There are backstops, like the text itself; or, in law, the statutes and constitution. Precedent and stare decisis should set boundaries, too, but the lasting legacy of Scalia is the Roberts “We’re the Supreme Court, bitches” Court and School of Jurisprudence. Which is not jurisprudential at all. But that’s the problem, isn’t it?)

And Justice Barrett is not deciding cases based on the outcome she wants. She’s deciding them based on the jurisprudence she wants, precedent and stare decisis be damned. I’d have hesitated on that conclusion but for over 70% of emergency appeals decided in favor of the Trump Administration on the shadow docket (i.e., without explanation, even when there is a blistering dissent), in the past 7 months alone. Which is remarkable, considering the Court’s been in recess for over two months, now. A lot of cases the Sinister Six can’t take up, but can’t leave alone; and can’t write opinions on, but can chide lower courts for not reading the handwriting on the wall Which, by the way, had to be interpreted, too.  Nobody could just “listen” to it.

Well, now I feel like I gave Justice Barrett too much credit as an acolyte if Scalia. Or as a non-ideological doofus at all. At least if this is accurate:
Whew -- I was reading about Amy Coney Barrett's new book yesterday, in which she says Roe is not settled law because it did not reflect the will of the people, and FUMING about how brazen the lying can be.
CNN confirms:
In her book, Barrett dismisses the view of the three liberal Dobbs dissenters, who began their opinion by declaring – and citing Ginsburg – that for half a century the court’s abortion-rights precedent “protected the liberty and equality of women” and guaranteed “government could not control a woman’s body or the course of a woman’s life … .”

Barrett writes that the “complicated moral debate” about abortion distinguishes it from other rights more traditionally recognized as fundamental that enjoy broad public support, including “the rights to marry, have sex, procreate, use contraception.”
Not a jurisprudential concept I’ve ever heard of; well, outside the 19th century, anyway. Pretty clear ideological one, though. The very thing judges are supposed to leave at home, even on the high court.

Who’s Ur Daddy?

Because he sounds like Darth Vader? Seriously. The man can barely speak above a harsh whisper. Like a four pack-a-day man after 40 years. Don’t know what he’s been doing, but it’s taken its toll.

🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨

 I’m old enough to remember when CJ Roberts published “State of the Judiciary” reports expressing concern for the integrity and public perception of the judiciary:

Ten of the 12 judges who spoke to NBC News said the Supreme Court should better explain those rulings, noting that the terse decisions leave lower court judges with little guidance for how to proceed. But they also have a new and concerning effect, the judges said, validating the Trump administration’s criticisms. A short rebuttal from the Supreme Court, they argue, makes it seem like they did shoddy work and are biased against Trump.
What brings this on? Well, to cut to the numbers:
The growing reliance on the shadow docket has drawn criticism from legal experts about the lack of time and process the Supreme Court spends on what can be incredibly consequential decisions.

Since Trump took office again in January, his administration has asked the Supreme Court 23 times to block lower court rules on an emergency basis.

The court has granted the government’s emergency requests in 17. It rejected the government in two cases, while three other cases were resolved without decisions, and one request is pending.

The Supreme Court has granted Trump administration requests to block lower court rulings in more than 70% of cases brought by the administration that were decided via the shadow docket.
Which is pretty much ruling by: “We’re the Supreme Court, bitches!”
An NBC News review of the Trump decisions showed that five of the 17 cases overturning lower court rulings included no substantive reasoning at all. Seven of the others included less than three pages of explanation. That critique extends back to the Biden administration, when the court failed to explain its decisions in eight out of the 10 wins for the government.

“Judges in the trenches need, and deserve, well-reasoned, bright-line guidance,” a judge said. “Too often today, sweeping rulings arrive with breathtaking speed but minimal explanation, stripped of the rigor that full briefing and argument provide.”
The lower courts deserve an explanation, and the general public deserves one, even if the latter don’t read the opinions or understand the reasoning. The legitimacy of the courts is literally in their transparency, and that transparency, even if the language is opaque to the laity, is found in court opinions. Even badly written opinions provide an explanation for the conclusion, and any explanation is better than “Because I said so!” Which is pretty much the explanation offered most recently by Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. Putting it in writing is at least better than hiding mum behind institutional authority. Even non-lawyers can see that this is just bullshit:
That was the situation in which Maryland-based U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox found himself this year after Trump fired three members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Like certain other federal agencies, it was set up by Congress to be insulated from political pressures. While the president could nominate members to fixed terms, he could not fire them except for “neglect of duty or malfeasance.”

On paper, Maddox’s job was an easy one: As a district court judge, he has to follow the Supreme Court’s previous rulings. In 1935, in a case called Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld a law preventing the president from firing members of the Federal Trade Commission — a setup similar to the CPSC’s — without cause.

The Supreme Court’s current conservative majority has undermined that precedent in recent years, but, crucially, it has not overturned it.

But before Maddox issued his decision, the Supreme Court on May 22 allowed Trump to fire members of two other independent agencies with similar restrictions, the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board.

The Supreme Court’s two-page order was paltry, sending mixed messages by allowing the firings while expressly saying the court would wait to decide whether to overturn Humphrey’s Executor.

Maddox was left to grapple with how that decision applied to his case. He ultimately rejected the Trump administration’s arguments in two separate rulings in June, concluding that he was bound by the 1935 precedent.

“Humphrey’s Executor remains good law,” he wrote.

But Maddox did not have the final word. The Trump administration once again quickly turned to the Supreme Court, which granted its emergency request to allow the firings a month later.

The case was “squarely controlled” by its May decision, the conservative majority said in a one-page decision overturning Maddox.
The Supreme Court rulings, IOW, are as clear as mud. The Sinister Six clearly want to overturn Humphrey’s Executor sotto voce. Explanations are so tedious, after all. But that’s not the way this works. That’s not the way any of this works

Even the Justices are noticing:
She referred to a different case in which Massachusetts-based Judge Myong Joun issued a ruling that blocked Trump administration plans to downsize the Education Department. The administration quickly appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the government.

Kagan noted that the case raised several legal issues, including what authority Joun had to step in, but the Supreme Court’s terse order did not explain on what grounds it was blocking his decision. The only writing was from liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned an 18-page dissent.

“What’s that court supposed to think?” Kagan asked, referring to Joun. “It’s just impossible to know, and that puts the [lower] court in a very difficult situation.”
But the Chief Justice can’t be bothered to say a word. As Professor Vladeck says, this is a five-alarm fire. This is the constitutional crisis your mother warned you about.

You Can Explain It In The Civil Suit

Because you’ll have to.

Wednesday, September 03, 2025

Has George Clooney Seen This?

I know where my nightmares are coming from tonight.

Rand Paul’s Ten Minutes

I remember Charlie Pierce used to say Rand Paul, like his father, could make sense for about ten minutes, and then the trolley would leave the track.
Rand Paul: "The reason we have trials and we don't automatically assume guilt is what if we make a mistake and they happen to be people fleeing the Venezuelan dictator? ... off our coast it isn't our policy just to blow people up ... even the worst people in our country, if we accuse somebody of a terrible crime, they still get a trial."
Not if Stephen Miller Trump can help it.
Rand Paul: "It might be ironic if in the end the protectionist flavor of the day -- the tariffs we're putting on -- if it brought together our enemies and ultimately led to the collapse of the reserve currency of the world ... if you put a 50% tariff on Indian goods, India will become closer to China and Russia"
It would be even more ironic if he’d say this on the Senate floor. Don’t you think? A little too ironic…. Compare and contrast: So they were coming from Venezuela to California in that boat? And the proper call was not to intercept them, but to obliterate them? Because we’re the United States, that’s why

I really hate when Rand Paul makes VP Vance look like the flaming Nazi gasbag he is. O, the humanities!

I Guess This Means We’ll Have To Quarantine Florida

Build a wall along the continental border. Refuse all airline traffic originating from or stopping over in Florida airports. Refuse all ships from a Florida port. And refusing all communications except electronic.

Harsh. But it’s a public health issue.

Or we could just dust off and nuke ‘em from space. It’s the only way to be sure.

I am not, by the way, kidding:
About this Florida vaccine story:

When they were little - 1 yr and 3 1/2 - my two older boys, who’d had all their shots, got whooping cough.

We asked their pediatrician what would’ve happened if they hadn’t been vaccinated.

“Oh, they’d have died.”
I’m old enough to remember polio victims (some my peers, most members of my parents’ generation). I’m also old enough to have had a smallpox vaccination (my daughter didn’t need to), and to have taken the polio vaccine in s sugar cube the first time it was available (as a child I had a horror of needles and what seemed like constant rounds of injections for vaccines. The sugar cube cure was too good to be true, and almost convinced me the world could be a magical place.). So mandatory vaccines is no more “slavery” than traffic laws are. If Florida does go that route: quarantine ‘em. The whole damned state. Idiots who allow that to happen shouldn’t be allowed to endanger the rest of us. Or even make us sicker than we might otherwise be.

Maybe we should even stop ‘em from reproducing. One state full of imbeciles is enough.

Gotta draw the line against stupid somewhere, if that’s what it comes to.

Tl;dr

(Yeah, I can’t really blame you.)

 "Congratulations, you poor! God's domain belongs to you!

“Congratulations, you hungry! You will have a feast.

“Congratulations, you who weep now! You will laugh.”

“Damn you rich! You already have your consolation!

“Damn you who are well-fed now! You will know hunger.

“Damn you who laugh now! You will learn to weep and grieve.”

I’ve commented on this idiotic Texas law before, wondering which “version” of the Decalogue should be used (and no, I don’t mean translation, although I still think the KJV is a non-starter. You really want kids contemplating not “coveting” their neighbor’s ass? Hell, I was giggling over that one in Sunday School, 60 years ago.) The version on the grounds of the Texas Capitol is Cecil B.’s choice, being part of his publicity campaign for Heston before Heston was an NRA shill. I’ve seen variations on the theme, and always wondered where they came from. Biblical illiterates, I imagine, who couldn’t locate the original (Exodus, if you’re wondering), or the first restatement (Deuteronomy; it’s literally how the Greek title translates to modern English). Or even know there are two versions. But context be damned, it’s the magical thinking that matters! Somehow a piece of paper with words on it will force children to contemplate their sins and honor their father and mother and not lie or commit adultery or covet their neighbor’s…. 🫏

I’m not disparaging the scriptures, I’m opposing the abuse of them as idols. If you know the scriptures (especially what happened when Moses Heston brought the tablets down from Sinai the first time), you appreciate the irony. Scripture out of context of a body of believers, of worshippers, is as much as wasted as trying to teach RFK, Jr. science, or Trump what actually stopped the wildfires in California. We like to think science or reality are readily comprehended, and yet the same public leaders who think morality is good for thee but not for they, prove even science and reality can be pearls before swine. So I’m not asking for special dispensation to say what Christians and Jews consider the scriptures, should not be treated as magical talismans with mystical powers for good,  which can be absorbed by some sort of osmosis or associative principle simply by being in the proximity of children attending mandatory public education.

Context for what I want to talk about. I really do think the Beatitudes should be posted in public schools if we’re going to post anything from the Holy Bible. I also really don’t think we should require posters with verses from the HB in public schools. Maybe teach it as literature, since it’s as central to Western European culture as Shakespeare and Dante. (I once faced a whole class if college freshmen who’d never heard of the Prodigal, the Good Samaritan, Jonah, or Noah. The words alone should be evocative of cultural touchstones, whether you place any spiritual value in the stories or not. You should know the story of Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet, even if you can’t analyze the power structures critiqued in them. How else undersea reference to “Hamlet’s dilemma” or “Star-crossed lovers”? The collapse of that common thread is a real loss.) So yes, study the Bible as literature. There’s cultural value in that. But leave the theological and Bible school interpretations at home.

Yeah. That’ll happen.

So we move away from public displays of religion (I meant to ask Ken Paxton, who says we need to lift up prayers in our schools, if I could bring in a Tibetan prayer wheel and keep it spinning. Or a prayer rug for Muslim prayers. A rosary, maybe. Or a brazier so I can write my prayers on slips of paper and burn them.  And can I pray without ceasing, even during the lecture? Aloud?) to questions of exegesis (or as we learned to call it in seminary, “extra Jesus”). 

I’ve commented on the Beatitudes before, and I don’t want to repeat myself. Rather than look at the language, I want to look at the structure. It’s symmetrical; two groups of three. Matthew, the only other gospel with beatitudes, has 9; arguably 3x3. Anthropologists and folklorists pay attention to such things. Both Luke and Matthew’s version could be said to follow the rule of threes. But Luke’s, as I say, is symmetrical: 3 blessings, 3 curses. Matthew’s 9 are repetitive. The formula is unvarying: “Blessed are…; “Blessed are…; Blessed are.” And they are repeated phrase forms, as symmetrical as Luke’s, and as repetitive: “Blessed are the…for they…” The 9th one breaks the pattern: “Blessed are you…”, and the blessing goes on for those faithful to Jesus whatever the world says or does for that faithfulness. It tells you a lot about Matthew’s community (the original audience for this gospel), but Luke’s Beatitudes give us insight into his community, too.  He’s not worried about persecutions or poor spirits, he’s worried about material inequality: the chasm between poor and rich. Luke’s gospel is where we find the parable that makes that chasm literal: the story of Lazarus and the rich man.

It’s brief: Lazarus is ptochoi; he lives in poverty at the gate of the rich man. Both die; Lazarus goes to the bosom of Abraham; the rich man to perdition and eternal torment. The rich man begs Abraham for a boon, but Abraham says there is a chasm between them that cannot be crossed. Like the social chasm in life that separated him from Lazarus.

It is quite literally, a story of reversal (not the only way to read it.) But Luke is always concerned with what we call “social justice,” and yet the lasting impact of this parable is the base concept of hell: a place of fire and torment so far removed from heaven, that you cannot cross between them. This is why Milton places Hell at the opposite end of the universe from heaven. The lasting lesson of the parable, the lesson we took above all else from this story, is our everlasting visions of hell. Believe in it or not, we know what it’s supposed to be like. The parable of Lazarus is why.

So Luke’s Beatitudes give us three blessings, three related curses, all on the theme of wealth and poverty. And all involving radical reversals; just like the parable of Lazarus. The blessings provide; the curses take away. But Lazarus doesn’t just wind up in heaven, he changes places with the rich man. And the hungry won’t just be fed; those who eat now, will go hungry. What Jesus is saying is that all the ptochoi will change places with all the rich. It’s kind of interesting, actually, that this is never treated as a prophecy.

Because Jesus says these things will happen. What Luke presents us with is a series of fundamental reversals. We’ve seen this already in Luke’s gospel, starting with Mary’s Magnificat. There, Mary sings of the powerful being cast down from their thrones and the rich sent away empty while the poor take their place. But reversals are a sign of God’s actions throughout the scriptures, starting with God gently chiding Sarah for doubting she could have a child so late in her life (a story echoed in Luke’s Annunciation). Isaiah speaks of streams in the desert. Ezekiel sees the valley of dry bones restored to life, a vivid metaphor for the recovery of Israel from Exile.

In Luke’s telling, the blessings will happen because the reversals are the fruits of the basileia tou theou. Because that will bring justice, and justice means some will gain, and some will lose. It doesn’t really lift all boats. Justice levels the playing field. “Will bring” is a mistake, though. Jesus meant the basileia was here, was now; is here, is now. The blessings will be the result if we see it, if we live it: now. The reversal of justice will happen. It is not a matter of waiting for God’s actions. It’s in our hands.

When God came to Abraham and promised as many descendants as stars in the sky, Abraham showed trust (faith), and God’s promise was fulfilled. Joseph led the children of Abraham into Egypt to escape the famine, and generations later Moses led them out again, and gave them God’s law to follow, do life would be good for everyone. As Isaiah later said, so the nations would be drawn to God’s holy mountain and the blessings Israel enjoyed. But Israel didn’t follow God’s law, and they spent 40 years in the desert. Later, they ignored God’s law again, and God left them to their own devices, which led to the Exile.

The point being that, in Israel’s salvific history, salvation always through their hands. That is the basileia tou theou. It can be, if we will live it. It can be God’s domain, plan, will, goal. If we will do it.

Jesus came proclaiming the basileia tou theou. And it is pronounced again in the “congratulations,” and the “damns.” Announced in the reversal; in the use of threes. A common trope of oral traditions, where three signifies the importance, and the completeness, of the point. And three easiest to remember. Which is easier to memorize: Luke’s pair of three? Or Matthew’s triplet of threes (had you even noticed that before?)? It’s not a contest. Each has its purpose, each its virtues. But they offer very different, and complimentary, teachings. Kind of like the difference between Luke’s “Our Father,” and Matthew’s.

Always some uncertainty, right?

Speaking Of Idolatry

Ken Paxton envourages Rexas public school students to recite the Lord:
With a new Texas law in effect allowing time for prayer and reading religious texts in public schools, Attorney General Ken Paxton on Tuesday encouraged students to practice the Lord’s Prayer as relayed in the King James Version of the Bible, marking the latest instance of a Texas public official endorsing Christianity over other faiths.

The U.S. Constitution prohibits states from promoting one religion over another, but in a news release asking Texas schools to comply with Senate Bill 11, Paxton called on schoolchildren to consider utilizing prayer time to engage with the Lord’s Prayer “as taught by Jesus Christ.”
Why the KJV? Because it appeals to old people (👋) who memorized the prayer in that version. 

I call it idolatry because, as I’ve said before, the KJV is written in another language. Linguists divide English into four languages: Old English, Middle English, Early Modern English, and Modern English. I defy you to read a transliteration of Beowulf (forget the original runic version. Tolkien could read that, but the rest of us can’t.) It’s English, but not the one you know. Early Modern English is English, but do you know what “zounds” means? How about the “begats” in the KJV, found in both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. Who says “begat” anymore? Or, for that matter, “covet”?

Honestly, without training in this stuff, it’s gibberish.

“Art” has a meaning in modern English it didn’t in EME. There it was a form of the “to be” verb. It isn’t any more. And “hallowed”? Change that first vowel to an “O,” we might recognize it. “Thy”? “Thigh,” maybe.

It’s the wrong language for us. We might as well recite in the original koine Greek.

Not that Paxton cares. He’s just dangling it like a shiny object for GOP primary voters to peck at. To them it’s a worship object; what the Hebrew Scriptures repeatedly condemn as an “idol.”

Good Luck With That

Just A Reminder…

Trump hasn’t lived in a residential home in his adult lifetime.

In 70 years, I’ve never lived in a house with a fire suppression sprinkler system. Besides, in a wildfire, it’s the roof that usually catches the blaze; or the exterior walls. An interior sprinkler system would be as useless as a lawn sprinkler system. Neither is going to keep your house from burning down in that situation.

I’ve still never seen Trump walk and chew gum at the same time. I wonder if he can… 🤔

Making Trump Eat That Maxwell Interview

Yeah, that never worked; and it’s never going to.

Tuesday, September 02, 2025

Take $20. Put It In Your Right Pocket.

Now move it to your left pocket. You just grew the GDP by $20!  —Scott Bessent, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury.

Trapped In The Car By Trump’s Press Conference

 I fully expect his tombstone to be a giant granite faucet bearing the legend: “WE TURNED ON THE WATER AND SAVED CALIFORNIA!”

With a foot stone bearing a single word: “RIGGED!”

Now Tell Us About Federal Grand Juries

I know this is on FoxNews, but it’s like she never left.

But the job she has now requires a totally different skill set.

Whited Sepulchers

"Congratulations, you poor! God's domain belongs to you!

“Congratulations, you hungry! You will have a feast.

“Congratulations, you who weep now! You will laugh.”

“Damn you rich! You already have your consolation!

“Damn you who are well-fed now! You will know hunger.

“Damn you who laugh now! You will learn to weep and grieve.”
I mean, if we’re gonna open up God’s word.




Or, you know, 50 year old Broadway musicals based on the Gospel of Matthew….

Big, If True

 This probably needs to come up if Trump sends the NG to Chicago:

In response to a late question, Newsom then noted that CA’s cops had to protect the Guard Trump deployed.
I want to also compliment the Commissioner. It was the CHP working with LAPD that were protecting the National Guard and the military in LA. I want to thank them for that. The LAPD, in partnership with the CHP, had to protect the Federalized Guard and the United States military after Donald Trump federalized them.
I’m sure California could provide more information if Illinois requested it.

0-5

Let’s go to the tape:
A Washington, D.C., grand jury declined to indict an Indiana woman for allegedly threatening to kill President Donald Trump.

In August, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro claimed that Nathalie Jones, 50, threatened the president's life on Instagram and Facebook and in interviews with the Secret Service.

"I am willing to sacrificially kill this POTUS by disemboweling him and cutting out his trachea with Liz Cheney," Jones wrote on Facebook, according to prosecutors. She later told the Secret Service that Trump was a "Nazi" and that she would "carry out her mission of killing" him with a "bladed object."

Federal public defender A.J. Kramer noted in a motion filed on Monday that Judge James E. Boasberg had released Jones to home detention after a grand jury "found no probable cause" to indict her.
By my count, that’s the fifth time a grand jury has told Pirro to pound sand.

I guess she’ll just have to get Trump to suspend grand juries in D.C. I’m sure the Sinister Six wouldn’t have a problem with that use of executive power.

Points for the metaphorical reference to Liz Cheney as a sharp object. She’s certainly sharper than Trump.

“A Celebrity Must First Declare The President Unfit For Office”

 This is fine:

"Yeah, I call it a crime free zone because we don’t play games," said Trump. "You know, I said they spit, we hit. You know, when these people — women — they’re standing up to these guys, good looking guys, and they want to do something, but they’re not allowed to. If they do, they’ll be arrested. They’ll arrest the soldiers. They had an arrest warrant out on every single soldier, if they hit back, there was an automatic arrest. So you have these people, they scream, they’re this far away, screaming."

"Some women, screaming, like crazy, they’re crazy," he continued. "And then they start spitting in the face of the guy. And these guys are just, they wouldn’t, but they can’t do it. Now they can do it. So I said, we spit– they spit, we hit. Right?"
An "arrest warrant on every soldier”? Just because they were soldiers? That’s not even vaguely how arrest warrants work. And who is “they” in that rant? The Deep State? The Commies? The Democrats?

“And these guys are just, they wouldn’t, but they can’t do it. Now they can do it.” I defy you to make sense of that sentence without adding entire concepts that are patently not present.

But no one could say “Biden is old,” until George Clooney did. Secret codicil to the 25h Amendment.

Mmmm… Maybe

 Morning Joe:

With that in mind, and with court cases pending challenging Trump’s right to declare an emergency and send in the troops, contravening the Posse Comitatus Act, MSNBC host Jonathan Lemire told the “Morning Joe“ panel Trump may try an end-around.

“There is a sense with terms of Chicago, the National Guard, we've raised the idea that the president doesn't have the authority to do so, that no decision has been made,” he explained. “But I've been told by some in the administration that the guard would be deployed to safeguard ICE raids, to therefore provide security to ICE agents, much like that was the pretense in Los Angeles.”

“To protect federal buildings and to protect federal agents,” co-host Joe Scarborough interjected. “That is what they did in LA,” Lemire agreed. “The thought is that might be how they try to – the bank shot to get some of these guard troops to Chicago. That pretense would, first of all, would accelerate these ICE raids, which I know many in the community do not want. But secondly, would allow the president to have a show of force, have his troops in the city with perhaps more legally justifiable means. That's being considered.”
Except in LA the protests and “interference” with ICE came first. That provided what the courts considered legitimate grounds to protect federal personnel and buildings, especially when people were setting cars on fire.

Absent that, Trump’s got no grounds to “protect” ICE.

Change the facts, change the outcome.

Monday, September 01, 2025

I’m Sure This Will Prompt The National Guard…

...to rake the leaves in Hermann Park:
HOUSTON — An 11-year-old boy is dead after police say he was shot during a “ding-dong-ditch” prank in east Houston late Saturday night.

The shooting happened around 11 p.m. near Mimbrough and Fidelity streets, just east of the East Loop.

Houston police said the boy and a group of kids had been ringing doorbells in the neighborhood when they knocked at one home. That’s when, according to witnesses, someone came out of the house and started shooting at the children as they ran away.

“A witness says someone ran out of that house and was shooting at the kids running down the street, and unfortunately, sadly enough, one of the boys who was 11 years old was shot in the back,” said HPD Homicide Detective Sgt. Michael Cass.

The boy was taken to the hospital with multiple gunshot wounds and later died Sunday afternoon.

Police said a man was detained at the home where the shooting happened. He has not been arrested but was being questioned by homicide detectives Sunday.

While executing a search warrant at the house, investigators collected several rifles and handguns as evidence.

When asked about potential charges, Sgt. Cass said the circumstances don’t appear to support a self-defense claim.

"In my opinion, it does not look like any type of self-defense. It wasn’t close to the house, so it’ll more than likely be a murder
To be clear, I’m not making light of the horrific shooting. I’m making light of Trump’s threats to send federal troops (NG or otherwise) to clean up crime where he sees it. He won’t see this.

And yes, “self-defense” is a thing in Texas law. A poorly defined thing juries are known to use as a kind of nullification. A few years back a man here in Houston stood in his front door and shot three burglars. Except they didn’t burgle his house; they robbed his neighbor, who wasn’t at home (so, technically, a robbery). They just happened to be crossing his lawn. He shot them in the back. A grand jury no-billed him. Because, you know, “self-defense.”

I don’t think that will work this time, with an 11 year old boy ringing a doorbell. But, ya never know…
We do have a lot of trees in Houston. Just sayin’…