#ED reply in Supreme Court

[cheerfullycatholic]

In an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, novelist John Grisham recounts the flawed science that led to the conviction of Robert Roberson (pictured, with his daughter Nikki) and the inadequate legal process that has maintained that conviction. Mr. Roberson was convicted and sentenced to death for the 2002 death of his 2-year-old daughter Nikki. His conviction relied on a theory of “shaken baby syndrome” that has since been discredited. After a hearing ordered by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, a Texas judge rubberstamped a brief submitted by Anderson County prosecutors, ignoring exhaustive and unrebutted scientific evidence and upholding Mr. Roberson’s conviction. Mr. Grisham explains that, although the shaken baby hypothesis has been used to convict “countless caregivers,” “Mr. Roberson could be the first to be executed.” He recounts the circumstances leading up to Nikki’s death – “chronic and severe middle-ear infections,” “a high fever and undiagnosed pneumonia,” and a fall out of bed the night before her father found her unresponsive and took her to the emergency room. Staff there “didn’t know [Mr. Roberson] was autistic and decided he didn’t show the proper emotions given the dire situation.” When Nikki died a few days later, a doctor identified the triad of symptoms that were assumed to be indicative of shaken baby syndrome – “brain bleeding, brain swelling and bleeding in the eyes.” What Mr. Grisham calls that doctor’s “rush to judgment,” paired with a nurse’s unproven speculation that Nikki had been sexually abused, led a jury to convict Mr. Roberson and sentence him to death. But in the 20 years since Mr. Roberson’s trial, medical science has evolved, and even Dr. Norman Guthkelch, the doctor who initially proposed the shaken baby syndrome hypothesis, has disavowed it. In 2012, Dr. Guthkelch argued for a review of shaken baby convictions, saying, “I am frankly quite disturbed that what I intended as a friendly suggestion for avoiding injury to children has become an excuse for imprisoning innocent people. We went badly off the rails.” In 2016, just five days before Mr. Roberson was scheduled to be executed, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ordered a hearing in his case. The trial court heard ten days of evidence, including testimony from six experts “who showed that the outdated version of shaken-baby syndrome used at his trial has been discredited and that Nikki died as a result of her undiagnosed pneumonia, medications and accidental fall.” According to Mr. Grisham, at that hearing, Mr. Roberson’s legal team “produced unrebutted evidence that no homicide had in fact occurred.” The state replied by submitting “a 17-page brief that hardly touched on the new science—instead rehashing outdated evidence and theories from the original trial in 2003.” Judge Deborah Evans “rubber-stamped it, following the prosecution’s lead in ignoring most of the new expert testimony and all of the scientific studies showing a change in understanding of shaken-baby syndrome.” Mr. Grisham concludes with a call to review cases like Mr. Roberson’s, and to “demand more from judges than a copy-and-paste job that entirely ignores changes in the scientific understanding of a case, especially when a life is on the line.” Mr. Roberson has a petition for a writ of certiorari pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 15, 2023, five amicus briefs were filed on his behalf by scientists, judges, and innocence organizations.

[bhaskarlive]

SC adjourns hearing on bail pleas of Manish Sisodia

The Supreme Court on Monday fixed August 5 for hearing the bail pleas filed by senior AAP leader Manish Sisodia in the alleged liquor policy case.

A bench presided over by Justice BR Gavai decided to adjourn the proceedings after Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju sought more time to file a reply on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate (ED)

Source: bhaskarlive.in

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"Heavy Docket Faces Court," Border Cities Star. February 25, 1930. Page 20. ---- Murder, Manslaughter And Robbery Cases To Be Tried ---- Grand Jury Acts ---- Mr. Justice Jeffrey Makes First Appearance In Kent County --- By staff Reporter CHATHAM, Feb. 25. - Facing one of the heaviest lists of criminal and civil cases in years, the spring assizes for Kent County of the Supreme Court entered the second day here today with the grand jury due to return indictments at any time.

TWO MURDER CASES THE grand Jury, after being worn, started on its rounds yesterday taking under consideration bills for murder, manslaughter, criminal negligence and robbery while armed. Chief interest centres in the trials of four colored men, all of Windsor, on two charges of murder and two of assault and robbery while armed, resulting from the hold-up of Thaver's gasoline station, Chatham West, September 21 last, when the attendant, John Labadie, was shot and killed. Indications early today were that none on these trials would get under way before Wednesday. Charles "Chuck" Cross, 20, and Edward "Ted" Powell, 20, are the two facing murder counts, and John Evans, 18, and John Sanders, 24, are charged with robbery armed. Evans and Sanders, who have been held in Middlesex county jail since the end of December, are now lodged in Kent County jail awaiting trial. Another case in which the charge is murder is that of Mrs. Helen Smith. of South Harwich alleged to have caused the death of her three children by the administration of paris green poison on March 15 last. The mother and the children were found lying in bed in the farmhouse early on the morning soon after fire was discovered in the premises by neighbors. All were rescu-ed and taken to hospital, where their children died. Mrs Smith, who is said to have taken a dose similar to that given to the children, recovered. COURT ROOM CROWDED The court room yesterday was far too small to accommodate all who wanted to enter. Early in the morning a few began to gather outside the doors, despite the fact that the session even did not begin until 2 pm. It is estimated at least 500 were turned away due to lack of room. When Mr Justice Nicol Jeffrey, who is presiding judge, entered the court room, every available seat was occupied. Col. H.D. Smith, K.C. Crown attorney, took occasion to congratulate Judge Jeffrey on his first appearance in Kent County. In replying the judge expressed hope for co-operation between bench and bar as it was only by such methods that the business of the court could be put through.

[indiatwentyfour6]

Supreme court favors Nowhera Shaik and Heera Group

On Thursday 28th Oct 2021 in the Supreme Court hearing all decisions came in favor of Nowhera Shaik and Heera Group. All issues of Dr. Nowhera Shaik were consider by the Respected judge in this hearing. After this hearing, it has been assumed that investors don’t need to wait for another hearing as they will be paid soon. It is being said that all difficulties which Nowhera was facing will cease very soon.

Supreme Court slammed CCS, ED, and Police

In the previous hearing, the Respected judge ordered CCS to give back data to Heera Group. But CCS failed to follow orders of the court. But on Thursday the hearing court strictly ordered CCS to give back Heera Group all data within 4 weeks. In reply, they said they do not have many funds to do that task and they need 6 more months. The respected Judge slammed them that this is a court hearing, not a joke.

The Supreme court ordered the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to unseal all properties of Nowhera Shaik which she was claiming to be her. So that she can liquidate them to pay back investors money

The Supreme court asked the related department why they had unfrozen only 60 bank accounts out of 241. Respected judge order to unfreeze all 241 accounts. There is a lot of money in the remaining accounts which can be use by Nowhera to pay back investors’ money.

Recently Maharashtra police and UP police try to arrest Nowhera illegally. The respected judge said that if police have some ill intention towards Nowhera they should refrain from it. The Supreme Court ordered the police to stay away from Dr. Nowhera Shaik. As the court has already given regular bail to her

The respected judge also said that investors do not have to register complaints in too many departments. If they want to complain they can register it in SFIO. But of course, you don’t need to file a complaint if you have full trust in Nowhera.

[fogsrollingin]

My Favorite OFMD Fics (Recommendation Reviews)

Independence Day is canceled. Human rights and freedoms have been stripped from all Americans as a result of Christian fascist politicians and judges living in the U.S. and infiltrating our Supreme Court. So um let's just think about Our Flag Means Death, okay? /throughsobs/ Okay, here we go ✧ my fic sweet spots for this trope:  hurt Edward Teach, angst, slow burns, I like Stede having a bit of a bite to him vs so many 'darlings' and 'sweethearts' (which sort of morphs into Aziraphale from Good Omens in my mind for some reason haha; I really look forward to Rhys/Stede making those endearments his so I can better imagine them in his voice for fic!) ✧ Last updated 7/4/2022. Let's get started! Haunt me, then by hyruling (AO3). Rated Explicit, Blackbonnet, 28k words. Summary: He releases the ropes slowly, barely registering the burn as they slip through his fingers. Then, fallible as Orpheus, turns to meet his ghost. https://archiveofourown.org/works/39165330 This fic's Edward angst is so amazing, it had me tearing up a few times before Stede even makes his appearance. The slow, conflicted burn between them trying to reconcile their mistakes together is the absolute best. It's what isn't in the name by tciddaemina (AO3). Rated Mature, Blackbonnet, 41k words. Summary: The first thing they see - apart from Captain Bonnet himself, all silked up and frilly and a sight in his own right - is the cat sitting primly by his ankles. She's a white, well-groomed thing, coat as pale and smooth as snow, with a delicate pink ribbon around her neck and a little golden bell hanging at her throat. And sure, she's a little big, on the large side as house cats go, reaching right up to his knee, and a bit leggy as well but the crew still takes one look at her and feel their estimation of their new captain drop another sharp couple of notches. This, they think incredulously, is the man that proposes to be our fearsome pirate captain? "My name is Captain Stede Bonnet," the new captain says proudly, sweeping an arm out in greeting, looking so pleased and chuffed and ever so slightly nervous to meet them. "And this is Miss Daisy Bonnet, though of course you may all call her captain as well." "Two dubloons on a mutiny by the end of the week." Frenchie murmurs with a sharp bite of mirth. On his shoulder, Beauregard lets out a soft tittering laugh, the songbird's beak clicking. "Not taking that bet." Pete replies snappishly, still glowering sullenly at the captain. https://archiveofourown.org/works/38203582 A really fascinating version of season 1 with daemons inserted. I loved Stede's character and development in this. I love how Stede-centric it was because I tend to lean into Edward more but this one captured me, had me adoring and respecting Stede as much as Ed had come to do. Also, while the fic follows season 1, the events are changed in interesting ways so it doesn't feel like a retread of what you watched in the show. Fantastic story. Reflected In Hell's Mirrors by Nuriashnee (AO3). Explicit, Blackbonnet, 51k words. Summary: Ed knew that wasn't Stede as soon as he saw him. A ghost or a demon maybe, but not the Stede he'd known. Christ, he looked like the materialized wrath of an Angel. His shirt was torn and there was a downpour falling over him. There was a sword in his hand, already bloodied, and he was coming for him. -- Ed isn't prepared for Stede coming back. Let alone for this new him, ready to follow him to the ends of the Earth just to try to fix what he'd broken after leaving him. https://archiveofourown.org/works/38567427 Ed's angst was delicious, and Stede's steadfast love breaking his barriers down was handled so well. It was such an amazing slow reunion fic, and then we got offered up two amazing, emotional sex scenes that told a story of their own. Really, really well done. I'm so happy to have read this story. a shipwreck heart to haunt the sea by eldritch_beau. Mature, Blackbonnet, 14k. Summary: He buries his nose into his armful of shirts and takes a deep breath. It soothes a yawning ache somewhere in his chest and makes his lips tremble, his eyes water. Enveloped in the comfort of what is the closest he will ever come to hugging Stede again, he lets the floodgates open. “Fuck you, Stede.” he cries into the clothes of a dead man, “You had to go and fucking die instead of coming with me.” -- or, meeting again, like they once first met. https://archiveofourown.org/works/38579718 Angst with a happy ending YAAAAAASSSS I loved Ed's grief, poor bunny Unintentional Seduction by mnwood. Teen+, Blackbonnet, 3k words. Summary: Stede turned his attention back to Ed and whispered, “I suppose we can take this conversation down to my quarters.” Ed nodded and giggled in response, and both of them shushed each other as they tried to quietly make their way through the sleeping crewmates. It was becoming a habit, really. Ed had been on the Revenge going on two weeks now, and each night he would join the crew on the main deck while Stede read them stories. Reading stories always dissolved into telling ghost stories, which dissolved into individual conversations breaking off until everyone, one by one, fell asleep. Stede and Ed were always, always the last ones still awake, still talking. https://archiveofourown.org/works/38520409 /cries/ They love each other so much, it's sooooooooo AHHHHHHHHHH [Selfies Reccies!] Revenge, Blackbonnet, Mature, 5k words. Summary: "Remember he just beat us down? Just- just ground us down into nothing?" - "Oh, I remember. I was there. He treated us like dogs. Worse than dogs!" AO3 || FFN I'm really proud of this one. It hits some sensitive themes but the worst is over after the first chapter. The rest is vengeance and recovery and shmoop.  Surrender, Blackbonnet. Teen. 2k words. Summary: "Surrender." Stede's words were even and firm. He was at the helm facing Blackbeard. Their swords were unsheathed but only half-raised, as though neither of them could really threaten each other. AO3 || FFN Obligatory reunion fic that any self-respecting OFMD fan has written obvs >>>Click back to my Fic Recs Masterpost

[ukrainenews]

Daily Wrap Up June 9, 2022

Under the cut:  Three foreigners defending Ukraine sentenced to death in Russian-occupied Donetsk; All 2,449 people who left Azovstal are now in Olenivka, an urban-type settlement in the Donetsk region; Kryvyi Rih, located in the central part of the country, is now under constant fire from Russian forces; United States is sending 155 mm M777 howitzers to Ukraine; Ukrainian troops announced on Thursday that they have advanced in fierce street fighting in Sievierodonetsk but continued to stress that the only way to fully overcome enemy forces is more weaponry to counter Russia’s advanced firepower.

“The so-called "Supreme Court of the DPR" [self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic] has served the first sentence to foreign fighters who fought on the side of Ukraine, whom they call "mercenaries."

These are the British Aiden Eislin and Sean Pinner, and the Moroccan Saadun Brahim.

They have been sentenced by terrorists to death.

The occupiers have given the foreign defenders of Ukraine a month to appeal against the "decision" of the so-called court.

The fighters were found guilty of "committing acts aimed at seizing power and overthrowing the constitutional order of the DPR [self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic]".”-via Pravda (Ukrainian language source)

~

“All 2,449 people who left Azovstal are now in Olenivka, an urban-type settlement in the Donetsk region.

Source: contact person at Ukrainian Intelligence, article by Ukrainska Pravda titled "’Island of hope’. How did the Azovstal defenders get out and what is happening with them now"

Quote: "All those who left Azovstal are now in Olenivka (pre-trial detention centre in an urban-type settlement near Donetsk - ed.). There are 2,449 of our people there."

Details: The article says that the agreements with the Russians turned out to be simple and concrete: the fighters must stay alive, no torture, separate detention for those from Azovstal, and preparation for their exchange.”-via Pravda (Ukrainian language source)

~

“Valentyn Reznichenko, head of Ukraine's Dnipropetrovsk region military administration, says the city of Kryvyi Rih, located in the central part of the country, is now under constant fire from Russian forces.

“The communities of Zelenodolsk and Shyrokiv suffer the most. Unfortunately, six people died there — 179 houses, two schools, a kindergarten and a hospital were destroyed or damaged,” Reznichenko said. Reznichenko said villages and towns in Kryvyi Rih are "littered with cluster munitions due to shelling” and there is a problem with gas, electricity and water supply.

Meanwhile, in Kharkiv, five people were killed and 14 were injured in Russian attacks, according to Oleh Syniehubov, the head of Khakiv's regional military administration.

“Today the enemy attacked Kharkiv region, in particular settlements in the northern and northeastern directions," Syniehubov said, adding that attacks hit residential buildings in Zolochiv.

"Five houses were destroyed. The enemy also struck at Chuhuiv district today,’’ Syniehubov said Thursday in a live question and answer broadcast on Ukrainian national television.

Syniehubov said Ukraine's armed forces “hold their positions in the northern and northeastern directions.”

When asked why the Russian military is shelling civilian infrastructure, even though there are no visible confrontations between Russian and Ukrainian armies in the Kharkiv region at the moment, Syniehubov replied that the Russian forces “concentrated their attention on the terror of the civilian population.”-via CNN

~

“A new batch of 155 mm M777 howitzers has already been prepared for shipment to Ukraine.

This is according to a report on the official Facebook page of the U.S. Department of Defense, posted on Saturday, seen by Ukrinform.

"155 mm M777 towed howitzers are secured for transportation to Ukraine by United States Air Force airmen," the report said.

It is noted that the artillery units are sent as part of U.S. security assistance to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.”-via Ukrinform

~

“Ukrainian troops announced on Thursday that they have advanced in fierce street fighting in Sievierodonetsk but continued to stress that the only way to fully overcome enemy forces is more weaponry to counter Russia’s advanced firepower.

“They (the Russians) are dying like flies ... fierce fighting continues inside Sievierodonetsk,” Luhansk governor Serhiy Gaidai said in an online post. “The losses of the Russians far exceed ours.” Fighting was now taking place in the towns of Hirske and Popasnyanska, to the south of Sievierodonetsk, he added.

According to the commander of Ukraine’s Svoboda (Freedom) National Guard battalion, the fighting in Sievierodonetsk is being fought house to house as Ukrainian forces face heavy Russian artillery barrages that endanger forces from sides.

The Ukrainian Defense Ministry said its forces had won back some territory from Russian forces in a counter-offensive in the Kherson area of southern Ukraine.”-via The Guardian

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

On Saturday morning, Texas Senator John Cornyn tweeted a racist comment along with a share of former-President Barack Obama's statement regarding Friday's Supreme Court ruling to reverse Roe v. Wade.

Obama, making his statement on Twitter on Friday morning shortly after the ruling was handed down, said "Today, the Supreme Court not only reversed nearly 50 years of precedent, it relegated the most intensely personal decision someone can make to the whims of politicians and ideologues—attacking the essential freedoms of millions of Americans."

The following morning, Cornyn shared that statement from Obama to his own Twitter account adding "Now do Plessy vs Ferguson/Brown vs Board of Education."

Brown v. Board of Education, ruled on by the Supreme Court in 1954, did historical justice in wiping away the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson ruling, making "separate but equal" rightfully unconstitutional.

Following Cornyn's initial tweet, which received tremendous heated backlash, he fired off another one saying "Thank goodness some SCOTUS precedents are overruled."

"Let's help out less intelligent fellow Americans out," one commenter said in response to Cornyn's initial tweet. "Plessy stood as law of the land longer than Roe. That was [John Cornyn's] point. Now if liberals are arguing Brown v. Board of Ed was wrongly ruled because of long standing precedent, then they should openly say so."

That comment was retweeted by Cornyn. The following replies were not.

One commenter tweeted a photo of Cornyn with the word "racist" in red over his chest.

Another commenter shared an archival photo of a Black man drinking from a water fountain labeled "colored" and asked "You miss this sort of thing?"

And yet another out of the thousands of similar commenters shared an illustration of a Klan hood next to a MAGA hat featuring the text "Evil doesn't die, it reinvents itself."

[dorkydiaz]

“this is probably a bad time, but marry me?” with Buddie pretty please

Sorry about the wait hun, but here it is!!

This is a scene that I briefly describe in my fic Says So on the Marriage Certificate but you don't need to read that to understand it at all.

Enjoy the cute sweet domestic fluffiness :)

"Love isn't a fairytale, it's a complicated, messy, perfectly-imperfect story you write day by day." ~Marisa Donnelly

When Buck imagined the moment he would propose to Eddie, if Eddie didn’t beat him to it, he figured that it would be in a nice restaurant or at a park somewhere a few years down the line, maybe in California, Eddie out of his contract, with a crafted speech, and the perfect ring. So when it happened in the middle of their living room in Texas, on what seemed to be a random quiet Friday morning, both of them in nothing but pajamas, and with no ring, he was surprised to say the least.

June 26th, 2015.

Texas

Around 10am

Buck walked into the living room of their small house, a hand wrapped around a mug of freshly brewed coffee. Chris was with Helena and Ramon and the rest of his cousins, so they had slept in a little.

He yawned and sat down on the couch, he clicked on the Tv and it landed on the news,

The camera panned over a large crowd of people, clearly celebrating,

“Again, we have breaking news from Washington- The Supreme Court has voted 5-4 in favor of same-sex marriage, legalizing unions in all 50 states.”

Buck nearly dropped his mug as he sprang up off the couch,

“Eds, get in here.” He called to the kitchen, trying to muscle through the small shake in his voice.

Eddie made his way into the living room and stopped near dead in his tracks,

“Here we have a clip of the running of the interns…”

Buck made his way closer to Eddie and took a moment before sinking to one knee.

“You are shipping out in just under a month so this is probably a bad time, but marry me?” He carefully said, looking up at Eddie, hair soft and curly, in just a tee shirt and sleep shorts, eyes shining with tears.

Eddie joined him on the floor, “only if you’ll marry me?” he said, smiling bright before pulling Buck into a kiss that rivaled their first.

“I had a whole plan. It was a perfect plan. With a ring and everything.” Buck sighed half serious when they barely parted, resting their foreheads together.

“This is perfect, I wouldn’t have it any other way. And a story for the ages. Chris is gonna be mad he missed it.” Eddie replied,

“We’ll take him for ice cream and he’ll forgive us, as long as we don’t get married without him.”

“Wouldn’t dare.” Eddie whispered before kissing his fiancé senseless until they had to pick up Chris.

wedding & engagement prompts

[dougmeet]

flynt (13)     hustler (5)     died (4)     trump (4)     million (3)     doing (3)     insurance (3)     larry (3)     seniors (3)     ditching (3)

In 2017, Flynt offered a $10 million reward for evidence that would lead to Trump’s impeachment, and in 2019, Larry Flynt Publications sent a Christmas card to some Republican congressional members that showed Trump lying dead in a pool of blood, with the killer saying: “I just shot Donald Trump on Fifth Avenue and no one assassinated me” — a reference to Trump’s boast that he could commit such a killing and wouldn’t lose votes.

Eggleston Works è una società di cui  avevo sentito parlare molto tempo prima che io abbia mai avuto la  possibilità di assaggiare le loro merci. Situato a Memphis,  nel Tennessee, La loro prima offerta era un oratore che  sembrava un tavolo finale, ma alla fine non ha avuto il successo come  avevano sperato. Alla fine del 1996, l'Andra fu rilasciato.

Dr. Seuss Enterprises Will Shelve 6 Books, Citing 'Hurtful' Portrayals

no more Seuss or WAP for my kid

CSS Grid CSS Grid simplifies existing layout patterns

and

adds new possibilities for graphic design.

It’s a layout framework — without the framework

Fixed or FlexibleYou can create a grid with fixed track sizes or with flexible sizes using percentages or the new

fr fractional unit

Place & Align

You can place items at precise locations on the grid independent of their HTML source order. Alignment features control how items align when placed into a grid area, and also how the whole grid is aligned.

In our urban and suburban houses what should we do without cats? In our sitting or bedrooms, our libraries, in our kitchens and storerooms, our farms, barns, and dockyards, in our docks, our granaries, our ships, and our wharves, in our corn markets, meat markets, and other places too numerous to mention, how useful they are! In our ships, however, the rats oft set them at defiance; still they are of great service. How wonderfully patient is the cat when watching for rats or mice, awaiting their egress from their place of refuge or that which is their home! How well Shakespeare in Pericles, Act iii., describes this keen attention of the cat to its natural pursuit! A slight rustle, and the fugitive comes forth; a quick, sharp, resolute motion, and the cat has proved its usefulness. Let any one have a plague of rats and mice, as I once had, and let them be delivered therefrom by cats, as I was, and they will have a lasting and kind regard for them.

watch  -- 6,780 results ("mrjyn" AND "dougmeet") OR ("dougmeet" AND "BLACKPINK") SEO Results Deliver (images) in something i call (Bracket Racket Cluster SOF SEO) inspired by mr. Kurzweil, who makes your piano tuned No thanks to The Recording Academy for inexplicably overlooking Apple's new album Fetch the Bolt Cutters for an Album of the Year nod at this year's Grammys. @fionaapplerocks

In 2017, Flynt offered a $10 million reward for evidence that would lead to Trump’s impeachment, and in 2019, Larry Flynt Publications sent a Christmas card to some Republican congressional members that showed Trump lying dead in a pool of blood, with the killer saying: “I just shot Donald Trump on Fifth Avenue and no one assassinated me” — a reference to Trump’s boast that he could commit such a killing and wouldn’t lose votes. (65)

flynt (13)

hustler (5)

died (4)

trump (4)

million (3)

doing (3)

insurance (3)

larry (3)

seniors (3)

ditching (3)

Porn purveyor Larry Flynt, who built Hustler magazine into an adult entertainment empire while championing First Amendment rights, died Wednesday.

He was 78.

Flynt had been in frail health and died of heart failure at his Hollywood Hills home, said his nephew, Jimmy Flynt Jr.

Advertisement Skip Ad From his beginnings as an Ohio strip club owner to his reign as founder of one of the most explicit adult-oriented magazines, Flynt constantly challenged the establishment and became a target for the religious right and feminist groups.

Flynt scored a surprising U.S. Supreme Court victory over the Rev.

Jerry Falwell, who had sued him for libel after a 1983 Hustler alcohol ad suggested Falwell had lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse.

Paid Post What Is This? Seniors Are Ditching Their Auto Insurance and Doing This Instead Seniors Are Ditching Their Auto Insurance and Doing This Instead Seniors Are Ditching Their Auto Insurance and Doing This Instead See More Sponsored Content by Comparisons.org Flynt’s company produced not only Hustler but other niche publications.

He owned a video production company, various websites, a Los Angeles-area casino and 10 Hustler boutiques.

He also licensed the Hustler name to independently owned strip clubs.

His publishing and financial successes were offset in equal measure by controversies and tragedies.

Advertisement 00:48 02:53 Shot by a sniper in 1978, Flynt was paralyzed from the waist down and used a wheelchair the rest of his life.

He fought battles with drug and alcohol addiction, and his fourth wife died of a heroin overdose.

His daughter, Lisa Flynt-Fugate, died in a 2014 car crash in Ohio at age 47.

With a fortune estimated at more than $100 million, Flynt spent his later years in the political arena.

When Gov.

Gray Davis was recalled by California voters in 2003, Flynt was among 135 candidates who ran to replace him.

He called himself “a smut peddler who cares” and gathered more than 15,000 votes.

A self-described progressive, Flynt was no fan of former President Donald Trump.

Before the 2016 election, he offered up to $1 million for video or audio recordings of Trump engaging in illegal or “sexually demeaning or derogatory” activity.

In 2017, Flynt offered a $10 million reward for evidence that would lead to Trump’s impeachment, and in 2019, Larry Flynt Publications sent a Christmas card to some Republican congressional members that showed Trump lying dead in a pool of blood, with the killer saying: “I just shot Donald Trump on Fifth Avenue and no one assassinated me” — a reference to Trump’s boast that he could commit such a killing and wouldn’t lose votes.

Flynt’s life was depicted in the acclaimed 1996 film “The People vs.

Larry Flynt,” which brought Oscar nominations for director Milos Forman and Woody Harrelson, who played Flynt.

—2021年3月3日 (@mrjyn) status: WAP—2021年3月3日 (@mrjyn)

  Twitter [@]  Tweet to: @squarebooks From:  @mrjyn Comm. on:  squarebooks (reply) RE: SB mention by  (author) re. SB her book status: WAP—2021年3月3日 (@mrjyn)

mrjyn comment: quotes Elvis song lyric: 'i don't care' adds:  'I miss #BarryHannah (author), mutual friend to mrjyn (person) and SB, Oxford, MS (bookstore) adding here: RIP Date: 03:13:2021 Time: 8:17 CST

1 of 3 jpg att: 1.  Elvis photo ephemera 'TCB Oath' 2. Photo of cover of Barry Hannah book jacket "Tennis Handsome" Pub: Knopf Ed.: Gordon Lish 3. Jerry Lee Lewis   Cover of Bio Author: Nick Tosches

definitive hypnogogic, Biblical Ovid Southern Gothic Epic hagiography, esprit l'escalier epitaph precursor to whose words will be most tribute to the possible mortality race between the Killer and Keith Richards, KR JLL's Jr. by 15 yrs. check Vegas Book for Odds says Stanley Booth, Author 'Up and Down with the Rolling Stones,' Memphis, TN 'author' -- not Rockcrit, please?

   mrjyn comment: quotes Elvis song lyric: 'i don't care' BarryHannah

This frisky pop confection finds Blackpink teaming up with American singer Selena Gomez. The five girls use a series of ice cream double entendres to send out mating calls and detail how they are different from the other females. I know that my heart can be so cold But I'm sweet for you, come put me in a cone Blackpink and Gomez are encouraging the guys to ignore their icy cool demeanors. Once they take a couple of scoops they will find they are loving and affectionate.

The song's icy metaphors not only have a sensual connotation but also allude to the singers' wealth. Ice on my wrist, yeah, I like it like this Get the bag with the cream The girls are wearing diamond encrusted watches (ice is a slang word for diamonds). "Get the bag with the cream" refers to a bag loaded with cash.

The song is Blackpink's second hookup with a major American pop star in 2020, following their Lady Gaga collaboration, "Sour Candy." Both songs use sexy food analogies to represent the enticing love that the girls are ready to give out.

Frequent Blackpink collaborators, the Korean Teddy Park and the American Bekuh Boom, are the primary writers. Park wrote the main melody while Boom was in Korea. She then wrote the lyrics over his tune, incorporating a series of sexy ice cream-related play on words. The other credited writers are Ariana Grande, her go-to collaborators Victoria Monet, and Tommy Brown, Mr. Franks, Selena Gomez and the Korean producer 24.

The retro-tinged video finds Gomez driving a pink ice cream truck in a pinup sailor outfit. The four Blackpink girls all appear in a candy-coated frozen dessert fantasy land before ending the clip in an ice cream amusement park. Blackpink's scenes were filmed in South Korea, while the scenes featuring Gomez were shot in the US because of the coronavirus pandemic.

The song was birthed at a songwriting camp that producer Teddy Park asked Bekuh Boom to run for Blackpink's debut studio album. Boom asked Tommy Brown and Victoria Monét to come to the sessions at LA's Westlake Studio, and the pair brought Mr. Franks along with them. "Tommy had Franks pull up beats, and eventually Franks played the one that all of us started vibing to and decided to work on together," recalled Boom to Genius. "Victoria brought up the subject 'ice cream' and started humming melodies that we then started writing lyrics to together in the room. From that point on we had a great back and forth of ideas for the first half of the song that was done that night."

  A post shared by mrjyn (@dougmeet)

no more Seuss or WAP for my kid. Dr. Seuss Enterprises Will Shelve 6 Books, Citing 'Hurtful' Portrayals https://t.co/Cc23ru1M6K— mrjyn (@mrjyn) 2021年3月3日

     Eggleston Works " Fontaine II "

           Diffusori a torre    

         SCHEDA

Di            cosa si tratta:

         Diffusori a torre

                         L'importanza              di iscrivervi alla newsletter

Produttore:

         Egglestone Works  Usa

Caratteristiche:

 Due vie Reflex

Costo:

         7500/00 euro anno 2011

         Vasta Gamma di          Nuovo          e              Usato disponibili          Click

     CARATTERISTICHE

           INFO DAL WEB

   L'opportunità per me di ascoltare  un altoparlante EgglestonWorks è arrivata tramite il mio amico e collega,  Marshall Nack. Alcuni di voi lettori a lungo termine  potrebbero ricordare la recensione approfondita di Marshall dei Rosas di  EgglestonWorks.    Marshall e la sua adorabile moglie  Lynn sono una coppia insolita in quanto entrambi sono audiofili. In  realtà, sono l'unica coppia audiofila che conosco personalmente. Sono  certo che il fatto che siano entrambi dei musicisti seri è in gran parte  responsabile della loro capacità di ascoltare le gradazioni e i dettagli  tonali molto fini con tanta facilità. Tra i suoi molti  talenti, Marshall ha un'eccezionale capacità di dare voce a  un sistema. Sembra sempre in grado di trovare la giusta  miscela di componenti e accessori che si traducono in un sistema  eccezionalmente ben bilanciato. Questo è molto più difficile  da realizzare di quanto si possa pensare. Tuttavia, la natura  rivelatrice dei diffusori EgglestonWorks è stata determinante nel  raggiungimento dei suoi obiettivi sonori.    Quando lo Stereophile Show è  arrivato in città questa primavera, la stanza di EgglestonWorks era in  cima alla mia lista delle visite obbligatorie. È stato lì che  ho incontrato EgglestonWorks prez Jim Thomson e ho iniziato il mio primo  ascolto con i Fontaines. So che hai tutti sentito che la  qualità del suono agli spettacoli è generalmente piuttosto brutta. Mentre  trovo che questo sia ampiamente vero, allo stesso tempo, puoi avere  un'idea del potenziale sonoro di un prodotto, o come alla  fine potrebbe funzionare in condizioni di casa. I Fontaines  furono sistemati nella sala dell'home theater di Eggleston. Incluso  con il display era un paio di sub-woofer dedicati.    Secondo la letteratura aziendale,  "il design di ciascun modello di altoparlante nella linea EgglestonWorks  inizia con il midrange". Per le Fontaines, una coppia di 6  "polipropilene, i driver a doppio magnete gestiscono il  midrange e il basso. Ognuno di questi driver ha una bobina da  3 "di diametro, che è stata ripetuta molte volte ma che ripete, come è  vero, se il midrange non è corretto, di tutti gli altri è  infruttuoso. Il tweeter ha una grande camera di smorzamento  aperiodico che imita il caricamento infinito del diaframma. Il  tweeter è collegato al crossover con un cappuccio e due resistori  utilizzati come un L-pad.    Un singolo set di morsetti è  montato in un pannello incassato nella parte posteriore della sezione  driver. Ho chiesto a Jim Thompson di utilizzare un singolo  set di post di rilegatura in contrasto con la tendenza attuale di  utilizzare post doppio. I driver sono direttamente collegati  ai bind. Ovviamente, se un cliente è impostato su biwiring,  questi diffusori possono essere dotati di doppio binding post su un ordine  speciale.

I driver dei bassi e dei medi sono  alloggiati in quello che EgglestonWorks descrive come una custodia con una  linea di trasmissione quasi in trasmissione. Ciò si ottiene  impiegando un materiale di imbottitura acustico specializzato noto come " Lastre  di granito italiane legate a loro. Il risultato finale di  questi sforzi è un recinto molto inerte che fornisce una risposta dei  bassi molto migliore rispetto alle dimensioni ridotte dei driver.    Dopo diverse conversazioni con Jim  Thompson, quattro cartoni di dimensioni medie ma piuttosto pesanti  arrivarono da EgglestonWorks. I cartoni contenevano il driver  e le sezioni di base corrispondenti. Dovresti stare molto  attento mentre imposti questi diffusori per non danneggiare la squisita  finitura nera del pianoforte. L'immagine non rende in alcun  modo giustizia a questi oratori. Devi davvero vederli di  persona per capire cosa intendo. I Fontaines possono essere  visti come uno di quei prodotti che rientrano nella categoria "audio come  arte". Sono semplicemente belli. I Fontaines  possono essere visti come uno di quei prodotti che rientrano nella  categoria "audio come arte". Sono semplicemente belli. I  Fontaines possono essere visti come uno di quei prodotti che rientrano  nella categoria "audio come arte". Sono semplicemente belli.    La vestibilità e la finitura sono  proprio lì con il meglio che abbia mai visto.È ovvio per me che  EgglestonWorks ha preso molta cura e ha fatto spese considerevoli nella  progettazione e costruzione di questi contenitori.    Una volta assemblati, gli  altoparlanti danno l'aspetto di un monolitico sul pavimento. Le  basi sono sabbia-fallibili e formeranno un recinto molto sostanziale. Vi  consiglio caldamente di stabilirvi il posizionamento finale prima di  riempire le basi di sabbia. Questi bambini sono abbastanza  pesanti per cominciare; una volta riempito di sabbia, sarebbe  quasi impossibile per la persona media muoversi da sola. Ho  posizionato gli altoparlanti su una trapunta, quindi sui loro lati, per  inserire i quattro bulloni che fissano le basi in posizione. Questo  viene fatto attraverso un pannello di accesso nella parte inferiore della  base. Mentre le punte fornite sono molto robuste, hanno  un filo sottile e possono essere facilmente danneggiati se si è negligenti  durante l'installazione. Il cofano del conducente è molto  inerte quindi consiglierei molto se decidi di eseguire il test delle  articolazioni.

Mi piace particolarmente il modo in  cui hanno scelto di affrontare le griglie. Sono costruiti con  un materiale molto puro montato su una sottile struttura in acciaio. Si  collegano al pannello frontale mediante magneti che sono sepolti sotto il  laminato di superficie. Questa disposizione rende il  fissaggio delle griglie il più semplice possibile e ha funzionato bene per  me.    Mentre l'efficienza è elencata come  quello che potrebbe sembrare un 87db piuttosto basso, non ho avuto  problemi a raggiungere livelli di rottura del lease con l'amplificatore di  potenza Bel Canto EVo. Però,    Quando ricevo nuove attrezzature da  recensire, inviterò spesso diversi amici non audiofili, accenderò il  sistema e osserverò le loro reazioni. In ogni caso, le  reazioni ai Fontaines iniziarono prima che il primo CD fosse nel cassetto  ed erano sempre abbastanza positivi. Tutti sono stati presi  con il loro aspetto sorprendente e il modo in cui si sono mescolati così  facilmente nella stanza. Sono belli come sono discreti. Mentre  è abbastanza ovvio dalle specifiche e dalla qualità dell'hardware  utilizzato che EgglestonWorks costruisce i suoi diffusori con molta cura,

Come suonano?    Dal momento che non ho la  possibilità di eseguire alcuna misurazione sull'attrezzatura che ho per la  revisione, posso solo dirti come si comportano nel mio sistema. Mentre  credo che le misure abbiano il loro posto, difficilmente  danno il quadro complessivo. Ci sono stati molti componenti  che hanno misurato terribilmente, ma erano artisti stellari dal punto di  vista sonoro, e viceversa.    Hanno quella qualità trasparente  che consente ad ogni strumento di occupare il proprio spazio, ma sempre  con un naturale senso di proporzione all'interno del palcoscenico. Nessuna  durezza o nervosismo ha mai accompagnato questa chiarezza. Ho  notato anche una qualità semplice e costante del suono che lasciava che la  musica scorresse in modo molto seducente. Piatti e campane  hanno la giusta quantità di lucentezza e delicatezza e di nuovo, sembrano  avere le giuste dimensioni. I tassi di decadimento per questi  strumenti contribuiscono anche al senso del realismo.    Hanno costantemente svelato i  dettagli di basso livello che tra l'altro davano un senso reale delle  dimensioni del luogo di registrazione. Con Miles Davis,Tipo  di bluHo sempre messo in  discussione il suono registrato del pianoforte, specialmente con molte  delle vecchie registrazioni Blue Note. Proprio l'opposto è il  caso della registrazione XRCD, in particolare con molte delle  vecchie registrazioni Blue Note. Proprio l'opposto è il caso  della registrazione XRCD, in particolare con molte delle  vecchie registrazioni Blue Note. Proprio l'opposto è il caso  della registrazione XRCD,Waltz  for Debby del  Bill Evans Trio [JVC XRCD VICJ-60141]. Qui le qualità tonali  e la complessa struttura armonica del pianoforte sono presentate molto  bene.    Sono rimasto sorpreso dal senso di  profondità con cui questi relatori mi hanno presentato. La  mia stanza non collaborerà molto in quest'area, quindi questa è stata una  sorpresa gradita. In effetti, è il migliore che ho sentito  qui. Il riempimento del centro era azzeccato: i solisti erano  un po 'più avanti di quanto io non fossi abituato, ma era di buon effetto. Nel  complesso, ho trovato le capacità di imaging di questi diffusori di essere  eccezionalmente buone. Per i miei gusti,    Dal momento che il punto -3db è  quotato a 55Hz, non mi aspettavo troppo dalle regioni inferiori, ma sono  rimasto piacevolmente sorpreso da ciò che ho sentito. Ora non  fraintendere, questi non sono gli altoparlanti per gli organi  a canne o i fan del reggae. Per quel tipo di uscita dei bassi  dovresti guardare molto più in alto nella linea EgglestonWorks. Ciò  che è notevole in questo caso è la precisione del basso. Non  è mai cupo; piuttosto, tende ad essere stretto e melodico. Quando  eseguito male, il basso può oscurare gli elementi musicali nella gamma  media inferiore. Il basso dei Fontaines non interferisce o  oscura affatto il midrange. In altre parole, la fioritura  della fascia bassa non viene a scapito della chiarezza del midrange. Per  classica e buona parte del jazz, potresti essere abbastanza  soddisfatto della fascia bassa delle Fontaines. Nel  complesso, l'uscita dei bassi è stata molto meglio di quanto mi  aspettassi.    Lo scorso giugno Tim Shea ha  scritto una magnifica recensione del Musse Audio Reference Two NF  speakers. Li ho a portata di mano e farò una revisione di  follow-up. Tuttavia, poiché sono nella stessa fascia di  prezzo delle Fontaines,    I Reference Twos, come i Fontaines,  sono monitor bidirezionali. In questo caso, fornisci gli  stand. Le differenze sonore colpiscono a causa della forza di  ciascuna bugia alle estremità opposte dello spettro sonoro. Con  un punto -3db di 35Hz e una frequenza di sintonizzazione della porta di  29Hz, non sorprende che i Reference Twos si approfondiscano. La  parte bassa qui è stretta e melodica. Mentre i Fontaines non  vanno così in profondità, Devo dire che il basso è un po 'più  stretto e un po' più melodico dei Reference Twos. Tuttavia, i  Fontaines ottengono sicuramente un cenno del capo per l'estensione del  registro medio e superiore, dolcezza e ottima resa dei  dettagli. Questi sono tratti sonori che sono un appuntamento  fisso nella sala d'ascolto di Perry e in seguito sono venuto ad ascoltarli  per tutto il tempo. In aggiunta a questo, c'è  molta aria intorno agli strumenti con un tasso di decadimento molto buono. Alcuni  potrebbero descrivere questi diffusori come neutri dal punto di vista  tonale, tuttavia si desidera descrivere questa caratteristica. Io,  d'altra parte, trovare la loro tonalità per essere  leggermente sul lato caldo. Mi sta bene. Nel  complesso, semplicemente si tolgono la via della musica.    Etta James, Life,  Love and The Blues [Private  Label 01005-82162-2]: Questo è un CD che è un ottimo esempio del suono  "Mussel Shoals". Ha una linea di basso sostenuta molto  pesante durante molti tagli. Check-out " senza  alcun segno di sovraccarico del conducente o altro pericolo. Dal  basso superiore in su tutto va bene. La voce di Etta James  arriva con la giusta quantità di morso e calore. Dal basso  superiore in su tutto va bene. La voce di Etta James arriva  con la giusta quantità di morso e calore. Dal basso superiore  in su tutto va bene. La voce di Etta James arriva con la  giusta quantità di morso e calore.    Patricia Barber, Companion Il  senso di immediatezza e presenza è tale che è possibile ottenere  un'implicazione delle dimensioni della stanza senza alcun iper-dettaglio  per intromettersi. Sul taglio "Usami" c'è un  assolo di basso verticale che i Fontaines riproducono con tutte le trame e  la ricchezza armonica in tatto. Signorina. La  voce del barbiere ha una trama soffice che è abbastanza piacevole senza  che i dettagli vocali siano mai esagerati. Non ho mai avuto  l'impressione di poter vedere le sue tonsille.    Con opere sinfoniche su larga  scala, questi bambini continuano nella stessa vena. Mentre le  loro capacità limitate di fascia bassa diminuiranno parte dello slam e del  peso che i loro fratelli più grandi sono in grado di gestire,    Per riassumere, la EgglestonWorks  Fontaines può essere descritta come molto musicale. Mentre ti  daranno tutti gli attributi che gli audiofili bramano, non sono mai  eccessivamente analitici. Apprezzo molto le qualità dei medi  che mantengono le mie sessioni di ascolto sul lato lungo. Mi  fanno venire voglia di togliersi la roba da audiofili e semplicemente  sedersi e godersi la musica. Mi trovo a tirare fuori CD dopo  CD che non ho sentito da un po 'di tempo per ascoltare. Se  ritieni di dover semplicemente avere quell'ultimo bit di uscita dei bassi,  ricorda che i sottotitoli corrispondenti sono disponibili. palcoscenico  sonoro totalmente coerente e la massima semplicità della presentazione  musicale. Non ho mai sentito alcuna discontinuità tra basso,  medi o alti. Erano sempre coerenti in questo senso.    Questi diffusori sono di altissima  qualità ed è necessario collegarli a ingranaggi di pari qualità a monte. Ovviamente  lavoreranno con amplificatori economici, ma riveleranno  rapidamente tutte le carenze e le deficienze del suono. Le  Fontaines EgglestonWorks sono l'essenza del lusso. Mentre non  possono essere considerati a buon mercato e sono in un campo affollato a  questo punto di prezzo

     VEDIAMO DIETRO

Firefox’s Grid Inspector Tool lets you see the grid lines in the browser while you’re creating a layout or studying other examples of CSS Grid in action. In fact, this entire page was laid out using CSS Grid. Try it out!

Want to learn more?

our favorite resources

MDN reference documentation Read more

Rachel Andrew’s Grid by Example Read more

Jen Simmons’ Layout Lab Read more

Drawing order controlled by z-index and source order Read more

Read more  

A Box Alignment Cheat Sheet Read more

Jen Simmons’ website

Rachel Andrew’s website

W3C spec: CSS Grid Layout Module Level 1

Basic concepts of grid layout

Rachel Andrew’s CSS AMA on Github

Video demo of CSS Grid Inspector

CSS Grid and Grid Highlighter Now in Firefox Developer Edition

A Brief Intro to CSS Grid

[arcticdementor]

In yet another sign of our tortured political moment, the most meaningful civic discussion currently raging is being waged not by our elected officials, spiritual leaders, novelists or celebrities, but by two writers engaged in what may appear to be an intramural intellectual quibble in niche publications.

It began last week when Sohrab Ahmari, the op-ed editor of the New York Post, took to the journal First Things to point out what he believed was wrong much of American conservatism, a bundle of self-contradictory tics embodied, he argued, by National Review writer and dedicated Never Trumper David French. It didn’t take long for French to jab right back. A host of other pugilists, including New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, soon entered the arena, framing the argument in personal, sometimes quasi-slanderous terms.

…

Even worse, today’s social justice warriors, Ahmari continued, see any dissent from their dogmas as an inherent assault. “They say, in effect: For us to feel fully autonomous, you must positively affirm our sexual choices, our transgression, our power to disfigure our natural bodies and redefine what it means to be human,” Ahmari wrote, “lest your disapprobation make us feel less than fully autonomous.” This means that no real discussion is possible—the only thing a true conservative can do is, in Ahmari’s pithy phrase, “to fight the culture war with the aim of defeating the enemy and enjoying the spoils in the form of a public square re-ordered to the common good and ultimately the Highest Good.”

…

Almost immediately, French delivered his riposte. Ahmari’s call to arms, he wrote in his response, betrayed a deep misunderstanding of both our national moment and our national character. “America,” French wrote, “will always be a nation of competing worldviews and competing, deeply held values. We can forsake a commitment to liberty and launch the political version of the Battle of Verdun, seeking the ruin of our foes, or we can recommit to our shared citizenship and preserve a space for all American voices, even as we compete against those voices in politics and the marketplace of ideas.”

Which means that civility is not a secondary value but the main event, the measure of most, if not all, things. Bret Stephens agreed: In his column in The New York Times, he called Ahmari—who was born Muslim in Tehran and had found his path to Catholicism—“an ardent convert” and a “would-be theocrat” who, inflamed with dreams of the divine will, had failed to understand that it was precisely the becalmed civilities of “value-neutral liberalism” that has made his brave journey from Tehran to the New York Post possible.

…

You don’t have to be conservative, or particularly religious, to spot a few deep-seated problems with the arguments advanced by French, Stephens, and the rest of the Never Trump cadre. Three fallacies in particular stand out.

The first has to do with the self-branding of the Never Trumpers as champions of civility. From tax cuts to crushing ISIS, from supporting Israel to appointing staunchly ideological justices to the Supreme Court, there’s very little about the 45th president’s policies that ought to make any principled conservative run for the hills. What, then, separates one camp of conservatives, one that supports the president, from another, which vows it never will? Stephens himself attempted an answer in a 2017 column. “Character does count,” he wrote, “and virtue does matter, and Trump’s shortcomings prove it daily.”

To put it briefly, the Never Trump argument is that they should be greatly approved of, while Donald Trump should rightly be scorned, because—while they agree with Trump on most things, politically—they are devoted to virtue, while Trump is uniquely despicable. The proofs of Trump’s singular loathsomeness are many, but if you strip him of all the vices he shares with others who had recently held positions of power—a deeply problematic attitude towards women (see under: Clinton, William Jefferson), shady business dealings (see under: Clinton, Hillary Rodham), a problematic attitude towards the free press (see under: Obama, Barack)—you remain with one ur-narrative, the terrifying folk tale that casts Trump as a nefarious troll dispatched by his paymasters in the Kremlin to set American democracy ablaze.

…

Conspiracy-mongering doesn’t seem like much of a public virtue. Certainly, the Never Trumpers should have known better than to join in the massive publicity campaign around a “dossier” supposedly compiled by a former British intelligence officer rehashing third-hand hearsay and paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. You can still find many faults with Donald Trump’s behavior in and out of office, including some cardinal enough perhaps to merit impeachment, without buying in to some moronic ghost story about an orange-hued traitor who seized the highest office in the land with the help of Vladimir Putin’s social media goons. All that should go without saying, especially for people who ostensibly devote their lives to elevating and enriching the tone of our public discourse.

…

It is true that French took care to sound unfailingly fair, a lone voice for reason in a political reality inflamed by lunatics left and right. The thing he was being reasonable about, however, was an FBI investigation that emerged out of a blatant politically motivated forgery. Now, it’s perfectly plausible that French was carrying on his arguments in good faith, even when overwhelming evidence to the contrary was always there for a slightly more curious or skeptical journalist to discover. What’s disturbing, from the public virtue standpoint, is that French has yet to admit his own failings, which are compounded by his less-than-courageous misrepresentations of what he actually wrote: In his reply to Ahmari, he strongly denied he had promoted the collusion story, a point of view that’s difficult to defend when your byline appears on stories like “There Is Now Evidence That Senior Trump Officials Attempted to Collude with Russia.”

French and the other self-appointed guardians of civility, then, should do us all a favor and drop the civic virtue act. They’re not disinterested guardians of our public institutions; they are actors, working in an industry that rewards them for dressing up in Roman Republican drag and reciting Cicero for the yokels. This is why Bill Kristol, another of the Never Trumpers, could raise money for his vanity website, The Bulwark, and why he could expect his new creation be lauded on CNN as “a conservative site unafraid to take on Trump,” even as the site was staffed by leftist millennials and dutifully followed progressive propaganda lines. Like anyone whose living depends on keeping on the right side of a leftist industry, they understood that there’s only so much you can say if you care about cashing a paycheck—especially when the president and leader of your own party won’t take your phone calls.

…

To tell an Iranian immigrant that he doesn’t understand the way American liberalism works because he ended up on the side of faith rather than on the side of deracinated cosmopolitan universalism isn’t just an impoverished reading of America’s foundations or a blatantly condescending comment; it’s also indicative of a mindset that seeks to immediately equate any disagreement with some inherent and irreparable character flaw.

…

So much for the cocktail party chatter. The larger problem here is that at no point do Stephens, French, et al. deliver a concrete explanation of how they propose conservatism go about opposing, to say nothing of reversing, the new social and moral order that the progressive left has been busily implementing in America for a decade or more. At best, they claim that there’s no real crisis after all.

…

Ahmari, not unlike the zealous left he opposes, has a very distinct idea of where he wants the country to go. He doesn’t want it to end up where objecting to lunatic theories, forged by crackpot academics and defying millennia of lived human experience, gets you called a bigot and fired from your job. He doesn’t want to try and engage in dialogue with people who believe that disagreeing with their opinions causes them some sort of harm and that speech must therefore be regulated by the government or large tech companies. He doesn’t want an America in which color of skin and religious affiliation and sexual preference trump or mute the content of your character. Looking at public schools and private universities, Hollywood and publishing, academia and social media, Ahmari sees the threat posed by progressive doctrine to established American norms and values as entirely real. That he wants to fight it doesn’t make him, as Stephens suggested, a Catholic mullah-in-waiting. It makes him a normal American.

Which is why American Jews, too—whether they identify as liberals or conservatives—would do well to take this squabble seriously. The liberalism that American Jews have defended so ardently, the reason so many of us ended up voting for the left and supporting organizations like the ACLU and cheering on firebrands like Bella Abzug, was geared to secure precisely the values and rights that Ahmari champions, without which it would have been impossible for us to survive, let alone thrive, as immigrants to a white, Christian-majority culture.

A religious minority cannot expect to last very long in a society, like the one the progressive left advocates, that is allergic to tradition and intolerant of dissent. Only in an America that takes faith seriously, that respects and empowers community, and that shudders at any attempt to censor wrong beliefs and incorrect thinking, can Jews hope to thrive.

[a-wandering-fool]

The clip itself doesn’t tell us a lot other than Trump expressing a view he has expressed previously on ending birthright citizenship. Except the mention of an Executive Order is new. But in the clip, there is no indication such an Executive Order is drafted, whether such an Executive Order is definitely going to happen, or when.

Axios continued:

Trump told “Axios on HBO” that he has run the idea of ending birthright citizenship by his counsel and plans to proceed with the highly controversial move, which certainly will face legal challenges.

“It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t,” Trump said, declaring he can do it by executive order.

When told that’s very much in dispute, Trump replied: “You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they’re saying I can do it just with an executive order.”

“We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States … with all of those benefits,” Trump continued. “It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end.” (More than 30 countries, most in the Western Hemisphere, provide birthright citizenship.)

“It’s in the process. It’ll happen … with an executive order.”

The president expressed surprise that “Axios on HBO” knew about his secret plan: “I didn’t think anybody knew that but me. I thought I was the only one. “

Behind the scenes: “Axios on HBO” had been working for weeks on a story on Trump’s plans for birthright citizenship, based on conversations with several sources, including one close to the White House Counsel’s office.

Readers may recall that ending birthright citizenship has been argued by Former Trump Adviser Michael Anton: Constitution Does Not Require Birthright Citizenship:

Michael Anton, a lecturer and research fellow at Hillsdale College and a former national security official in the Trump administration. Anton also was the pseudonymous author of The Flight 93 Election article that cause a stir prior to the 2016 election.

Earlier this month, Anton penned an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he argued that birthright citizenship was not a constitutional requirement.

In his op-ed, Anton wrote, Citizenship shouldn’t be a birthright:

The notion that simply being born within the geographical limits of the United States automatically confers U.S. citizenship is an absurdity — historically, constitutionally, philosophically and practically.

. . . . Constitutional scholar Edward Erler has shown that the entire case for birthright citizenship is based on a deliberate misreading of the 14th Amendment. The purpose of that amendment was to resolve the question of citizenship for newly freed slaves. Following the Civil War, some in the South insisted that states had the right to deny citizenship to freedmen. In support, they cited 1857’s disgraceful Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which held that no black American could ever be a citizen of the United States.

A constitutional amendment was thus necessary to overturn Dred Scott and to define the precise meaning of American citizenship.

That definition is the amendment’s very first sentence: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

The amendment clarified for the first time that federal citizenship precedes and supersedes its state-level counterpart. No state has the power to deny citizenship, hence none may dispossess freed slaves.

Anton went on to make a distinction between “subject to the jurisdiction” and “subject to American law.”

Second, the amendment specifies two criteria for American citizenship: birth or naturalization (i.e., lawful immigration), and being subject to U.S. jurisdiction. We know what the framers of the amendment meant by the latter because they told us. Sen. Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, a principal figure in drafting the amendment, defined “subject to the jurisdiction” as “not owing allegiance to anybody else” — that is, to no other country or tribe.

Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, a sponsor of the clause, further clarified that the amendment explicitly excludes from citizenship “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

Yet for decades, U.S. officials — led by immigration enthusiasts in and out of government — have acted as though “subject to the jurisdiction” simply means “subject to American law.” That is true of any tourist who comes here.

The framers of the 14th Amendment added the jurisdiction clause precisely to distinguish between people to whom the United States owes citizenship and those to whom it does not. Freed slaves definitely qualified. The children of immigrants who came here illegally clearly don’t.

Anton offered multiple solutions, including Executive Order:

The problem can be fixed easily. Congress could clarify legislatively that the children of noncitizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and thus not citizens under the 14th Amendment. But given the open-borders enthusiasm of congressional leaders of both parties, that’s unlikely.

It falls, then, to Trump. An executive order could specify to federal agencies that the children of noncitizens are not citizens. Such an order would, of course, immediately be challenged in the courts. But officers in all three branches of government — the president no less than judges — take similar oaths to defend the Constitution. Why shouldn’t the president act to defend the clear meaning of the 14th Amendment?

I haven’t researched the issue, so I’m not going to express a view on whether Anton is correct. In 2011, James Ho, now a Trump appointee to the 5th Circuit, wrote an Op-Ed in The Wall Street Journal rejecting the argument set forth recently by Anton, Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment:

A coalition of state legislators, motivated by concerns about illegal immigration, is expected to endorse state-level legislation today at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., to deny the privileges of U.S citizenship to the U.S.-born children of undocumented persons.

This effort to rewrite U.S. citizenship law from state to state is unconstitutional—and curious. Opponents of illegal immigration cannot claim to champion the rule of law and then, in the same breath, propose policies that violate our Constitution.

In the aftermath of the Civil War, members of the 39th Congress proposed amending the Constitution to reverse the Supreme Court’s notorious 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling denying citizenship to slaves. The result is the first sentence of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

The plain meaning of this language is clear. A foreign national living in the United States is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” because he is legally required to obey U.S. law. (By contrast, a foreign diplomat who travels here on behalf of a foreign sovereign enjoys diplomatic immunity from—and thus is not subject to the jurisdiction of—U.S. law.)

Axios added:

Between the lines: Until the 1960s, the 14th Amendment was never applied to undocumented or temporary immigrants, Eastman said.

Between 1980 and 2006, the number of births to unauthorized immigrants — which opponents of birthright citizenship call “anchor babies” — skyrocketed to a peak of 370,000, according to a 2016 study by Pew Research. It then declined slightly during and following the Great Recession.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that children born to immigrants who are legal permanent residents have citizenship. But those who claim the 14th Amendment should not apply to everyone point to the fact that there has been no ruling on a case specifically involving undocumented immigrants or those with temporary legal status.

Doing this by Executive Order certainly would be challenged in the courts, and there is little doubt that some district court somewhere, and perhaps multiple district courts, would enjoin such an executive order. Which means that in a year or two, it would be in front of the Supreme Court.

*Constitutional Scholar” Jim Acosta has declared any such move unconstitutional:

The founders set up the constitution so the president can’t do what he’s proposing to do with birthright citizenship. It’s a stunt, like sending the troops to a border for a non-existent invasion.

— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) October 30, 2018

Drawn like a moth to fire, CNN laments that “this is what the president wants to be talking about seven days before [the election], and we’re taking the bait.”

Yet Jonathan Swan of Axios, who broke the story, disputes that this was a planned Trump rollout:

I had been working on a story for a while, based on a leak from a good source, but it wasn’t ready for prime time. I thought I’d spring the question on POTUS

====================

A comment left in the thread:

When you listen to what he says, and read it carefully, he is NOT talking about all “birthright citizenship.” He is obviously addressing the “anchor baby” issue, not all citizens born in the US who have one or both parents who are U.S. citizens, have no allegiance to another sovereign nation, and are born in a state or territory (or are serving in the military, like John McCain). The 14th Amendment and the “natural born citizen” clause in the Constitution cannot be made null and void based on an EO.

But, for national security reasons, Trump can issue an EO clarifying that anyone who is here illegally, serving as a diplomat, as a resident alien who has not filed for naturalization, as a tourist, etc. and has ALLEGIANCE to another country does not get automatic citizenship just because they were born on US soil.

The Constitutional clause on “natural born citizen” and the 14th Amendment would both have to be amended to eliminate ALL “birthright citizenship.” I believe Axios is creating news and controversy, reaching for an “October surprise” to motivate leftists.

Let’s not fall for that #FAKENEWS trap.

[squarwell-breakingnews]

Reply in 10 days on ED chief tenure extension: SC to govt | India News - Times of India

Reply in 10 days on ED chief tenure extension: SC to govt | India News – Times of India

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Union government and the Central Vigilance Commission to respond in 10 days to a bunch of PILs challenging a law empowering the Centre to extend the tenures of the directors of CBI and ED from mandatory two years up to five years through extensions given for one year at a time. With the Enforcement Directorate putting the heat on non-BJP…

[xtruss]

U.S. Elie Mystal Doubles Down Against 'Haters' After Calling Constitution 'Trash'

— By Daniel Villarreal | March 06, 2022 | Newsweek

Elie Mystal, a legal writer and book author, has doubled down on comments he made Friday referring to the U.S. Constitution as "trash." Above, Mystal attends Politicon 2019 at Music City Center on October 27, 2019, in Nashville, Tennessee. Ed Rode/Getty Images For Politicon

Elie Mystal, a legal editor and recently published book author, has spent his day responding to online "haters" like Representative Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) who are angry that he called the Constitution "trash" that was written by wealthy slavers and racist misogynists.

Mystal appeared on the Friday installment of the daytime talk show The View, where he discussed his new book, "Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy's Guide to the Constitution."

His book basically argues that the Constitution was written by rich bigots, and its laws have since been mostly interpreted by wealthy white legislators to take away the rights of minorities, women and the LGBTQ community.

Mystal's book includes chapter titles such as "Canceling Trash People Is Not a Constitutional Crisis" and "Bigotry is Illegal Even If You've Been Ordered to by Jesus."

During his appearance on The View, co-host Ana Navarro asked Mystal, "Some will say, are you arguing for throwing out the Constitution? Should the Constitution be thrown out? What do we do? Is it a living document or a sacred document?"

He replied, "It's certainly not sacred. All right, let's start there. The Constitution is kind of trash."

He later told the co-hosts that he would advocate changing the document to elect the president through popular vote rather than the Electoral College, to place term limits on Supreme Court justices and eliminate states' rights on "health care, elections, policing and guns."

His comments on The View upset political conservatives, who went on Twitter to voice their anger and disagreement. One of them, Boebert, published a tweet containing a video of Mistal calling the Constitution "trash."

Boebert's tweet included the opening of the oath of office taken by Congress members: "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC ... "

While Mystal didn't respond directly to Boebert's tweet, he did respond to other Twitter critics with sharp retorts.

One Twitter user, @L3G10NAN0N, told Mystal, "You're nothing but a racist and a clown. The Constitution works for ALL people. Even race baiting treasonous clowns like yourself that seek to attack and destroy it. The American people will not tolerate these attacks for much longer."

Mystal responded, "'the constitution works for all people' says man threatening me because of something I wrote."

Conservative pundit Stephen L. Miller commented on a picture of Mystal wearing a mask and asked him why he didn't wear a mask on The View.

Mystal replied, "Cause everybody had to be vaccinated and, like every other guest, I had to show proof of vaccination and a negative Covid test to get in the building? Are you done asking me dumb ass questions or would you like me to embarrass you more today?"

Responding to Twitter commenters who mocked him for his weight and large white afro hairstyle, Mystal wrote, "Welcome, new white wing folks, with your oh so original Don King and Professor Klump jokes. Your spicy creativity is, as always, notable. Please stay awhile, your mayonnaise sandwiches are in the back and the lessons will resume shortly."

Twitter user @Roomtofit replied, "I'm guessing you don't reply to comments, but only opine upon the soapbox you've built for yourself. Very inclusive."

Mystal replied, "I know dudes walking through the desert who ain't this thirsty."

"Thirsty" is a slang term meaning "desperate for attention."

One of his final tweets addressing his critics said, "All right haters, it's been fun playing with you but I have go to work."

[bloodfromtherock-blog]

KAVANAUGH & THE CORONATED CREEPS

Daniel Hutchens October 10, 2018

"It would be naive to depend on the Supreme Court to defend the rights of poor people, women, people of color, dissenters of all kinds. Those rights only come alive when citizens organize, protest, demonstrate, strike, boycott, rebel, and violate the law in order to uphold justice." -Howard Zinn **********************************************

Kavanaugh repeatedly lied to the US Senate under oath during his job interview for Justice of the Supreme Court. These lies have been well-documented at this point, and aren’t even being contested; the essence of the reply from the Republican oligarchy is, “It doesn’t matter.”

And American women at this point have been demoted to second-class citizens by the Trump administration. This is clearly observable. Trump’s attacks on women are relentless; his push toward more restrictive policies on contraception and abortion, his rollback of gender equality pay laws, removal of paycheck transparency, forced arbitration clauses for sexual harassment, sexual assault or discrimination claims...for me, as the father of an 11 year old daughter, this is all a sinister slap in the face. But more to the point, Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court now puts Trumpsters firmly in control of the move to strike down Roe v. Wade. Understand this clearly: female American citizens are considered nothing more than property by the Old Boys Club, and women’s voices regarding reproductive rights and their own bodies are considered irrelevant. In Trump’s eyes, women are cattle to be branded and used as deemed appropriate.

Kavanaugh is staunchly anti-abortion and has no intent of ruling objectively on this issue. When Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, shadily swung her support to Kavanaugh during the hearings, she apparently felt compelled to grandstand dishonestly for the cameras, maybe in deference to the power of the #MeToo movement, considering her stature as a female Senator. Her behavior reeks of a back room deal, after her previous assertions that if Kavanaugh lied he should be disqualified. She helped Republicans by putting a woman’s face on their warped campaign to shame and discredit survivors of sexual assault, thereby aiding Trump’s shitty backlash against #MeToo, and his brain dead catch phrase, “It’s a very scary time for young men in America.” #MeToo is so powerful that people like Susan Collins have to pretend to support it. She said that Kavanaugh would preserve Roe v Wade and legal abortion. Bullshit. “Operation Rescue,” a group working since the ‘80s to “make America abortion free,” and the rest of the extremist anti-woman crowd have all supported Kavanaugh’s nomination right down the line.

The looming abortion showdown is grim news for American women and those who care about them, alright. The notion that there’s some religious or ethical justification behind returning to back-alley amateurs and economically-selective access to these medical procedures is a sleazeball scam. And just for the record, the “religious right” who have supported Trump have completely forfeited all claim on morality, forevermore, end of discussion. Their previous hand-wringing over opposition candidates for sexual scandals, affairs etc.—then their ridiculous postures that “God chose Trump,” and they “weren’t electing a Sunday school teacher,” their transparent indifference to his cheating on all his wives with porn stars, scamming American citizens with rackets like Trump University etc., his history of racist business practices, his shady record of tax fraud and his whole laundry list of decidedly unChristian behavior, in the most basic sense of spirituality and genuine concern for others, which some of our parents actually schooled us about...yeah, those evangelical hucksters are exposed and discredited and can shut their mouths permanently about abortion and everything else. There are people with genuine soul convictions about these issues, but there are also plenty of imposters and their servility to a snake like Trump spotlights their insincerity. Ye shall know ‘em by their fruits, I’ve heard tell.

Of COURSE Trump wanted Kavanaugh on the Court. Kavanaugh has confirmed himself as a “get out of jail free card" should Trump ever be charged with any crime. Not to mention that Trump and Kavanaugh are plainly fellow members of a perverse fraternity we might as well call “The He-Man Woman Haters Club,” with apologies to the Little Rascals. They both have histories of a predatory mindset, insulting attitudes toward women in general (and no, hiring a few females or minorities does not erase acts of bigotry, and none of us fail to understand the concept of “making only a perfunctory or symbolic effort to do a particular thing, especially by recruiting a small number of people from underrepresented groups in order to give the appearance of sexual or racial equality”)…and Trump’s recent sideshow of mocking Dr. Ford was one of the most jaw-droppingly ugly little political performances this nation has witnessed in many years. (Excepting other Trump tantrums, of course.) Not so long ago, such a warped demonstration would have dropped like a stone any American politician from favor by both parties, immediately and with extreme prejudice. Not so in today’s world of Trumpian “alternative facts” and low-rent bullying.

Also revisit the whole Justice Kennedy/Deutsch Bank scandal, and put the pieces together. Plenty of in-depth and sobering articles are available on this subject, and the bottom line takeaway is that Russian money and influence indeed are swaying American policy and elections, and the whole thing is directly tied to the slow-moving Republican/Russian takeover of everything from our Supreme Court on down. By all means, don’t take my word for it, but by all means do your own research and do your own thinking. But these topics expand and branch out mighty far. Let’s snap focus back onto Kavanaugh.

******************************** “The politically convenient, scientifically baseless theory that sexual assault so traumatized Christine Blasey Ford she mixed up her attacker is now something like common wisdom for many Republicans… less than three weeks ago, when the mistaken-identity theory was first formulated, it was so widely ridiculed that a pundit who advanced it on Twitter subsequently apologized and offered to resign from his job.” -Avi Selk ********************************

October 5th Dr. Ford cover Illustration by John Mavroudis for TIME. © 2018

Some of Kavanaugh’s defenders have criticized Dr. Ford for being “coached” and otherwise manipulated. I have no doubt she got some advice from lawyers, etc., nor that the timing and presentation of her complaints were orchestrated through Democratic channels. That’s the name of the game in Big Time American Politics, folks. But her testimony was believable and compelling, and she retained adult composure through her emotions (it’s tough to imagine the storm of criticism she would have received from Republicans if she had behaved anything like Kavanaugh.) But the implication that Kavanaugh wasn’t also coached (with a professional eye toward manipulating opinion) is high-grade bullshit, or else a stunning level of naivete. Kavanaugh’s TV appearance in which he portrayed himself as a meek little virgin til long after high school, etc., was harshly disapproved of by Team Trump, and they coached him up with specific instructions for the Senate hearing: their advice was that he needed to unleash his anger. And Kavanaugh ran with the “anger” bit and it got away from him; that much-reported nasty temperament of his glared through the cracks in his public facade, and it wasn’t a pretty sight.

Kavanaugh’s face...God have mercy. Now in addition to Trump, we have another bitter, hideous visage to haunt our collective dreams. Understand we’re not discussing aesthetics. I’m referring to that old notion that eyes are the windows to the soul, and that intuitive interpretation of facial displays gives us significant information about an individual’s attitude, sense of humor, empathy...or the lack of it. And we were burned by flashes of Kavanaugh’s inner demons during the hearing. Much like Trump, Kavanaugh’s features contorted into a repellent mask of childish temper, ill-mannered impatience and lurking malevolence. It was a freak show that could have taught Hollywood’s monster make-up artists a trick or two. To the extent that Kavanaugh was moved (instructed) to write a quasi-apologetic op-ed piece after the hearing. But we all know what we saw.

During that hearing he raged at those who had questioned his nomination and he hinted not-so-subtly at retribution. He was prodded by White House counsel Don McGahn, who sat directly behind Kavanaugh during the hearing. The whole performance was sickeningly indignant, unashamedly entitled and arrogant, and stunningly partisan in a way that would have disqualified any nominee from previous years—but again, not so in today’s atmosphere of Trumpian distortion and pettiness.

Plenty of us out here recognize Kavanaugh for who he is. We’ve all known “that guy” in our lives; the spoiled, sneering little punkass who talks differently about women as soon as they walk out the door, and who suffers delusions of superiority, and who no one wants to hear any more shit from down at the corner bar.

Kavanaugh’s appointment was questioned or condemned by vast numbers in this country, represented by such organizations as the American Bar Association, Yale Law School, over 2400 Law Professors nationwide, many former classmates and friends, and the National Council of Churches (which represents 100,000 churches and about 45 million churchgoers.) Not to mention the many womens’ groups, the #MeToo movement, etc. Such outright opposition to a nominee for the Supreme Court is extraordinary, and the fact that said opposition was mocked, belittled and outright ignored by the Republicans determined to ram this nomination through come hell or high water—“we’re going to plow right through it,” as Mitch McConnell claimed without shame—yeah, such utter disregard for mass portions of the population is ominous. (And by the way, Trump’s dumbassed claim that Kavanaugh was “proven innocent” indicates a farcical, childish lack of legal comprehension.)

And of course, the meager FBI “investigation” allowed was nothing but a front. The whole circus was rushed and hushed, with zero perceivable interest in knowing the real truth. If team Trump had any interest in uniting the country or in general fairness, they could have trotted out any of a dozen other nominees, all of whom would even have satisfied the wish list of the conservative right, without all the unnecessary baggage. But there are higher priorities for these particular elected officials than fairness or the genuine best interests of the nation.

To pretend Kavanaugh isn’t a partisan shill now planted in the land’s highest court is preposterous belief in “alternative facts” and simplistic hype. The only ones who are fooled by Trump’s blather at this point are those who want to be fooled. His outright nonsense and habitual lies are easily spotted from miles away, but the sad fact is that his supporters don’t give a fuck. They don’t care if he lies, or demeans women or minorities or stirs up international diplomatic firestorms with “shithole countries”-style verbal diarrhea. As Trump himself famously said, he could “shoot somebody and not lose voters.” It’s strangely, sadly true.

It’s also true of Trump’s new handpuppet, Kavanaugh. To whom the idea of “a personality that is even-handed, unbiased, impartial, and dedicated to a process, not a result” in no way applies. Certainly not at this point, after he ranted about “the revenge of the Clintons,” and openly attacked “the Left,” “Democrats” and (for Crissakes) “the media” during his whinefest in front of the US Senate…beyond the pale, folks. We live in a strange new land, in strange new times.

Post-American, by many accounts. The much-revered and much-hated icon of the Left, Michael Moore, predicted Trump’s election in a written article in 2016. The prediction was often reprinted and ballyhooed as campaign-banner fodder by the Far Right. But they missed the warning flash of Moore’s article, and the unnerving prediction: “And now you’re fucked…When the rightfully angry people of Ohio and Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin find out after a few months in office that President Trump wasn’t going to do a damn thing for them, it will be too late to do anything about it…Goodnight America. You’ve just elected the last president of the United States.”

Pretty dramatic words, but unfortunately the further we sink into the era of the Trump regime, the less incredible such sentiments sound. We’re witnessing an active dismantling and attempted discrediting of institutions ranging from public education to the Free Press. And the schemed attack on the Supreme Court, again, has proven successful for far-righters who don’t give a damn about being even-handed or protecting an independent judiciary.

Trump said that Dr. Ford seemed “a very credible witness”and “very compelling” on one day. Then a few days later he openly mocked her like he was a dimwitted schoolkid. He gushed about what a great man Kavanaugh is, then the next day said, “I don’t even know him!” It’s all topsy-turvy and bizarre, the truth is treated like a curious artifact from a long-dead age, and Trump’s supporters act like it’s all “normal.” But it’s not. And the glimmer of hope is that there are plenty of us out here who understand perfectly well that Emperor Trump ain’t wearing any clothes. We see very clearly what’s happening in this country, the legitimizing of white supremacy, misogyny, homophobia, and bigotry of every stripe. We see you. We see you and know you and so does the whole world, and so will the history books, baby.

“I know Brett Kavanaugh but I wouldn’t confirm him,” wrote Benjamin Wittes, who had previously published and even admired Kavanaugh. “I cannot condone the partisanship—which was raw, undisguised, naked, and conspiratorial—from someone who asks for public faith as a dispassionate and impartial judicial actor. His performance was wholly inconsistent with the conduct we should expect from a member of the judiciary.”

And the message to women in this country, again, is sadly obvious. “Shut the hell up. Because if you ever dare to speak up about this kind of thing again, we will openly ridicule you and no one in power will ever take you seriously.”

******************************************** “Kavanaugh, though, has a distinct honor: He will be the first justice nominated by someone who lost the popular vote to earn his seat on the bench with support from senators representing less than half of the country while having his nomination opposed by a majority of the country.” -Philip Bump *********************************************

CODA: Yeah. The country is divided in a way it hasn’t been since Vietnam. Extremists are multiplying, and they’re nurturing diseases that were seething under the surface for many years before Trump. And indeed, we’re witnessing a perverse resurgence of tolerance for fascism and white supremacism worldwide. But here in America, Trump is the ringmaster of the new Ugliness; his lowering the bar of public discourse, his smug approval of greed and cruelty, his nod-and-a-wink okey-dokes to racism, misogyny and all manner of bigotry—he has legitimized, pardoned and coronated the creeps, the rotten underbelly of our society, the very worst we have to offer.

Let’s vote some of these bastards out in November, folks.

[antoine-roquentin]

In November, Gorsuch delivered the keynote address at the Federalist Society’s annual black-tie dinner, which took place in Washington’s Union Station. Among the conservative VIPs in attendance were Jeff Sessions and Scott Pruitt, Republican senators Ben Sasse and John Cornyn — who would later have Gorsuch to his home for dinner — and Justice Alito. Gorsuch warmed up the room, like a hype man for himself. “Tonight I can report: A person can be both a publicly committed originalist and textualist and be confirmed to the Supreme Court!” And: “Originalism has regained its place, and textualism has triumphed, and neither is going anywhere on my watch!”

Gorsuch was right to note the remarkable rise of these ideas since the Federalist Society’s founding in 1982. Robert Bork, a famously disastrous Supreme Court nominee, was laughed out of his confirmation hearing in 1987 for suggesting the Constitution should be read as it was in the 1780s. Thirty years later, there’s nothing more basic than a conservative judge who swears by the original intent of the Framers. According to one study, the incidence of the word originalism in law-review articles has risen from 15 between 1980 and 1984 to 2,351 between 2010 and 2014.

And yet, Gorsuch complained, his work was still being maligned by liberal elites. He began to call out his haters. “Some pundits have expressed bewilderment that I ask questions at oral argument about the text of our statutes,” he said. “I want to take a poll. I want to know what you think. Should I keep talking about the text and original meaning of the Constitution?” This was like asking Skynyrd fans if they wanted to hear “Free Bird.” A few minutes later, he brought up a critical article from the Harvard Law Review, referring obliquely to “some folks up in Cambridge,” as if he hadn’t once been one of them. “Does anyone else find it curious that daring to ask questions about the status quo is apparently illegitimate, while defending the status quo seems just fine?” Pause for claps. “Oh, well. I think we should just go ahead and ask the questions anyway. Whaddaya say?”

Tonally, the speech seemed a tad … aggressive. “It could have used a little bit of, I don’t know, self-deprecating humor,” says one Federalist Society member who attended. But if the evening felt at times like a campaign rally, that was by design. The point of the Federalist Society is to make room for conservative jurisprudence — and that means, in part, finding ways for right-wing judges to let their hair down. (No transcript of Gorsuch’s speech was made available, but I obtained a recording from someone who attended.) There is a concept known as judicial drift — or “the Greenhouse effect,” after the Times writer. “You get these good conservative justices, they move to D.C., they get on the Court, D.C. is a liberal area, the media is liberal, they want approval, start tempering their conservatism, and drift to the left,” explains Amanda Hollis-Brusky, a Pomona College political scientist. “What the Federalist Society has done has created a competing judicial audience, so these justices and judges don’t need to seek the applause of the liberal, Establishment media.” If they stay true to this constituency, they get celebrated, invited to more conferences. If they go off the reservation, they get roasted. Which helps explain why Roberts fled to Malta for two weeks — “It’s an impregnable fortress island,” he joked — after upholding Obamacare’s individual mandate in 2012.

In the same way that tea-party — and now Trumpian — politics have become indistinguishable from mainstream Republicanism, the Federalist Society has come to occupy the dead center of conservative judicial thought. The paradigm shift started in 2005, when George W. Bush nominated his friend Harriet Miers, the White House counsel, to the Supreme Court. Conservatives had already been burned when Bush’s father nominated the moderate liberal David Souter, who was friendly with the White House chief of staff. The Federalists revolted, Bush pulled the Miers nomination, and he nominated the far-right Alito instead. When it came time to choose Scalia’s successor, no revolt was necessary. “Because of the force of the Federalist Society,” Hollis-Brusky says, “Trump was just taking orders.”

The infrastructure built up by the Federalist Society — and the Heritage Foundation, and the Judicial Crisis Network — is designed not just to breed elite conservative lawyers but elite conservative lawyers in the flame-throwing mold of Scalia. “One of [Scalia’s] functions was to provide a line for the larger conservative community to latch on to both in oral arguments and in opinions,” says University of Baltimore Law School professor Garrett Epps. “He was always very sure to dominate the op-eds with something and go way over the edge.” While his caustic dissents alienated colleagues — and may have undermined his own influence on the Court — they became, over time, a canonical body of work around which the conservative legal movement would rally. Among the conservative justices, Roberts and Kennedy now occupy the ideological center of the Court; Thomas and Alito, while reliably right wing, aren’t rock stars. That leaves Gorsuch — and Gorsuch knows it.

A few weeks before his Federalist Society speech, Gorsuch heard a case with major political implications. The justices would rule on the electoral maps Wisconsin Republicans were accused of gerrymandering for partisan gain. Gorsuch’s seat is located on the far side of the Supreme Court bench, next to Sonia Sotomayor’s. It is not a young court, and Gorsuch’s fresh-scrubbed look stands out. Ginsburg is visible mainly from the scrunchie that peeks out over her seat. Thomas reclines at impossibly low angles and often appears unconscious. Gorsuch, eyes wide, hair gelled, has the bearing of a man who sleeps well at night.

Toward the end of the case, Gorsuch jumped in to grill Paul Smith, the lawyer arguing against Wisconsin’s maps, implying the Court had little business getting involved at all. “Maybe we can just for a second talk about the arcane matter of the Constitution,” he tut-tutted. “Where exactly do we get the authority to revise state legislative lines?” A moment later, Ginsburg piped up with a sharp rejoinder: “Where did ‘one person, one vote’ come from?” (Answer: the 14th Amendment.) Gorsuch then tried again. “Do you see any impediment to Congress acting in this area?” he asked Smith. “Other than the fact that politicians are never going to fix gerrymandering?” Smith replied. “They like gerrymandering.” The audience in the gallery cracked up, and Gorsuch stopped talking. “It was ‘Welcome to the NFL, rookie,’ ” says Epps. “My 1Ls could answer that.”

This mirrored an immigration case that took place the day before. “I look at the text of the Constitution — always a good place to start — and the Due Process Clause speaks of the loss of life, liberty, or property,” he intoned. “When the law runs out and the judges cannot say what the law is, they don’t make it up. Right?” And that in turn echoed a moment from his very first oral argument, when he asked a lawyer if they could explore “the plain words of the statute” together. When the lawyer replied that he wasn’t asking the Court to break new ground in interpreting the law in question, Gorsuch interjected, “No, just to continue to make it up.”

Delivering civics lessons from the bench has turned out to be Gorsuch’s signature move. “He showed up and started speaking a lot at arguments and, quite frankly, said a number of condescending and stupid things to his colleagues,” says a recent Supreme Court clerk. Compared to Scalia, who terrorized lawyers during oral arguments, Gorsuch is mild. But if Scalia’s defining trait was snark, Gorsuch’s might be smarm. Take his habit of asking lawyers to “help” him with some aspect of a case he evidently finds obvious. He’s done this in 15 different cases.

Behind the shtick, Gorsuch is performing a conservative virtue signal. In his 2016 paean to Scalia, Gorsuch called for judges “to apply the law as it is,” not to decide cases based on “moral convictions” or “policy consequences.” In theory, this gets to the heart of his predecessor’s narrow jurisprudence. In practice, it can be difficult to argue, credibly, that the answer to every single Court case is obvious from the words of a statute, or the Constitution, or the thesaurus, or whatever. Gorsuch doesn’t have Scalia’s dexterity. “It’s almost like a kid trying on his dad’s suit, and it’s just too big for him,” says David Lat, the founder of the legal website Above the Law. Or as Rick Hasen, a professor at UC Irvine’s law school, puts it, “He’s Scalia without the spontaneous wit and charm.”

The textualist monomania seems to grate especially on Ginsburg, who was famously close with Scalia. In January, after a Gorsuch dissent called out the “absurdities” of her reasoning in an otherwise deadly case about legal filing deadlines, she cheekily responded in a footnote, writing that Gorsuch’s tendentious reading of the case “conjures up absurdities” of its own. In April, she wrote a terse one-paragraph dissent critiquing Gorsuch’s “wooden” reading of a law, and in her blistering dissent in May’s big workers-rights case, she called his opinion “egregiously wrong,” invoking the infamous 1905 anti-labor decision Lochner v. New York.

The pro-Gorsuch crowd thinks the anti-Gorsuch crowd is being hysterical. “He seems to trigger a very intense reaction on the left,” says National Review legal writer Ed Whelan. “I don’t think it’s easily explicable by objective fact. Our president can disrupt and derange people in a lot of ways. I think a lot of people are deflecting their hostility toward Trump onto Gorsuch.”

Perhaps. But talk of intra-Court feuding doesn’t seem outlandish. Last fall, veteran CNN Court correspondent Joan Biskupic reported on an emerging rift between Roberts and Gorsuch. Later, NPR’s Totenberg said it was Justice Elena Kagan who was taking Gorsuch to task in the justices’ twice-weekly conferences. “With Elena Kagan and the chief justice, you have this sense that they’re playing the long game,” says Amy Howe, a Supreme Court beat reporter who publishes on Scotusblog. Both dissent less frequently than their colleagues and strive behind the scenes for consensus.

And yet the Court has published opinions this term at a historically sluggish pace. Some speculate that’s because Kennedy is flagging and will soon retire. But it might also be because an intransigent Gorsuch is gumming up the works. Like a gunner in a 1L lecture hall, Gorsuch strives to make himself heard. In his first 30 cases, Gorsuch dissented six times; Roberts, by comparison, dissented once. (“Media speculation suggesting Justice Gorsuch isn’t getting along with his colleagues is ridiculous,” says Jamil Jaffer, who clerked for Gorsuch last term. “Of course, the justices are going to disagree on the law, but it never gets personal.”)

[lawyers-advice]

With the evolution of the society the number of disputes and issues have increased manifold. The same has led to filing of numerous cases before the different Courts & Tribunals. It is a matter of record that there has been a huge pendency of cases in the Courts & Tribunals for one reason or the other which includes procedural delays and delays due to lack of conformity and information among the litigants. The team of professional Advocates & Lawyers of My Lawyers Advice assist and help the litigants in the following:

Formulation & preparation of Strategy for the fulfillment of the desired goal and objective of the litigant.

Drafting & preparation of Civil Suits, Written Statements, Applications, Rejoinders, Replications, Affidavit of Evidence, Statement of Case, Written Arguments etc

Lodging & registration of Police Complaint, conducting Examination in Chief of the Witness, conducting Cross Examination of the Witness, conducting Re-Examination of the Witness, filing Affidavit of Evidence, filing Written Arguments etc

Contesting Framing of Issues & Framing of Charges

Drafting & filing of Consumer Complaints, their replies, written arguments etc

Drafting & filing of cases and petitions including representation before different Courts & Tribunals

The team of professional Advocates & Lawyers of My Lawyers Advice assist and help the litigants in dealing with the following subject matters:

Insurance Claims & Petitions

Consumer Dispute Redressal

Competition Laws including the Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices

Civil Litigation

Partition Suits

Criminal Defense

Criminal Prosecution

Filing of Civil Appeal & Criminal Appeal before the District & Sessions Court, Appellate Tribunals, National Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court of India

Filing of Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court of India

Arbitration, Mediation & Conciliation Proceedingss

Filing of Civil Writ Petitions & Criminal Writ Petitions before the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India

Representation before the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS)

Representation before the Customs & Excise Department including the Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Enforcement Directorate (ED), Economic Offences Wing (EOW)

Environmental Issues & Problems

Commercial Litigation

Issues with respect to Land & Real Estate

Due Diligence

Commercial Litigation

International Commercial Disputes

The team of professional Advocates & Lawyers of My Lawyers Advice work meticulously for the litigants round the clock and endeavour to deliver the results within the stipulated time frame.