Yeah, that’s who wrote the rant-appended–to-a-rant I mentioned here:
The RS article, linked by @Akimbo_NOT, brings this around to Oath Keepers.
11 Likes
He’s been grifting too long for it to be swift.
We’ll have to settle for it being long and painful.
13 Likes
Swift in delivery, long in execution.
I loathe self-hating racists even more than I do the regular, everyday bigots.
16 Likes
12 Likes
9 Likes
I like the name.
20 Likes
12 Likes
Hmmm, I wonder what criteria they would use to determine who might be violating those laws?
Just gotta wonder…
Guess it’ll just be a mystery
Yup, mystery…
19 Likes
Fla. will not be last state to go this route thanks to these assholes:
ETA: Via CNN:
States’ divergence on rights widening
The voting rights struggle most clearly demonstrates the leverage of the new Republican axis. But the same pattern is coming into view on abortion. Republican-controlled states, including Alabama, Mississippi, Texas and Oklahoma, have passed a torrent of laws in recent years severely tightening or virtually eliminating access to abortion, typically over preponderant opposition from Democratic legislators. Courts have blocked most of those laws from taking effect because they violate the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which established a nationwide right to abortion. In other cases, the laws are “triggered” to go into effect only if the high court overturns Roe. That day may be coming: In oral arguments during a challenge to the Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks (as well as the decision not to temporarily block an even more restrictive Texas statute), the GOP-appointed Supreme Court majority has signaled it may overturn or severely weaken Roe in a decision next summer. The odds are near zero that any of the three Democratic-appointed justices would join in such a ruling.
The House of Representatives has already responded: Again on a majority-rule, near party-line basis, the Democratic majority approved legislation last September codifying a national right to abortion. But because of the filibuster rule that requires a bipartisan supermajority, that legislation is doomed in the Senate.
Multiple Republican-controlled states also are squeezing First Amendment rights by limiting how public school teachers can talk about race. The filibuster likely precludes any federal legislative pushback against those moves, and it’s unclear whether this Supreme Court will constrain those state laws (though some civil rights advocates hope that libertarian impulses might lead at least some GOP-appointed justices toward opposition). Likewise, multiple red states have passed laws targeting transgender young people (for instance, by barring them from competing in high school sports). The House, on another majority-rule, near-party line vote, last year passed legislation that would override those laws, but that bill too is blocked by the Senate filibuster.
Again it’s unclear whether this Supreme Court will intervene against the states in the lawsuits brought by LGBTQ rights groups; to the contrary, some legal analysts believe that if the GOP-appointed court majority overturns Roe, it might eventually use similar logic to reverse the 2015 Obergefell decision establishing the national right to same-sex marriage. (If that happens, it would allow red states to again bar same-sex unions, while the filibuster would almost certainly prevent Congress, as on abortion, from restoring the national right through legislation.)
All of this points toward a widening divergence in the basic rights available in red and blue states. That’s an America that looks more like it did before Congress and the Earl Warren-led Supreme Court engineered the “rights revolution” of the 1960s and 1970s, which established a broad array of common national rights in area from voting to abortion to discrimination based on race or gender.
Republican elected officials and conservative thinkers who support these trends argue that permitting states more freedom to diverge on questions such as abortion and voting rights reduces political tensions by allowing policies to reflect local sentiments. And they uniformly insist that the voting laws states are passing will merely buttress election integrity without curtailing citizens’ right to vote. Reversing the accusation that the Republican axis is gutting long-standing national rights, many conservatives argue it is Democrats who are seeking to undermine political institutions by eliminating the filibuster or enlarging the Supreme Court, two ideas that have surfaced as possible responses to the GOP axis.
When it comes to how far the GOP-appointed Supreme Court majority may go in allowing red states to roll back previously shared national rights, she adds, “I don’t think we have seen the line, and I think that’s really scary.”
15 Likes
Sweet patronage position.
You “work” one week a year.
8 Likes
The private police army serving the Governor for Life.
6 Likes
Much like David Brooks, Jennifer Rubin is a conservative pundit who has opposed Trump (she now backs Biden pretty strongly)… so this is one of those “stopped clock” situations, I think. She’s not wrong here, about how the media (of which she’s a part) is still soft-peddling the dangers of Trumpism…
12 Likes
Yes, there’s some good straight talk there.
Certainly, the media should avoid rendering a psychiatric evaluation for Trump. But they routinely refuse to convey the abnormality on display before them. This is “the emperor has no clothes” on steroids.
Unflinching, brutally honest coverage would describe Trump’s behavior accurately, including his syntax and preposterous lies . It would concede this conduct would be disqualifying for any business executive or even a small-town mayor. The media are compelled to level with voters: The two parties are not equivalent, in part because one treats its crackpot leader like a messiah . Unfortunately, there are no signs the media are ready for such candor.
I wish she’d say the corporate media, though. Theyre not the only “media.”
15 Likes
18 Likes
Why does the maskhole get to set the terms? No mask should have been the one to participate remotely. “Chief Justice” should have set those conditions.
22 Likes
People should start mailing him masks.
And 55 gallon drums of lube.
12 Likes
Yeah, absolutely.
11 Likes
As we discuss often on this site, there’s a fine line between armchair psychiatry and describing consistent deranged behaviour. The corporate media cravenly stays far, far away from that line.
8 Likes
It is hard–very hard–to avoid construing real animus that Gorsuch has, by all appearances, for his colleague Sotomayor. As one article notes (NPR?), they are seated next to each other on the bench or whatever it’s called.
These daily, petty-minded slights (some of which are the difference between health and illness, life and death) that have escalated on that hockey-stick-shaped curve since oh I dunno 2015ish are the noticeable friction, the sound of what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouching its way toward us.
Tame it.
Don’t give in.
Stay human.
15 Likes
