#joshua dobbs

[benxnfl]

[the-football-chick]

WEEK 3 - COWBOYS @ CARDINALS

The Cardinals get their first win of the season while handing the Cowboys their first loss. Cardinals backup QB Joshua Dobbs did just enough to win, going 17/21 for 189 yards, 1 TD and rushing for 55 yards.

IG: azcardinals (9/24/23)

[lafbnetwork]

Las Vegas Raiders Secure Intriuging QB In Latest NFL Trade Rumors

The Las Vegas Raiders addressed their biggest offseason need by trading for quarterback Geno Smith. But at 34 years old Smith isn’t a long-term option, meaning they will need to start the search for his replacement sooner than later. The New England Patriots’ quarterback situation, on the other hand has undergone a dramatic transformation. Once lacking long-term prospects, they now possess two…

[masoncarr2244]

Joshua Dobbs - Minnesota Vikings at. Denver Broncos 11/19/23/

[fantasycouch]

Waiver Wire Adds Week 10 Fantasy Football (2023)

[allpromarlo]

joshua dobbs and taysom hill have done miracles on me

[vhs-ninja]

Enter the Devil (1972)

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jonathan Nicholson at HuffPost:

On the first night of their national convention, Democrats highlighted three stories of how abortion restrictions after Roe v. Wade was overturned had hurt women and couples, hoping to underscore the importance of reproductive rights in one of the most poignant presentations Monday night. The message: Abortion bans put lives at risk. Giving the stage over to one couple and two women who had experienced the harm of abortion hurdles in the prime-time window of the convention’s first night shows how important Democrats see the issue for Kamala Harris’ presidential race.

An Economist/YouGov poll taken from Aug. 11 to Aug. 13 found that 75% of respondents said abortion rights were “very” or “somewhat” important to them, with 81% of female respondents feeling that way. Former President Donald Trump, who is campaigning while out on bail after his felony convictions in New York state, has said the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which tossed out Roe’s almost 50-year precedent, was good because it sent the issue of abortion to the states rather than preserving a national right. But many states have enacted total or near-total bans on abortion, and others have made abortions conditional on medical diagnoses that the woman’s life is in danger, which in turn has led to women being denied treatment until they were close to dying. “Because of Donald Trump, more than one in three women of reproductive age in America lives under an abortion ban. A second Trump term would rip away even more of our rights,” said Amanda Zurawski, who stood with her husband, Josh, on an otherwise darkened stage to discuss her experience in Texas.

[...] Kaitlyn Joshua, who was denied care in Louisiana, said she had to go to several medical facilities to confirm she was miscarrying. “Two emergency rooms sent me away. Because of Louisiana’s abortion ban, no one would confirm that I was miscarrying. I was in pain, bleeding so much my husband feared for my life,” she said. “No women should experience what I endured but too many have.” Hadley Duvall of Kentucky, the third speaker, said she had been raped by her stepfather and became pregnant at the age of 12. “I can’t imagine not having a choice. But today that’s the reality for many women and girls across the country because of Donald Trump’s abortion bans,” she said. Kentucky is listed as one of the 14 states that now have a total ban on abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

At the DNC Monday night, three women (alongside a man who was the husband of one of the speakers) who were harmed by their state’s abortion ban laws spoke the truths about how abortion bans harm women. #DNC2024 #DemConvention

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Red-teaming the SCOTUS code of conduct

Tomorrow (November 18) at 1PM, I'll be in Concord, NH at Gibson's Books, presenting my new novel The Lost Cause, a preapocalyptic tale of hope in the climate emergency.

On Monday (November 20), I'm at the Simsbury, CT Public Library at 7PM

Last April, Propublica's Joshua Kaplan, Justin Elliott and Alex Mierjeski dropped a bombshell: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had been showered in high-ticket "gifts" by billionaire ideologue Harlan Crow, who subsequently benefited from Thomas's rulings in the court:

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow

This was just the beginning: in the coming days and weeks, more and more of Thomas's corruption came to light, everything from the fact that his mother's home had been bought by Crow, to the fact that Thomas's adoptive son went to a fancy private school on Crow's dime:

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-private-school-tuition-scotus

The news was explosive and not merely because of the corruption it revealed in the country's highest court. The credibility of the court itself was at its lowest ebb in living memory, thanks to the two judges who occupied stolen seats – Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett. One of those judges – Kavanaugh – is a credibly accused rapist. Thomas is also a credibly accused sexual abuser:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/10/01/30-years-after-her-testimony-anita-hill-still-wants-something-from-joe-biden-514884

Then, this illegitimate court went on to deliver a string of upsets to long-settled law, culminating in the Dobbs decision, which triggered state laws that force small children to bear their rapists' babies:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/health/abortion-bans-rape-incest.html

That was the context for the Thomas bribery scandal, which was swiftly joined by another bribery scandal, involving Samuel Alito's improper acceptance of valuable gifts from Paul Singer, another billionaire who brought business before the court:

https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court

This string of scandals and outrages naturally prompted public curiosity about the Supreme Court's ethical standards, and that triggered fresh waves of incredulous outrage when we all found out that the Supreme Court doesn't have any:

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2023/why-doesnt-the-supreme-court-have-a-formal-code-of-ethics/

When Congress made tentative noises about providing minor checks and balances on the court, the justices erupted in outrage, telling Congress to go fuck itself:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/supreme-court-ethics-durbin/cf67ef8450ea024d/full.pdf

Chief Justice Roberts went on whatever the opposite of a charm-offensive is called (an "offense offensive?"), a media tour whose key message to the American people was "STFU, you're hurting our feelings":

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/roberts-defends-high-court-against-attacks-on-its-legitimacy

To the shock of no one except billionaires and Supreme Court justices inhabiting the splendid isolation from societal norms that is the privilege of life tenure, America didn't like this. The Supreme Court's credibility plummeted. A large supermajority of Americans – 79%! – now support age limits for Supreme Court justices:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/18/the-people-no/#tell-ya-what-i-want-what-i-really-really-want

Support for packing the Supreme Court is at an historic high and gaining ground, now sitting neck-and-neck with opposition at 46% in favor/51% opposed. Among under-30s, there's a healthy majority (58%) in favor of appointing more SCOTUS justices.

As Roberts' wounded bleats reveal, SCOTUS is very sensitive to its plummeting legitimacy. After all, the court doesn't have an army, nor does it have a police force. Supreme Court rulings only matter to the extent that the American people accept them as legitimate and obey them. Transformational presidents like Lincoln and FDR have waged successful wars against the Supreme Court, sidelining its authority and turning it into an unimportant rump institution for years afterward:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/26/mint-the-coin-etc-etc/#blitz-em

Now the Supremes are working their way through the (mythological but convenient) five stages of grief. Having passed through Denial and Anger, they've arrived at Bargaining, with the publication of the court's first "code" "of" "conduct":

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf

It's…not good. As Max Moran writes for The American Prospect and The Revolving Door Project, the proposed code amounts to "security theater," a set of trivially bypassed strictures that would not have prevented any of the scandals to date and will permit far worse in the years to come:

https://prospect.org/justice/2023-11-17-supreme-court-objectivity-theater/

The security framing is a very useful tool for evaluating the Supremes' proposal. The purpose of a code of conduct isn't merely to prevent people from accidentally misstepping – it's to prevent malicious parties from corrupting the judicial process. To evaluate the code, we should red team it: imagine what harms a corrupt judge or a corrupting billionaire would be able to effect while staying within the bounds the code sets.

Seen in that light, the code is wildly defective and absolutely not fit for purpose. Its most glaring defect is found in the nature of its edicts – they are almost all optional. The word "should" appears 53 times in the document, while "must" appears just six times:

https://ballsandstrikes.org/ethics-accountability/supreme-court-code-of-conduct-hilariously-fake/

Of those six "musts," two are not pertinent to ethical questions (they pertain to the requirement for a justice to get prior approval before getting paid for teaching gigs).

When the code of conduct was rolled out, the court and its apologists pointed out that it was modeled on the ethical guidelines that bind lower courts. In the wake of the Thomas revelations, these guidelines were a useful benchmark to measure Thomas's conduct against. The fact that other federal judges would have been severely sanctioned or even fired if they had engaged in the same conduct as Thomas was a powerful argument that Thomas had overstepped the bounds of ethical conduct.

But as Bloomberg Law discovered when they compared the lower courts' codes to the Supremes' draft, the Supremes have gone through those lower court codes and systematically cut nearly every mention of "enforce" from their own draft. They also cut the requirement to "take appropriate action" if a violation is reported.

If you are a bad judge or a bad donor, all of this is good news. Nearly everything that it condemns is merely optional, which means that if a judge can be convinced to ignore a rule, they won't have violated the code. What's more, even widespread rulebreaking doesn't trigger an investigation. That's a very weak security measure indeed.

But it gets worse. The Supremes' code also omit key definitions found in the codes that bind the lower courts. The most important definition to be cut is for "political organization," which the lower courts define expansively as both parties and "entit[ies] whose principal purpose is to advocate for or against political candidates or parties." That definition captures "nonprofits, think tanks, lobbying firms, trade associations, grassroots groups" – the whole panoply of organizations whom federal judges must maintain an arm's length distance from in order to preserve their objectivity. Federal judges may not lead, speak at or donate to these organizations.

By omitting this definition, the Supremes open the door to involvement with precisely the kinds of PACs, thinktanks and other influence organizations funded by the billionaires who have benefited so handsomely from the judges' rulings.

What's more, the Supremes carve out an explicit exemption for speaking to "nonprofits, think tanks, lobbying firms, trade associations, grassroots groups," and to serving as a director, trustee or officer of "a nonprofit organization devoted to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice and may assist such an organization in the management and investment of funds."

As Moran points out, this exemption would cover – among other institutions – the far-right Federalist Society, which satisfies all those criteria. That means a Supreme Court justice could sit on the board and raise funds for the FedSoc without raising any issues with this code – not even one of those squishy "shoulds." Nothing in this code would stop Clarence Thomas or Thomas Alito from accepting lavish gifts, private jet rides, or luxury tour buses from billionaires with business before the court:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/justice-thomas-267000-loan-rv-forgiven-senate-democrats-104303972

As Moran writes, these definitional vacuums are a well-understood class of weaknesses in ethics codes. Congress gets a lot of mileage out of this ruse – for example, by narrowly defining "lobbying" to exclude things that most people understand that term to mean, Congress engage in improperly close relations with lobbyists while still maintaining that they hardly ever talk to a lobbyist at all:

https://www.politico.eu/article/jeff-hauser-opinion-watergate-european-union-qatargate/

The same ruse goes for campaign contributions – if you want to accept a lot of campaign contributions that would fall afoul of ethics rules, just narrow the definition of "campaign contribution" until all the money you're receiving no longer qualifies.

Moran closes by calling on Congress to formulate a real, meaningful code of conduct for the Supremes, one that orders Supreme Court judges not to accept corrupting gifts and to maintain the arm's length neutrality that the rest of the federal judiciary is required to keep. Rather than this new code of conduct constituting proof that SCOTUS can be its own oversight, its gross deficiencies should put to rest any question about whether the Supremes can be trusted to regulate themselves.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/17/red-team-black-robes/#security-theater

Image: Senate Democrats (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Supreme_Court_Building,_July_21,_2020.jpg

CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en

[benxnfl]

[plumbogs]

at the dobbs household. Nick needs to learn a bunch of random junk before they'll let him have a promotion, and he's pretty tired of working night shift, so he hits the books.

Meanwhile, Tracy heads out to the deck to look out through the telescope.

No clue what she thinks she's seeing, because it''s pine woods for miles around.

The bills arrive and pull her from her delusions of joshua trees.

She greets this tacky townie that walks by while she checks the mail and forces her inside to watch her play the violin poorly.

The teens come home. Celeste puts her homework down so she can ignore it. Starla does hers right away.

they have some sibling bonding :) celeste thinks cities are probably dumb and stupid. it isn't her real opinion even she just wants to piss her sister off. it works wonders.

Derek comes home and asks his father to help with his homework. He manages to squeeze that in before work. They were about to play some chess together but it was too late.

Tracy does her evening phone calls. She tells Michael about a pet goldfish she had as a kid. She killed it by trying to replace the water in its tank with orange juice under the belief that it would become even more orange that way. Michael wasn't thrilled by that story, and then ended the call because his girlfriend was offering him a wonderful nap on one of her weird devices.

Starla enjoys the stars once the sun sets. She's trying to find out what saturn is really hiding behind all those rings. She's pretty sure it's aliens, but she's skeptical about their existence and the locals that ramble on about them usually seem a bit out of their minds.

[insidethestardc]

Halftime Report: Cowboys trail the Cardinals 21-10 The Dallas Cowboys' defense continues to prove that they are the engine, the North Star, and the main course of this team. Unfortunately, against the Arizona Cardinals, the first half went differen... #DallasCowboys

[the-football-chick]

Cardinals @ Commanders - Week 1

A kind of sloppy win, but a win nonetheless for the Commanders over the Cardinals. Commanders QB Sam Howell had a rough 1st half as Washington trailed 16-10 to start the 4th quarter. But Howell would redeem himself, throwing a touchdown pass and running in for another score to lead the team to a comeback 20-16 win.

Cardinals veteran QB Joshua Dobbs served as backup for Kyler Murray who will miss at least the first 4 games.

[johnerigo-blog]

ANTAGONIZÖR (Heavy Metal - USA 🇺🇸) - Their new album "Edgelords From Hell" is out NOW & streaming online #Antagonizör #heavymetal

ANTAGONIZÖR (Heavy Metal – USA 🇺🇸) – Their new album “Edgelords From Hell” is out NOW & streaming online #Antagonizör #heavymetal Antagonizör’s first full length album credits released February 28, 2025 Guitars, Vocals, and Bass recorded by Mykel Colby Drums recorded by John Howard at War House Recording Mixed and Mastered by Joshua Danger Dobbs at Danger Room Recording Service Album artwork by…