WASHINGTON (AP) — Trump, after bipartisan backlash, says Pentagon won't livestream firing squad execution of Fort Hood shooter.

good

I recommend the whole thread.

Now, the house is on fire. Have you seen what happens to houses after the firetruck comes & the hose gets turned on? No, it's not pretty. But it's better than letting the fire burn unchecked. And it's too late for mere cups of water to make a difference. So turn on the hose, and accept the costs.

The thing that has cost SCOTUS legitimacy is that they are seen, *in their conduct and opinions*, to be eschewing law for politics. And SCOTUS is susceptible to that, because it is capable of - and has been - discarding precedent on a whim.

This is not far off from my idea of circuit judges basically "riding supreme" for a period. You draw from everywhere and you get what you get, but the wheel decides rather than a president who left office 35 years ago.

Gorsuch isnt just pickled. He's on a 4-decade crusade to get back at the bureaucrats that wronged mom.

Rubber stamp or just outright legislating without any imprimitur of accountability.

*their beats

Contrast with Masters, Cohen & Ioffe who, in my opinion, have kept their feet on the ground. Byers and Hamby most certainly not. Its a consequence of becoming part of the wannabe elite audience you serve rather than staying at some remove.

I think its improbable and/or difficult without a major screw uo due to the ownership structure of Puck. Its unfortunate he was bad even then. I have found the Puck reporters who dont cover Hollywood but relocated to L.A. are likeliest to be disconnected from their best and it undermines the site.

FWIW, this is also why I think term limits are important because it's something both sides should, in theory, be able to live with. Indeed, because it is likely to be part of any settlement, it should get more attention.

“The federal legal apparatus is working to strip the citizenship of a member of Congress and then deport her, because she’s from an ethnic group the president and his top aide despises,” is open executive-branch authoritarianism with no parallel in US history

One of the things I'm generally not worried about is the SCOTUS cons reversing themselves. Their agenda is distinct, if sometimes parallel, to Trump's. Almost everything they've done that favors him supports a distinct legal goal they've long held.

This same Supreme Court stopped a summary deportation of foreign nationals on Good Friday. I don't think they'd go along with denaturalizing citizens by fiat.

The feds have to go court to strip her of her citizenship.

The DC case based on finances is not new and facially unrelated to her citizenship. However, I could see them trying to use it to subvert any immigration charge SoL.

Strikes aside, yes these are viable options once in the majority.

Like she's lying to the House clerk every two years or something?