Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Fearfully Fearless Predictions for 2024

Posted on by
Voici les prédictions 2023 apocalyptiques de la célèbre "Nostradamus des Balkans"

Having reached the point where I can say conclusively that I’ve been around for a while, I’m here today to say that I do not recall anytime in my many years that so many people I know or read have expressed so much apprehension for the coming of a new year.

Everyone is expecting the worst.

It comes up in conversation — ok, mostly with my lefty, Trump-despising cronies — but also in blogs, in comments, in asides from strangers. With “Jesus, this one going to be sick … “, being — in para-phrased form — a common refrain. Maybe you do, but I don’t remember this as the calendar turned from say, 2013 to 2014. Or even 1967 to ’68, and ’68 was a seriously bad year anyway anyone looks at it.

For a while I was thinking of doing a semi-facetious list of the ways 2024 is really going to jump the rails of common sense, decency, legality, etc. This list would have included predictions like:

1: Thanks to a ruling of the Supreme Court, with Clarence Thomas refusing to recuse, Donald Trump will be declared the winner of the 2024 election despite again losing the popular vote by millions. Legal battles in Ohio, Michigan and Arizona will result in the Court certifying contested Electoral College electors mere days before the inauguration.

2: Violent protests will erupt across the country and in D.C. as a result, suspending the inauguration and forcing Trump to take the oath indoors under heavy security.

3: An “October surprise” — a startlingly realistic AI-generated deep fake — will so badly damage Joe Biden, much as the Comey letter eroded Hillary Clinton’s support days before the election in 2016, that it will shave tens of thousands of votes in key states, putting a Court decision about the Electoral College in complete control of asserting the winner.

And so on …

But, good lord! What a bummer, right? Who wants to think about this stuff, even if — guessing here — millions already are?

While I continue to doubt both Biden and Trump will make the 2024 ballot, neither has any serious impediment — other than age — in this first week of the new year. I can not imagine the Supreme Court, its dogmatic allegiance to “originalism” withstanding, will do anything to complicate Trump’s myriad legal fights. It certainly won’t uphold Colorado’s 14th amendment decision, no doubt resting its decision on an argument Sam Alito intuits from a Spanish Inquisition case from 1503.

Likewise, in my morose stupor of the moment, I predict the same Court will strategize a way to avoid making any definitive decision on Jack Smith’s request for a ruling on Trump’s total immunity from prosecution on anything; parking tickets, exploiting illegal immigrant labor, stiffing contractors, raping women in department store dressing rooms, inciting a riot to overthrow the government, you name it. The Alito-Thomas bloc will devise a plan effectively exonerating Trump, certainly until after he’s reelected, at which point he can (and will) pardon himself.

I had a couple dozen more like this penciled in for added emphasis, but, damn man! It’s just too dystopian, even for me, a guy who can’t wait for the “Mad Max: Fury Road” sequel.

One thing that constantly rattles through my alleged brain though is how much of the over-arching chaos of this moment, and the looming chaos of 2024 (and beyond), rests at the feet of two people: Trump and Vladimir Putin, two guys who are not exactly unfamiliar or uninvested in each other.

Putin is obviously the key element in the war in Ukraine, and the powerful suspicion is that he is also a primary figure behind Iran’s support of Hamas and Hezbollah, on the grounds that any and all chaos that absorbs and consumes western democracies serves his long term interests.

It seems smart to bet that Putin’s long-standing support for Trump — via internet troll farms and social media disinformation — will, as I suggest with that “October surprise” business — only accelerate and become much more sophisticated this year, since a Trump defeat could likely seal Putin’s fate as well among the Russian elites.

Anyway, I promise I’m scouring the web for more uplifting topics to rant on about in the months to come. Maybe even something about Taylor Swift! Please stay tuned.

Yeah, It Could Have Been Worse. But We Ain’t Seen Nuthin’ Yet.

Posted on by

The most oft-heard line yesterday — the day after election day — was, “Well. THAT could have been worse.” To which my standard reply was, ‘No sh*t’.”

Something happened that almost nobody quite predicted. Certainly not me. (The record will show I played my customary Low Expectation Game with remarkable brilliance.. Especially in this MAGA era, one must guard oneself psychologically. Assume the very worst and be heartened if it’s … not that bad.)

According to exit polls from different areas of the country, abortion — i.e. Republican gaming of the Supreme Court — actually was a driving force for Democrats. Crime and inflation played about as vigorously as “threats to democracy.” And … this is less well established by the current data … voters appear to have reacted quite negatively to what we’ll refer to as the tone of The MAGA Revolution.

While dozens-to-hundreds of utter trolls were re-elected, including Ron Johnson next door in Wisconsin, (and hoo boy, the second guessing there over running a slick, Obama-like black guy), Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar, Louie Gohmert, Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordon and various other leading lights of the modern conservative intelligentsia, places like Kentucky (!) voted to protect abortion and both Minnesota and Michigan hit a liberal “trifecta”, winning control of both houses of their legislatures and re-electing Democratic governors … you know those “tyrants” who bought into the COVID-19 hoax.

But while we take a (very) brief moment of comfort in a (slim) majority of sanity, we must turn our attention to … the next election … the campaign for which has already begun. Particularly on the Republican side.

Our raging, policy-averse conservative friends are already trying to digest the one-two punch of Donald Trump’s election night faceplant, and Ron DeSantis’ 20-point wipeout of Democrat(*) Charlie Crist. More to the point, practically overnight DeSantis has been effectively anointed as “The Next Crass White Hope” by Rupert Murdoch and other big money players.

So, that said, let me offer a fresh dystopian prediction.

Trump has already declared he will make “a big announcement” at Mar a Lago next week. Other than blaming Melania for picking Dr. Oz to run in Pennsylvania, the assumption is he will tell the world he is once again ready to return to the golf course, the White House dining room or the Presidency, whichever gives him more “executive time.” The Presaidency being the one that was stolen from him by pedophile satanist liberals and is owed to him through the divine hand of God. (Ask any white evangelical.)

But given DeSantis’ performance Tuesday night, his relative youth, his every-bit-as-cruel theatrics and Trump’s vividly evident failures in this week’s elections, DeSantis now has even less-to-no reason to concede the stage. And as I say, while Logan Roy, excuse me, Rupert Murdoch, has already made his choice known, you can bet other tycoon-level Trump benefactors, like Chicago Cubs owner Todd Ricketts, now see a far, far better bet in DeSantis than another date with a whiny, obese, flagrantly incompetent three-time election loser. (2018, 2020 and 2022 for those of you scoring at home.)

This morning’s Murdoch-owned NY Post.

I regard this as a given: As the pile-on against Trump from people like Murdoch continues, DeSantis will move ever closer to announcing his candidacy. Which presents you, me and anyone who can bear to watch with a solid, two-year race to the deepest pit of ugliness and cruelty.

And that’s just what they’ll do to each other. Never mind what they propose for immigrants and anyone who isn’t clustered in The Villages.

DeSantis’ situation is a bit trickier of course, in that he still can’t know how adhesive MAGA nation is to Trump and Trump alone.

DeSantis after all is not a TV celebrity. (Insiders regard him as “a weird dude.” Not that Trump isn’t. But Trump made MAGA laugh.) DeSantis is not a character gullible TV addicted geezers actually believed is fabulously rich, glamorous and all-knowing, despite constant, powerful evidence to the contrary.

Trump drew hundreds of thousands of astonishingly aggrieved chumps out from under rocks, largely because … they saw him playing a tough-talking rich guy on TV. But unlike The Big Money Boys who have keen olfactory lobes for losers and bad bets, pitiful MAGA nation may remain so deluded by Trump’s faux majesty that they will stick with him, and continue tithing their Social Security checks to “Donny 2024” come hell or high water.

Which makes DeSantis’ best play … the “Trump-is-a-Loser” card. “Loser” being the “brand” Trump, he of “so much winning” infamy, hates most.

DeSantis game will be to steadily, persistently convince the saddest of sad Trumpers that their former God-King is now a loser. A creaking hulk incapable of delivering them the meat they yearn for most, which isn’t lower gas prices or less crime but rather constant, ever more ugly slap-downs of woke liberals.

As for Trump, along with needing to hoover up every nickel of chump money he can for the 15-20 legal cases he’s fighting, (all of which should accelerate given his weakened political standing), the two facts we all know with absolute certainty are thEse:

1: Trump is simply not psychologically capable of responding to taunting competition with anything but more and worse ugliness.

And 2: He is can not under any circumstance admit and accept final, total defeat.

Not that DeSantis doesn’t deserve every bit of the ugliness and viciousness Trump will hurl at him.

In my many long years of despising and spleen-venting over cynical politicians, including of course Dick Nixon, I have never been more repulsed by a viable presidential contender than Ron DeSantis. This guy is truly, unequivocally rancid … and so content with being despicable, that ugliness and cruelty is actually what he’s selling.

So yeah, this one wasn’t as bad as it could have been. But if an obscene sh*t show is your idea of background entertainment, that act has already begun.

*Former Republican and treadworn politician Charlie Crist was the best the Democrats could do? Jeeeeezus.)

California Goes Full Logan Roy on Texas and the Supreme Court

Posted on by
For the First Time on 'Succession,' Logan Roy Might Lose - The Ringer

In Logan Roy, the sociopathic Rupert Murdoch-like patriarch of the”Succession” clan, we truly have a philosopher for our gamed-out, laws-are-for-chumps, post (and maybe pre-) Trump era. Old man Roy sees 21st century America as it is.

    In last week’s penultimate episode (of the best series on TV) the elder Roy explained the harsh reality of life to his hapless son Kendall, a classic soft millennial who thought doing the right thing was everything he needed to do to win.

    Said the billionaire baron to his benighted off-spring, “Life’s not knights on horseback. It’s a number on a piece of paper. It’s a fight for a knife in the mud.”

    There are so many contemporary scenarios that fit that paradigm it’s hard to know where to begin. But there’s always this: the constant complaint that liberals or anyone still clutching some level of respect for both the letter and spirit of the law are forever playing a losing game against conservative adversaries gleefully and shamelessly flaunting the “norms” of good faith, common civility and legislated standards.

    For many it gets translated to “liberals gotta learn to play dirty.”

    While that might be a tough sell for the progressive-liberal base, i.e. better than average educated civic-minded types who prefer a rule-based society to whoever bellows the loudest and waves the most guns. A better suggestion would be to, “play more offense against the bastards and be more cunning.”

    Like the move a couple days ago by California Gov. Gavin Newsom and his think tank to replicate Texas’ vigilante bounty attack on abortion rights, only with guns, gun merchants and gun manufacturers as the victims, not pregnant women.

    As usual, the proposal, which has a ways to go before becoming law, was quickly submerged beneath the next day’s headlines.

    A massive tornado in Kentucky (with arch Libertarian Rand Paul pleading for a federal/socialist rescue he blathered against when hurricanes hit Texas, Florida and the eastern seaboard), news that a Trump moron actually put together a goddam PowerPoint for overthrowing the government and today, text messages from FoxNews hosts pleading with … Mark Meadows? … to get Trump to stop the January 6 riot because it reflected bad on all of “us.”

    I’m trying to imagine Walter Cronkite, so confident in his control over Lyndon Johnson, that he puts in a call to the White House to stop the Vietnam War.

    Anyway … this move by Newsom/California is the kind of “in-your-face dickwad” aggression and cunning that liberals need.

    The basic idea is to craft a law against guns as precisely — and as cynically, some might say — as Texas has contrived its vigilante abortion law. (A law whereby any zealot gets a $10,000 check from Texas for suing anyone involved in an abortion, from doctors and nurses to Uber drivers.)

    Done right, and quickly, California could — at the least — force the Supreme Court into conceding its naked partisanship. To separate Califoernia from Texas, Roberts’ court would have to apply an even finer chef’s knife to the intent of the Constitution than they already have. Which is a lotr, considering the hearing they’re giving a preposterous argument for a case and a cause never supported by more than 15% of the public.

    Not that contravening established law and the will of the majority means all that much to blindered zealots like Amy Coney Barrett, Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas and the rest of The Handmaid’s Tale crew clogging The Highest Court of the Land.

    Said Newsom in a statement last Saturday, “If states can now shield their laws from review by the federal courts that compare assault weapons to Swiss Army knives, then California will use that authority to protect people’s lives, where Texas used it to put women in harm’s way.” Just like Texas, Californians could win up to $10,000 per gun violation plus other costs and attorneys fees against “anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon” in California.

    “If the most efficient way to keep these devastating weapons off our streets is to add the threat of private lawsuits, we should do just that,” Newsom said.

    Amen, brother.

    With the help of Mitch McConnell, Senate Republicans, Trump and The Federalist Society, John Roberts’ court is one titanic decision — repealing Roe v. Wade — away from rendering itself illegitimate in the eyes of the 60-70% of the country that has been opposed to repealing abortion rights for the past 50 years.

    Again, this is in contrast to polling that regularly shows upwards of 80% of Americans in favor of some kind of enhanced regulation of guns.

    The insider’s prediction is that in the end (next spring) the court’s conservatives will go full-Scalia and convolute a decision into the most pretentious, tortured pretzel logic imaginable, in order to argue they’re really just, you know, protecting “states’ rights.”

    Recognizing the mud and understanding the potential of the knife, California could force Barrett, boozy frat boy Kavanaugh and the rest to shame and discredit themselves in a way that offers their credibility no possibility of historical restoration.

    My read is that only Roberts himself is concerned enough about history’s verdict on his court’s reputation to argue against such bald-faced partisanship. Which means he may be the only one of bunch that sees the knife in California’s hands as a real threat.

    But watch the hysteria build against it.

    Like this today from the (wholly corrupt and literally bankrupt) NRA:

    “Gov. Newsom misunderstands the actions of the Supreme Court – and the limits of his war on lawful gun ownership. His promise to run roughshod over the Second Amendment is little more than political theater. He and fellow Democrats should proceed at their own peril: the American people will not tolerate another taxpayer-funded assault on constitutional freedom.”

    Heh, I like the sweat.

    Discuss: Why Would She Lie?

    Posted on by

    Since we’re all adults here, let’s have a common sense discussion. The topic? “Why do people lie?”

    Books have been written on the subject, a topic with which every human has direct experience. But without going into deeper-than-necessary psychology, let’s agree that people generally lie to make things easier if not better for themselves. To protect themselves. We lie to avoid conflict, shame and punishment. Not getting spanked as a child or jailed as an adult is a better option than a whupping from dad or bunking in a 10 x 10 cell with Dirty Louie. People lie to get what they want. Money, sex, status. We’ve seen it thousands of times. It’s been a staple of popular fiction since the first storytellers gathered around a cave fire.

    But who lies knowing things will only get worse for themselves?

    Even people who lie as a strategic tactic — in society, business or politics —  usually do it in a way that protects them from exposure and possible consequences. Self-preservation is as basic an animal instinct as breathing. You avoid situations that might lead to injury or death.

    Which obviously brings us to Brett Kavanaugh v. Christine Ford. One of them is lying.

    If Kavanaugh is lying it it’s easy to understand why. Everything about his reputation and status and ambition for authority/power is on the line. So, accused of sexual assault as a drunken teenager, he categorically denies it (lies) … as an adult. His life will be immeasurably better if the lie holds up. He will get what he wants. He will ascend to a level of influence held by only a handful of other humans and remain there until he dies.

    That’s not hard to understand.

    But Christine Ford? How does lying — as she’s being accused by the worst of Kavanaugh’s defenders — make her life better? More to the point, how would she ever see it it being better by making the accusation in the first place?  An accusation, by the way, we know she made weeks before Kavanaugh was revealed as Trump’s choice for the Court?

    If she was too naive to know, with near absolute certainty, how her accusation would affect her, the first lawyer she contacted and, guessing here, the first staffer in Diane Feinstein’s office would have walked her through the grueling horror of the absolutely inevitable out-of-control hyper-partisan reaction. She would be vilified and threatened. Her professional career would be imperiled, if not terminated. She would need expensive legal advice and protection for a long time to come. She might not even being able to return to her own home. (She is now in hiding.)

    So why would she lie — or even say anything at all, even if “mistaken”, as Orrin Hatch says — if she understood any of that? Nothing about her life was going to get better. Everything was going to get worse, certainly in the short-to-intermediate term. (If her accusation derails Kavanaugh she’ll earn “atta girl” points in liberal history books.)

    Common sense, the experience of any rational adult, tells us that Ford only wades into that level of horror, that level of epic, negative disruption of her life, if she is telling the truth. Or at least believes she’s telling the truth.

    And as for Kavanaugh’s categorical denial: as many of have noted, you can’t walk back something that emphatic. Once you say, “This never happened.” You can’t then undo a lie by conceding that you were, A: a stupid kid, B: blind drunk, and then C: issue a (very) belated apology.

    If Kavanaugh has lied about this attack, he hasn’t destroyed his reputation as a drunken teenager, he’s destroyed it as a sober adult.

    If Ford has lied, she could be clinically diagnosed as “recklessly unstable”, which of course is already happening … by no one with a clinical degree.

     

     

    For the Moment, Aereo Will Not Loosen TV’s “Sports Tax”

    Posted on by

    Lambert_to_the_SlaughterI’m of the belief that far fewer people understood the implications of Aereo, the tech company smacked down by the Supreme Court yesterday, than understand their own health insurance. In others, almost no one is conversant in what Aereo, with its tiny little antennas, might have done to the way you and I consume, and more importantly, pay for television entertainment.

    Most of the large, national papers, (and here), break down the legal arguments in the case, decided by a 6-3 vote with the Court’s resident trolls — Scalia, Thomas and Alito — actually dissenting in favor of Aereo’s “disruptive” technology. (So yes, let the record show I’m actually aligned with those three … on this one.)

    Aereo’s case was always a hard sell. It smells pretty densely of someone making a buck off someone’s else’s investment, and god knows we can’t allow that kind of thing to happen here in the US of A. But the concept of paying one company maybe $80 a year to deliver network programming … instead of handing $50-$120/month to some cable or satellite giant like Comcast or DirecTV … has a lot of appeal, and, more to the larger point, seems an utter inevitability in the age of streaming media … (which I think is going to last a while.)

    The Court was careful to assert that it wasn’t going all Luddite with this case. It says it has no quarrel with new technologies, just that this one was pretending to be an antenna company when in fact it was a “retransmitter” like Comcast and the satellites, and therefore should pay ABC, NBC, PBS etc. … like cable and satellites do.

    But with Aereo’s defeat goes another opportunity to loosen the grip professional sports has on our wallets. Had Aereo won, the betting was that millions of people would have begun dumping Comcast, et al, since viewers wouldn’t have needed them to get “Two Broke Girls” and “America’s Got Talent” and all the other high-quality, advertising-glutted programming the networks are “providing” for their viewers.

    Moreover it would have been, some argued persuasively, an evolutionary moment in the war-on-bundling, the preposterous practice whereby Grandma Millie pays $100 a month for 300 channels of cable/satellite service even though she only watches six shows, none of which are the NFL or local pro sports teams like the Twins and Timberwolves. (I find it odd that our legions of raging, anti-tax zealots never complain too loudly about this kind of flagrant, no-freedom-of-choice scam.)

    Pro sports have had a fine, long run at the trough of bundling, via the way cable and satellite operators cover the fantastically large costs of paying the NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL for game rights by requiring sports fans to buy packages of 40 other channels to watch them, or in sweet Grandma Millie’s case, in order for her to watch HGTV and the Food Channel.

    The bet is that very soon someone will invent a way to grab live streaming of sports broadcasts via the internet and stick a dagger in the heart of the cable/satellite business plan. It may not be free, but it’ll be tough to duplicate the $50-$75 a month bundling up-charge most of us pay to have “free access” to any Twins game when we want it.

    Beyond all that though is the threat to the standard, laughably ossified TV advertising model. Even as a geezer, the appeal of the DVR/Apple TV/”cloud” experience is simple: Better picture, no commercials. Watching hackneyed pitches for pickups, beer and Cialis is not a quality use of my time, and who in their right mind, especially younger consumers, will ever accept it any other way? I, for example, had no problem paying $2.99 an episode for “Fargo” sans the interminable three and four minute commercial blocks. (Also, as I say, the streaming picture is far superior to the compressed signal coming in via Dish satellite. The picture quality difference was particularly noticeable with “Breaking Bad’, a virtuoso moment in small screen cinematography.)

    So let’s get real. Pay-per-view is the natural future for everything. It’s what we do with everything else. Buy only what you really want. Especially when post-bundle, you’ll find you have plenty of jing leftover at the end of the month for programming that you actually watch. Someone, maybe even a re-considered Aereo, will eventually construct a business model that provides exactly that service to every corner, holler and mountain top of the country.

    But it won’t be happening right now.

    – Brian Lambert