Here:

Here:

Here.
BTW, if Mr. Mystal is right and we forget about how the new administration is directly and intentionally attacking the legitimacy of the federal judiciary this week, and instead talk about whether the nominee is more or less like Scalia, this nomination will be entirely meaningless. Any nominee, no matter who it is, should tell the President “no thanks” if he (and it’ll be a “he”, we all know that) is being picked because he won’t vote against the current administration. Sadly, we also all know that’s exactly why the nominee chosen will have been chosen.
Here.
If you’re going to watch this, try skimming this first: “George Orwell and the Power of a Well-Placed Lie.”
UPDATE: And, no, I won’t watch it live because they have a live chat and that gives voice to people who are advocating for violent civil war and the mass murder of all “liberals.”
Here:
Don’t forget Kelli Mosteller’s response to NSR in the Atlantic.
Here is the website for HCR 3017. The text:
A concurrent resolution urging Congress to modify the Indian reservation system by vesting the states with the ability to engage in relations with Native American tribes and with the responsibility of developing plans to improve the failed Indian reservation system, advance and elevate the quality of life on Indian reservations, promote and increase literacy on Indian reservations, and help Indian reservations to achieve economic stability and independence.
Document here: 17-3014-03000.
Strange for North Dakota to ask permission for what virtually every other state with Indian tribes inside their borders already does. The language on the “failed” reservation system seems like Orwellian-speak for “we can’t make the North Dakota tribes comply with our wishes so give us control over them.” Only a state that has failed in its relationship-building with Indian tribes would ask for this so-called power.
Here.
An excerpt:
Seems doubtful this would be constitutional if it were to pass (and no one else quoted in the report seemed too enthused about it). By his own admission, the bill is a response to the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, and so (although the language itself is neutral) it is arguably a content- or even viewpoint-based restriction because the intent is to deter a certain kind of speech. If so, it would be subject to strict scrutiny and almost certainly struck down. (Note that it doesn’t require the “obstructing” to be illegal, so far as I can tell.) Even if you consider it content-neutral, it would still have to pass the rational-basis test. And it’s hard to see what the rational basis for this would be, or at least I can think of reasons it’s irrational.
Here.
Here:
Lower court materials here.
Here:
Lower court materials here.
Lies are often much more plausible, more appealing to reason, than reality, since the liar has the great advantage of knowing beforehand what the audience wishes or expects to hear. He has prepared his story for public consumption with a careful eye to making it credible, whereas reality has the disconcerting habit of confronting us with the unexpected, for which we were not prepared.
Hannah Arendt, Crises of the Republic
Be prepared for a massive purge of American voters, mostly Democratic Party-leaning, mostly minorities, from the rolls of register voters. The plan seems to be to claim that the President actually won the popular vote (a falsehood, by millions of votes), then to claim that millions of people voted for the Democratic Party candidate illegally (also a falsehood), then to audit voters in targeted locations (Mike Pence promised to do it), declare the audit actually did uncover millions of illegal voters (whether or not it’s true, and it’s not), and then purge them. It’ll have to be done in less than two years before the midterm election where, all things being equal, the Republican Party is headed for disaster.
Two entities in power can stop this — the Republican Party and the Roberts Court — but those are entities that are not going to do anything to assist the Democratic Party or minority voting rights. Rs believe almost religiously that illegal immigrants vote in large numbers, for example, all but foreclosing a Party response on that front. And the Roberts Court’s record on minority voting rights is just bad, possibly because the Chief Justice is not a fan of the voting rights act.
One can watch, or one can act.
You must be logged in to post a comment.