How fast would any federal court have thrown this right out, just 10 years ago? Remember when members across the spectrum of the court deemed the right to vote to be fundamental?

As a Law student we learned about the negligence calculus - whether B (burden) is less than or greater than P (probability) times L (loss). Brought to you by the Chicago school and supposedly used by Ford to argue that the pinto (prone to explode in rear end collisions) wasn't negligently designed.

As usual he's confused. The states aren't crooked, it's the gerrymandered districts that are (very) crooked.

"The Republican Party is the most dangerous organization in the history of mankind."

- Noam Chomsky (on multiple occasions during the timeframe he had dinner or was invited to do so, with Epstein and Theil)

Kompromat didn't keep him out, but has been helping him get back and stay in. Reading here about Brad Karp and other heads of big law firms that bent the knee.

Maybe the better question is whether they are buying Amazon or palantir stock in their personal accounts.

mijente.net/wp-content/u...

Right. We've seen his letters before, which suggested he just enjoyed the dinner parties, referred to no extracurricular events, and made a point of thanking for them.

Really, what else is being revealed here, and why is it important?

Good details about the systems are here.

mijente.net/wp-content/u...

Well, based on what went down in the first term, the wsj will work hard for that, amazon web services will try to get its h2 with 9 billion in ny tax breaks for it, and palantir stock will get a boost on cnbc.

I don't know about state bar action but people just need to look further at the background of the person you mention - who is in charge of the friggin civil rights division.

This is just nowhere in mainstream or lefty media, and deserves more attention.

Orville Redenbacher is jefferies biggest donor after he disclosed that as a minority leader he would sit and eat popcorn.

This is awesome - the critical legal subject very few have mentioned.

What happened in 1982 Nixon v Fitzgerald immunity case - and justice white's passionate dissent (also Burgers concurrence on criminal potential) should be better known - need legislation esp w this supreme court.

English for Beginners - Teacher Lucille Hisker.

Actually it is quite surprising to learn this about Rubio, especially given how powerful his supporters are that presumably helped put him in there with unprecedented dual roles.

Awesome work, a weekly high point.

Note - "Vertigo" is a new book about Weimar, finely written. Early on discusses how in 1920 etc, quelling the communist uprisings in Berlin etc, the SA came to virulently hate armed civilians especially women - and killed many just for being (legally) armed.

This is great but also take a look at the dhs home page which lists, for example, the heads of the various units and sub-agencies , like "biometric identity management"

This is too great. Thank you!

Takes time to understand it. It's the Bar bill stupid! - look at that glass of whiskey. What a pathetic creep, and one of the best idiots the nyt has to offer.

The important thing is to ensure there are no changes to law concerning immunity or qualified immunity; that way, whatever they do will look good for campaigns but can be easily disregarded by the fascist militias. Does anyone want to think about whether and how laws are supposed to be enforced?

Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) Nixon v. Fitzgerald: The President has absolute immunity from liability for civil damages arising from any official action taken while in office.

Let's take an additional moment to note that Justice Blackmun also joined Brennan and Marshall in the view that Presidents are not immune from civil (let alone criminal) liability for violating constitutional rights.

supreme.justia.com/cases/federa...

Congress is a good place for republicans to make tv clips for Fox, and that's what it's for - it's been years since they had any interest in the actual proceedings, seriously, nothing going on there has any purpose outside of prepared clips to be shown later on right wing media.

Basil Fawlty:
Well, I'll just get your hors d'oeuvres.

[German accent] Hors d'oeuvres...

....vich must be obeyed at all times vitout qvestion!

Come now, if 85 percent of them weren't corporate do you really think they would elect those leaders? Why? It's well known (as eg Pram Jayapal has discussed it) that many democrats call themselves Progressive (and have joined the progressive caucus) just for campaign purposes.

Except that merkley is not in charge. Merkley is in the minority party. The way it works, to be in charge, you need a majority.

True that more can be done by an opposition party. But that's the party.

This opposition party doesn't organize workers, refuses to endorse ny's popular mayor etc

Thank you for this. Note as well, Prof Kim Scheppele recently discusses the track record of other authoritarians - how high courts are captured in authoritarian practices and how these courts typically will decide a case occasionally against the leader to maintain their appearance of legitimacy.

Homepage We support building community resilience as a hopeful and practical response to multiple emerging ecological and social challenges.

Yes, excellent and well written but at resilience.org recent publications add important info on how industry focuses on wrong kind of efficiency; under "systems analysis" may not be well-designed to reduce emissions. Eg, weight of vehicles isn't often discussed. We have 10,000 pound hummer EVs.

Starts with both sides of whether a convicted felon with multiple other indictments should be responsible for the faithful execution of the laws.

Justice White said it's unacceptable if the court makes it so that Congress cannot provide a remedy against Presidential misconduct and the criminal laws of the United States are wholly inapplicable to the President.

Reform the court. Share Glenn's proposal / endorsement for doing so.

Nyt told us in april 2020 that Covid should be allowed to spread, to create "herd immunity," when there was no such scientific position at all. They published the views of an ai-based Beverly hills dietician as their "public health expert," and tl Friedman repeated this. Would they ever apologize?

Nobody even will try to match Frankenstein.

Franken-frickin-stein.

Honorable mention: Hocus Pocus by Focus, just because saying it sounds cool, although it's kind of annoying, really.

Right, because he hates the whole concept of a functioning Congress almost as much as the justices do. The only problem might be that almost everyone in Congress already hates Cruz even more than the court.