How DID isn't a complete and total disqualification for public office I'll never know. I really only want him for what he says and his name. He's a number to the R party. Nothing more. He's surely not a bright mind who will represent his district with intelligent ideas and sound policy for the betterment of his constituents.

Don't underestimate that Warnock is a pretty great candidate. His ads are fantastic, almost completely positive and ingratiating. Even when he goes negative, it's just a clip of Walker talking about magical COVID spray.

Dems winning Senate at 38 cents now. Wondering when I should sell some to hedge.

Never underestimate the ability of Democrats to fuck things up between July and November.

Yeah . . . the Dems being part of anything that Liz Cheney is not in charge of tends to go badly for them politically.

NEW from me and @adwolfson: President Biden is poised to nominate an anti-abortion Republican attorney for federal judgeship in Kentucky, in apparent deal with Mitch McConnell: https://t.co/nfheQeLVbl via @courierjournal

— Joe Sonka 😐 (@joesonka) June 29, 2022

Nice win for NATO (and lesser extent Biden) on the Finland-Sweden-Turkiye "agreement".

I think Finland and Sweden had to compromise their "principles" and face the reality of the situation. Their national security vs some Turkish dissidents and arms sales.

Turkey lifts veto on Finland, Sweden joining NATO, clearing path for expansion | Reuters

Hmmm. Not sure I agree with this unless the European NATO countries are doing the heavy lifting. Like to better understand the US commitment for boots on the ground. All things held equal, prefer if we focus more on APAC region vs China.

I think we can all agree we are headed into another Cold War (or already in one). I looked up to see if historians identified when the first Cold War started and found this in wiki

And the Truman doctrine was

Kinda similar to the NATO summit this week. So I'm thinking this week is a candidate for Cold War 2 in future history books.

Didn't watch her testimony but sounds like either Hutchinson or Ornato (who said he's willing to testify to the contrary) is lying or greatly "mis-understood" what was said.

Yes, I would like both SS agents Ornato and Engel to testify under oath and let's see how it plays out. I'm willing to bet if Ornato told Hutchinson this, he probably told a bunch of other SS agents this also, so they should get sworn testimony from the presidential team.

‘Ketchup dripping down the wall’: 5 stunning moments from Cassidy Hutchinson’s Jan. 6 testimony - POLITICO

In one term SCOTUS killed abortion access, gun control, tribal sovereignty, the EPA, redistricting reform and the VRA...

What else am I missing?

Well, they aren't done yet, soooo

They took up an independent state legislature case for next term. They'll probably agree that only a state's legislature can set election law, no veto by the governor, review by courts, or initiative by the people. That will mean a gerrymandered legislature can create whatever election law they choose and there's nothing anybody can do about it.

Freedom.

This theory was attempted back during Bush vs. Gore, but only had 3 votes (Thomas, Scalia, Rehnquist). Kennedy pretty much made fun of the Bush lawyer who attempted to make it during oral arguments.

And he deserved to be made fun of, because the argument is ridiculous. It is based on this clause


The argument is the legislature may do it and nobody can check or balance that power. It is a fundamental misreading of the constitution, ignores the clear intent of the founders, and lacks even basic common sense.

There are many clauses that dictate what Congress may do. Under this theory, the executive or judicial branches could not check those powers because only Congress is mentioned.

I'm sorry, but James Madison didn't write Federalist 51 and then write a clause intending to give only one branch the power to do something, with no means of checking it whatsoever.

The media is so bad at its job. So many articles with a headline saying SCOTUS struck down the Remain in Mexico policy. They didn't do that at all. They said Biden could end the policy. The policy could still be re-implemented by a future President.

I don't think it's a fundamental misreading, I think they all know it's bullshit. But it gives them power and that's the only justification they can to ending democratic elections.

I'm much less anti-Biden than most. But if that really was the deal, then I'm glad it got scuttled.

Biden looks like a chump making a deal like that, considering the past 13 years of McConnell.

I can easily believe Deese mispoke about "liberal world order". But if this is a preview of Biden/Dem's mid-term messaging, I think its a bad idea.

An article I read today said that story (or an approx) has been circulating around the SS agents. It may come down to the definition of "lunge" but think there is enough there to say Hutchinson didn't completely make it out of thin air.

I think Pritzker might run against Biden. He has been taking shots at Biden lately and has been surprisingly good here in Illinois.

This is what they want, I guess.

Ohio girl, 10, among patients going to Indiana to get abortion

No, they don't want that. "Sending it back to the states" is just step one until they regain enough power to implement a nationwide ban or, in the interim given a full legislative session, implement criminal penalties and extra-territorial jurisdiction laws to stop all abortions.

No, I mean they want pregnant 10yo.

Sorry I didn't respond to this sooner. Yes, he is a great candidate. That is part of the factor. Walker being a bad candidate is another. I also wonder how much Abrams being a black woman hurts her, and how much of the demonization she gets for being basically being good at her job at getting voter turn-out. Like the "Hilary Clinton" affect.

Why? Why do you think it was an errant statement?

They would use messaging like “all life matters” and that “Mary was only 12-14 when she gave birth to Jesus.”

Def need to be locking up whomever raped a 10 year old though. Prob a family member

The entire "all life matters" argument is not really accurate. It's more accurate to say that unborn life is more important than a living, breathing human. Because if you're forcing said living, breathing human to carry to term, without regard for any circumstance that got it there, or what damage it might do to the living, breathing human carrying it. That says that there's a clear pecking order of importance to me.

As the ruling said, they want to increase the supply.

The funniest part of this is that it's really an evolutionary argument (i.e., you exist just to transmit genes to the next generation; once you've replicated enough to ensure your genetic survival and a bit of diversity, you cease to matter.)

Nobody ever mentions that in church, though.

One guy running for something somewhere (I forget who and for what, not worth giving that much thought to said jackass) asserted that marriage should be solely for procreating (and hence, no same-sex coupling). So, um, yeah -- we finished up on that 20 years ago. I guess my wife and I should be required to divorce? Or for that matter every woman past child-rearing age? (My mom's second marriage immediately came to mind. Shouldn't have been allowed at all.)

It's terrible doctrine, and I've never heard it preached in any actual church I've ever attended...though I have heard it from politicians and the sort of evangelists who have television shows and radio programs (or these days, I suppose TikToks and YouTube channels.)

I'd explain all of the ways it's wrong, but you probably don't want to read it and I don't want to look up all the references. Let's just say it's roughly equivalent to boiling football down to "if you have the ball, you should only be trying to score."

This was the argument made by conservatives in the Obergfell and other gay marriage cases. I don't for a second think they actually believed it,but had to come up with some legal theory for why they could justify gay marriage bans. The conservative lawyers were asked those very same questions during oral arguments and didn't have a good answer, because there isn't one.

Unfortunately, three of the justices in dissent are still on the court today, and they would only need two of Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh to overturn that ruling.

Biden screwed Beshear by agreeing to a deal with McConnell to nominate an antiabortion federal judge in exchange for two temporary prosecutors.

So Beshear seems to have leaked that Biden originally scheduled the nomination for the day Roe was overturned. https://t.co/kAfIcLVAnG

— Sawyer Hackett (@SawyerHackett) July 3, 2022

Durbin and Schumer can and should make it clear that they won't hold a vote on this nominee.

They haven't given much of a shit about judicial nominees. They've been slow to confirm and there is a good chance they won't be able to confirm anymore come next year.

This was something Harry Reid was actually really good at.

They've been slow to confirm lately, but through June 1 of Biden's 2nd year he has more confirmations than any President going back to Reagan. Trump confirmations took off at this point in his presidency out of the remote fear of losing Senate though.

My problem with the confirmations is the dems are still adhering to the norms that the GOP shit on. The two Tennessee senators don't like Andre Mathis. Who gives a shit? Confirm him and move on.

I also expect the dems to go back to norms when it comes to a lame duck senate if they lose the midterms. Ignoring the fact that McConnell hammered 14 judges through with a lame duck senate.

They're adhering to the norms that only one side adheres to. There are a ton of judicial openings. They still don't have a bunch of other positions like a head of FCC in place. It's a colossal failure.

The article is proposing Hillary as best to run in 2024. I don't necessarily agree she is the best but agree she is prob better than a Biden or Kamala as of right now (and I do want to see who else pops up).

Yes, I think she can beat Trump in 2024 assuming we are still not in the throes of a recession/depression/inflation/stagflation etc.

Now more than ever, Democrats need Hillary Clinton | The Hill

I'm all for picketing and protesting at justices houses assuming it's lawful and following the rules (e.g. supposedly there were bullhorns which may or not be approved?). I'm also okay for them to be provided extra protection.

Sure its intimidation, payback. And it won't change any of their minds. The protests will eventually go away, and if not, the justices can move to a nice multi-story condo.

Maybe they should do the kind of peaceful protesting Trump et al are claiming happened on Jan 6th?

Something tells me if a bunch of people wielding rainbow flags with spikes on the end broke through ACBs windows with a gallows erected out front they those on the right would look at it differently.

I'm a big weirdo who actually liked Hillary and Jeb. These managers-who-can-actually-run-things types really appeal to me.

But running a candidate like that in 2022 is party suicide. The Dems ran Hillary. She was super unpopular and lost. No need to rerun that show.

I do wonder if there are a lot of people who voted Trump, or stayed home, then after witnessing the continued horror show would vote Hillary almost as a do over.

Fool me once and all that stuff....

Not sure about that, and I'm certainly not willing to bet on it. From '16 to '20 his vote total went up by close to 12MM.

I can’t imagine a pairing as destructive for this country as Clinton - Trump, so I assume that’s exactly what will happen.

Yeah, what else does Biden have to do (and worry about) besides your SO and personally respond. Sorry she is caught up in geopolitics & Ukrainian stuff but nah, pretty low on the priority list.

Speaking of do overs, I wonder if Hillary's campaign staff would have her make at least one visit to the state of Wisconsin?

I saw a comment that if it was LeBron he'd already be out. Probably true, but what if it was Allen Iverson?