Larry Silberman's ridiculous Fox News rant about the Liberal Media -- in the context of arguing that NY Times v. Sullivan should be overruled! -- predictably earns the ecstatic praise of a notable Donald Trump superfan
Glenn is a Free Speech absolutist, and the values of Free Speech require, er, conservative politicians and judges to be able to bankrupt media organizations for printing things about them they consider insufficiently flattering
Some useful context for the Silberman/Greenwald claim that the mainstream media is the left-wing equivalent of Fox News
Really, J.D. Vance is a reprehensible person and anybody who promoted his piece-of-shit book should be profoundly embarrassed
It doesn't get much more cynical that an Ivy League-educated and Peter Thiel-affiliated hedge fund vampire pretending to be a fish out of water at "masters of the universe" events he repeatedly finds himself at for some reason
Republican Attorneys General: "we will take the federal government's money, but we have an inalienable right not to plow its driveway" lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/03/roscoe…
In a rational universe these arguments would be laughed out of Court, but based on the de facto "conditions on federal spending Republicans don't like might be unconstitutional" holding in Sebelius they may well succeed
Federal spending power doctrine is a total shambles because Roberts didn't *actually* think the ACA's revision of Medicaid conditions was unconstitutional, but he wanted to do something to damage the ACA and that was something lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/03/john-r…
The reason Mitch McConnell is palpably terrified about Dems eliminating the legislative filibuster is that the legislative filibuster primarily serves reactionary interests, always has and always will. What is in the best interest of Democrats is not a complicated question.
"It's actually not very hard at all. What's hard is Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema makin' it feel hard" rollingstone.com/music/music-ne…
Among other things, it's considerably more insulting to assert that justices make literally life-and-death decisions about when to retire based on spiteful reactions to op-eds than it is to write op-eds urging them to retire
Incidentally, it's become a widely-accepted truism that RBG didn't retire because of the "Notorious RBG" wave, but the timeline just doesn't add up. It was a reaction to her dissent in Shelby County, and she had already told Leahy months before she wasn't going to retire
Not retiring at the end of the 2013 term was a very bad decision, but it was almost certainly one she made for her own complicated reasons, not because of her late-in-life prominence in pop culture
"If Stephen Breyer has an ideology, it is...to be non-ideological!" [The key word here is 'considered.' Feldman is engaged in a constant tap dance between the lie that the Court is apolitical and a centrist-Straussian argument that it is important to tell the rubes that it is]
You know how for years the rest of the AFC East managed their personnel like they carefully studied what Belichick did and decided to do the exact opposite? The latest de facto GM to try this approach appears to be...Bill Belichick
I mean, yes, he had a fairly nifty year as a change-of-pace deep threat last year. He'll also be 28 and was available on a cheap one-year deal last offseason for a reason. Letting other teams overpay for career years is how the Pats dynasty was built