U.S. to Try 9/11 Conspirators, Obama Signs STOCK Act, New Orleans Cops Get Decades for Katrina Murders: P.M. Links

|

Do you want hot links and other Reason goodies delivered to your inbox twice a day? Sign up here for Reason's morning and afternoon news updates. 

NEXT: Nick Gillespie on OutFront with Erin Burnett, Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld Tonight!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Romney says Obama’s criticism of the Paul Ryan budget is part of his tradition of ” set [ting] up straw men.”

    And boy do those men from Strawville like to slash budgets. Too bad the Republicans don’t hail from Strawville.

    1. This is what I never understood about the Republicans: They get pilloried every. single. time. over what amounts to marginal cuts to the rate of increase in the federal budget. If you’re going to get raked over the coals anyway, why not introduce a budget that actually **cuts** the outlays of the Central State by, oh, 10% in one year?

  2. Five ex-New Orleans cops sentenced to six-65 years in prison for crimes related to the murder of two unarmed citizens after Hurricane Katrina.

    Ahhh! A soothing nut-massage to counter this morning’s nut-punch. I knew Lucy would deliver!

    Thanks!

    1. Ahhh! A soothing nut-massage . . .

      C’mon, man! This is a family forum!

      1. Five ex-New Orleans cops sentenced to six-65 years in prison for crimes related to the murder of two unarmed citizens after Hurricane Katrina.

        They should have armed themselves. We all should.

        1. The sad thing is – if the victims had been armed the cops would probably have gotten away with it.

          1. And that’s why I don’t carry! I want to carry, but when I reflect on it I realize I’m more scared of the “boys in blue” then I am of any non-state sanctioned lowlife.

      2. This is a family forum!

        Your holiday get-togethers must be . . . special.

        1. Your holiday get-togethers must be . . . special.

          We have our own family twist on “stuffing the turkey” here at Casa Hungus each Thanksgiving.

          So yeah, special.

          1. Is it a jive-ass turkey or just a regular old turkey?

            1. Is it a jive-ass turkey or just a regular old turkey?

              It’s this kind.

              (Definitely watch the whole thing, but what I’m talking about is at 2:28)

              1. Why did they make Machete instead of this?

                1. Machete is, hands down, the greatest movie ever made. But there’s no reason they couldn’t greenlight this one too.

      3. Now that you invited the Mansons, why yes it is. Will the old bird faced lady from across the street be asking for our keys later?

  3. Five ex-New Orleans cops sentenced to six-65 years in prison for crimes related to the murder of two unarmed citizens after Hurricane Katrina.

    I’ll take what I can get when it comes to NOPD.

    1. A lot of people have a different definition of “progress” from this guy.

    2. More from the same cloaca:

      Impeach the Supreme Court Justices If They Overturn Health-Care Law

      The Roberts Court’s rulings appear to be a concerted effort to send us back to the Gilded Age. If they dump the Affordable Care Act, writes David Dow, we should dump them.

      You think the idea is laughable? Thomas Jefferson disagreed with you.

      Jefferson believed Supreme Court justices who undermine the principles of the Constitution ought to be impeached, and that wasn’t just idle talk.

      1. So much for the sanctity of the court they were always yammering about.

        I guess if the Republicans had tried to impeach Kennedy over granting WOT detainees due process rights, these guys would have been all for it. right?

        1. No, but that doesn’t make the point any less relevant.

          Not that it matters. When judges cater to your prejudices, they are angels; at all other times, they are devils.

          This is the core of partisan thinking.

          1. You’re quite right, but it needs a slight modification:

            When judges anyone caters to your prejudices, they are angels; at all other times, they are devils.

            1. Beelzebub! I disagree with you.

          2. It is possible for a judge to abuse his authority and deserve to be impeached. But the standard should be pretty high.

            1. Exactly. “I don’t like what you did there” is not sufficient grounds.

              1. When judges cater to the prejudices of the ratifiers, they are angels.

              2. This recently came up in Iowa. The supreme court there found that preventing gays from marrying was unconstitutional. There is a merit/retention election for judges in Iowa. The three that were up after that ruling were tossed out. The chief justice has gone on a speaking tour kvetching about being thrown off his sinecure. I say, that’s democracy. Constitution has life tenure for federal judges/justices. So, it’s obviously different. But, is it better?

            2. Should the standard be higher than the one required for judgeship? (Judgitude? Judgability?)

              If we are a republic subject to common law applied equally, what recourse has the man who abides the law and annoys the judge who enforces it?

              Put another way, if applied law runs counter to a plain reading of passed law, on which side of justice does your protest lie?

              On the one hand, you are accepting a fate external to your beliefs. This is slavery.

              On the other hand, you are suggesting that popular opinion trumps democratic law as applied by appointed arbiters.

              On the gripping hand, you’re probably a dysfunctional libertarian; get in line, iconoclast.

              1. We have had long threads on this. Ultimately, the Constitution means what the people say it does via the amendment process and elections. If the people decide it means X and they manage to elect a Congress and President willing to appoint judges who say it means that, then it means that.

                1. That’s populism.

                  Populism is fine when I’m playing bocce in the backyard. Otherwise it stinks on ice.

                  1. What would you recommend?

                    1. Honestly?

                      A monarchy is more predictable.

                    2. A monarch can go to bed in favor of freedom of religion and wake up the next day determined to tolerate nothing but Catholicism. And then go about making it so.

                    3. At least there you go to bed knowing where you stand: patriot or heretic.

                      Libertarianism is definitely the way to go here, but nobody does because it means not having a team.

                      And we deeply, dearly love teams.

                    4. Who’s this “we” you speak of, Kimosabe?

                    5. My bad, “mad libertarian guy”.

                      Must be my own disfunction. Everybody loves teams, except you.

                    6. I love teams.

                      The Dolphins. The Marlins when I get over their purging of World Series teams within days of winning it.

                      Just not political teams.

                    7. And more directly hateable. In our system, that manifests as some perverse form of indirect self-hate, i.e. “It’s my fault: I didn’t vote hard enough.”

                    8. What would you recommend?

                      I’m kinda partial to a Constitutional Republic. How about we give that a try?

          3. And actually, he is strictly speaking right. Constitution doesn’t define high crimes and misdemeanors. If they think they have the political muscle to do it, have fun. Of course doing that will mean admitting the other side can do the same thing.

      2. Jefferson believed Supreme Court justices who undermine the principles of the Constitution ought to be impeached, and that wasn’t just idle talk.

        I’d be interested in what constitutional “principles” he thinks would be undermined if they overturn this thing. I’m not constitutional skoller, but as far as I can tell, there’s no “free stuff for everyone” amendment.

        1. I think for these people “fuck you that is why” is a bed rock constitutional principle.

        2. there’s no “free stuff for everyone” amendment

          It’s there in spirit! And five unelected men are keeping it from us!

          1. Penumbras.

          2. And five unelected men are keeping it from us!

            The very thought of those five wizened mummies clutching the purse strings, standing between me and my right to quality, affordable healthcare . . . well, that’s just more than a man can stand.

              1. I must have a couple of pages missing from my copy of the Constitution…where is this lifesaving conferring of power enumerated?

                1. I must have a couple of pages missing from my copy of the Constitution…where is this lifesaving conferring of power enumerated?

                  You have to read between the lines, man! It’s there in spirit!

              2. Allow or disallow, they’re still gonna die.

              3. The problem with these bullshit arguments is that they completely ignore the Constitutional discussion that’s happening. It has nothing to do with healthcare or access to it.

                The only argument to tackle is whether Congress has the authority to force everyone to make transfer payments to a private entity, or force people to pay a fine for failing to do so.

                But it appears that liberals are incapable or completely unwilling to stipulate that the Constitutional question has nothing to do with healthcare.

        3. Yet. Wait until Harry and Nan get large majorities again.

        4. General welfare.

        5. The funny thing is that Jefferson would tell that clown that Obamacare IS unconstitutional – and so is all the rest of the entitlement/welfare state as well.

      3. The Roberts Court’s rulings appear to be a concerted effort to send us back to the Gilded Age.

        The Commerce Clause reads the same now as it did then.

        1. It’s handwritten, though, so maybe we’re reading it wrong. Yep, yep, it actually says, “Fuck the people.”

          1. It’s handwritten, though, so maybe we’re reading it wrong. Yep, yep, it actually says, “Fuck the people.”

            Legend has it there’s a “secret part” that was written in lemon juice. We just need to hold it up to a lightbulb, and we’ll see once and for all that the Founders always intended us to have universal healthcare.

            1. Not lemon juice. Urine.

          2. It’s handwritten, though, so maybe we’re reading it wrong.

            And they used funny words and talked like fags and their shit’s all retarded.

        2. You obviously don’t have the new, interactive edition of the Constitution.

      4. Yeah. Because “undermining” the Constitution means striking down law that is unconstitutional, making ANY semblance of a government with limited powers disappear.

        This guy is a fuckstick.

        Liberals see the recent court as halting what he considers progress; I see it as slowly peeling away encroachments on individual liberty made by past courts over the last 80 years.

      5. Impeach the Supreme Court Justices If They Overturn Health-Care Law

        I’m assuming he’s talking about impeaching the ones who supported it.

        Oh shit, he’s not…

        The problem with the current court is not merely that there is a good chance it will strike down a clearly constitutional law.

        Yes, a clearly Constitutional law that would have the effect of nullifying the enumerated powers and making Congress omnipotent.

        What a fucking statist asshole!

      6. One exception was the great Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who argued that where economic regulations are at stake, judges must respect legislative decisions aimed at protecting society’s most vulnerable members.

        Is this man wilfully ignorant or just plain stupid?

        We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

        If this is protecting society’s most vulnerable members, I would hate to see what Dow calls harm.

    3. I find it ironic that the guy who thinks the Affordable Care Act is “clearly constitutional” is the Rorschach Visiting Professor of History at Rice.

      1. “I look at the ACA, and I see nothing but the Constitution.”

      2. LOL. That is fucking awesome.

      3. Great find.

      4. It gets better. When he isn’t running the Innocence Project for UH’s law school, he’s usually teaching Con. Law there (or he was). I wish I could write that I’m surprised to read that he finds a “impeach them if they don’t give the right result” approach to be Constitutional.

        1. Technically, it is constitutional, in that the constitution provides for the impeachment of judges.

          It is, however, remarkably stupid, even for academia.

          1. It’s hard for me to equate “high crimes and misdemeanors” with ‘we didn’t like the way he voted on a case’. YMMV. And if both houses of Congress try and convict, I guess it must have been a high crime.

            As John put it, not the road I think you want to start going down.

    4. Social progress cannot be held hostage by five unelected men.

      Ah yes, Prof. Dow, “social progress”. All should be sacrificed for social progress, as defined by our betters in the inner cadre.

      We must not prevent this Gang of Five prevent us from making that Great Leap Forward into our glorious future!

      1. What about the Gang of Four telling us that history is Not Great Men.

      2. I’ll just leave this here.

      3. Ah yes, Prof. Dow, “social progress”. All should be sacrificed for social progress, as defined by our betters in the inner cadre.

        Won’t he be surprised when they come for the intellectuals.

        1. See, you’re missing the point. He wants to be punished.

    5. …held hostage by five unelected men.

      So Kagan is a tranny?

    6. This guy is a law professor at my alma mater.
      http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/main.asp?PID=12
      Glad he wasn’t one of mine. What a fucking embarrassment.

      1. When did you go through UHLC, rac3rx? I’m embarrassed to admit that he was my Con Law teacher. Nice guy, great dog, poor 1L con law teacher.

    7. The “Legal Scholar” who wrote that picked the wrong Chase in his big long word wall of crap too.

  4. The STOCK Act is a worthless piece of shit in either direction.

    Congress is too stupid to make bank on pending regulation. The poster boy – Spencer Bachus (R) has gotten a bad rap.

    This is the epitome of whoring for votes.

  5. With Easter coming Sunday and egg prices surging as stricter European Union rules for chicken farmers take effect, people across Central and Eastern Europe are traveling to neighboring countries, visiting rural markets and raising hens to secure less-expensive supplies.

    Nothing protects citizens against something like creating a shortage of it.

    1. With Easter coming Sunday and egg prices surging as stricter European Union rules for chicken farmers take effect, people across Central and Eastern Europe are traveling to neighboring countries, visiting rural markets and raising hens to secure less-expensive supplies.

      Central planning at its finest.

  6. the powerful shouldn’t get to create one set of rules for themselves and another set of rules for everybody else

    And yet they do! Every day! Thanks, Prez. You sure put a stop to that. What a mensch he is.

    1. Not all powerful are created equal.

      1. Some powerful are more equal than others?

      2. Lucy, how do you feel about anti-freedom Aborto-Freaks like ‘John’ and Santorum?

        1. Lucy, on a scale of 1-10 (1 being a lot and 10 being a whole fucking lot), how much do you wish shrike had been aborted?

    2. I suspect you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about as usual.

      You are just chomping on bait again.

      1. I suspect you are a raving lunatic sock puppet.

        1. Ignore, John. Just ignore. Just walk away, and there can be an end to the madness.

          1. So now you are joining up with John and his Palin fetish?

            You’re nothing but a fucking anarchist. You have nothing upstairs. You are a fucking gamer – a reprobate, an isolated POS with sociopathic tendencies.

            I’d clean that dim fucking mind of yours in 15 minutes.

            1. Hostile troll is hostile.

              1. Ignore, John. Just walk away. Do as The Humungous commands.

                1. You’re both just angry dumbasses. You don’t even know why.

                  John is an Aborto-Freak SoCon. Watch that fucker the next time a PP clinic is bombed.

                  Epi is just a fucking misanthrope. His sickness is more fundamental.

                  1. Well you nailed the Epi eulogy.

                2. Just walk away and there will be an end to the horror.

        2. Go back to Free Republic, you SoCon Palin-loving loon.

          1. Go climb back up Obama’s asshole, shrike, you fucking sycophantic dipshit. God, you are insufferable. Every time someone dares to criticizes your boo, you make such a scene that it’s fucking embarrassing to even watch it. Grow the hell up.

            1. John, ignore. Just ignore.

            2. Fuck you, dumbass Jeff. Obama is simply marginally better than any GOPer.

              Look at Santorum and his cum-eaters on the right.

              Stick it in your ass, pal.

            3. The GOP has descended into the Party of Rednecks.

              Fucking idiots who hate science and love redneck hatred of women and minorities.

              Look at Rush (King of the Rednecks) he hates women and loves to fuck teen boys in the ass.

              That is your leader.

              Fuck your whole goddamn party.

              1. I’m not a Republican, shriek. Fuck, you are such a pathetic one trick pony. You have absolutely no idea how to respond to anyone who doesn’t fall into your fucking boring binary RED/BLUE paradigm. I suspect your shriveled brain doesn’t even know how to come to grips with such a thing at this point.

                Now, run along and beat off to your Sarah Palin poster or run your Christian Taliban invasion preparedness drills or whatever it is you do when you’re not broadcasting your abject ignorance on H&R.

    3. Obama has appointed czars to give waivers to those who need not follow the rules.

  7. Chairman of the Masters does not want to talk about their (lack of) lady problems.

    Can we please have some more inane stories on this nonstory? Because it is not like golf at the world’s most pretentious country club isn’t boring enough. No lets add in a PC culture war to make it the epicenter or world boring and pointlessly stupid shit.

    1. Agreed. Equality only matters for interesting and pointedly intelligent shit.

      1. No equality means everyone has a right to form their own private club and admit who they want.

        1. Agreed. And Lucy Steigerwald (among others) has the right to point out how stupidly antiquated the policy is.

          1. Says her. Why is it stupid. Maybe they just like other guys. Why is Lucy threatened by a bunch of guys having a club? I don’t think women having clubs is stupid.

            1. This feels a little bit like the time my boyfriend and his brother in law got into a spirited debate about my feelings on immigration while I stood by awkwardly trying to participate in the conversation (to no avail).

              1. LOL. Shut up Lucy. We already know your opinion. Let the men figure this out.

                😉

              2. Can we argue over who was your favorite character on Riptide?

                I’m going with Joe Penny.

                1. Dude. You need your own show. Or a blog or something.

                  I am still dealing with life in a post “Manimal” world.

                  1. don’t worry Lucy, you have Warty to make up for it.

                    1. Let me clarify — that was a compliment. But I shouldn’t encourage you people or terrible things will undoubtedly happen.

                    2. I shouldn’t encourage you people or terrible things will undoubtedly happen.

                      Not to worry, Lucy. I have no doubt that the commentariat at H & R is used to, erm, “encouraging” themselves.

                    3. Lucy, maybe we should talk about The Powers of Matthew Star.

                    4. Say, what were his powers? I never saw the show. In fact, all I can remember is the title.

                    5. Various telekinetic powers. Meaning, “whatever was needed to advance the plot”.

                    6. Wow, the power of deus ex machina. Man, I wish I had that.

                    7. Just write yourself that way, ProL, and you will. See how it works now?

                      You really ought to have known this already, seeing as you’ve watched Next Generation.

                    8. Yes. Clearly, Riker had that power, as people kept telling us how brilliant he was as a potential captain, yet each episode seemed to prove otherwise.

                    9. It’s probably best for the rest of us that you don’t.

                    10. Chapter 1: To T’s great surprise, he was now the sole resident of the secret moonbase.

                    11. I think I read this one. Do I manage to cobble together some pathetic jury-rigged reentry vehicle or do I die gasping for breath moments away from salvation?

                    12. Oh, no, it’s fully supplied and resupplied. There’s just no way back. Or, for that matter, any way for you to receive guests. Full porn availability, though.

                  2. Manimal? Were you even an embryo when that show was on the air, Lucy?

                    1. Nope! But Epi brought it up and I was captivated by the photo on wikipedia.

                    2. Nope! But Epi brought it up and I was captivated by the photo on wikipedia.

                      I don’t blame you. Falcon + 80’s big hair = AWESOME!

          2. Actually, I should clarify that I have no idea what Lucy’s position on the policy is. She simply linked to the story.

      2. What equality are you talking about? This is a private club. They have every right to control membership access. It’s this little thing called “freedom of association”.

        1. See my response above. Not every criticism is necessarily a call for government action.

          1. Why is there criticism? Why would anyone give a shit, other than to score political points? Form your own club if you don’t like it.

            1. I think it’s stupid for the same reason I think that exclusion by race or by socioeconomic status (which I suppose is inherent in a club like that) is stupid: it smacks of collectivism to me. It’s an old boys’ club clinging to relevance. And I only think it’s noteworthy because of the sponsorship dollars and media coverage that goes along with it.

              1. They built their own course, maybe the old boys like each other. I don’t think it is stupid at all.

                1. Suppose that Augusta excluded blacks from participating in the Masters.

                  Would you criticize the club if that were the case?

                  1. I would pay no less attention to the Masters than I do now, I can tell you that.

                    1. How about if the NBA prohibited whites from playing in the league?

                    2. I’d have more of an issue with that, given that most (all?) NBA stadiums are publicly funded to some extent.

                  2. No Mike I wouldn’t. I just wouldn’t join it myself.

    2. So I’m guessing that I’ll be allowed to workout in a Curves gym soon, right ladies?

      Right?

      1. The bigger problem is Ladies Night. Why can’t I drink free?

        1. Because you don’t get drunk and give head in the parking lot?

          1. What’s that have to do with discrimination? Identity politics are all that matters.

          2. Because you don’t get drunk and give head in the parking lot?

            How do you know he doesn’t, hmmmm?

            1. No, he was right the first time.

              I remember when bars could legally offer all sorts of crazy incentives to garner patrons. Like Bladder Bust, Nickel Beer, etc.

              1. I remember when bars could legally offer all sorts of crazy incentives to garner patrons. Like Bladder Bust, Nickel Beer, etc.

                Granted, as a young man, I did most of my clubbing/bar-hopping in Sodom Bangkok, but when and why did bars in the States stop stuff like that?

                1. I think some of it was banned here (Florida, I mean). Because it promoted binge drinking.

                  1. I see. God forbid the bartender say something like, “You’ve had enough. I’m not serving you anymore.”

                    1. I might have come up with a true unified field theory if they’d done that when I was young. Instead, I’m a lawyer.

                    2. hey, people get cut off at one bar and just go to the next one.

                  2. And that was even before 3 beers a week was considered a binge.

                    1. I’m lucky to be alive.

                  3. There are places in Miami that do penny beers or free beer refill nights. I’ve never heard anything about stuff like that being banned.

                    1. Maybe I’m misinformed. Not like I go out anymore. I know something got banned to do with excess alcohol consumption–don’t know the details.

          3. He doesn’t?

            Hehehehe….

    3. I know an Italian that they let in at Augustus. The dad of my high school bff. A former Showbiz pizza big wig. If they let them in, isn’t that enough ‘social progress’ to shove down Augustus’ throats for one century?

      1. AUGUSTA — second time and entirely different context I got that word mixed with another. Auguste Comte was the first time. Guess I just like me some Roman emperor a little too much.

        1. “Augusta” could refer to a wife of an emperor who the Senate so honored. Or a mom–I think Agrippina was an Augusta.

          1. I’ve been reading some works on Roman history lately, and it just gets up into every pore.

            1. Look what that’s done to me! I’m surprised I don’t comment in Latin.

              1. Romanes eunt domus.

      2. Speaking of Showbiz, who has seen the documentary on The Rock-Afire Explosion?

        Good Stuff.

        1. 🙂 that takes me back.

  8. Hey, does this thing work? *tap, tap*.
    Testing, 1, 2, 3, 4…

    1. Testing posts are so yesterday.

  9. So up until today, congressional “insider trading” was ok? That’s hard to believe.

    1. Apparently, it was. The information that Congressblobs have about pending legislation is not “inside” information under the securities laws, AFAIU.

  10. AUGUSTA, Georgia (Reuters) – The prickly issue of whether women should be allowed to join the exclusive all-male Augusta National Golf Club refuses to go away.

    On the eve of the Masters, chairman Billy Payne was again peppered with questions about whether the 80-year-old club would change its restrictive policy.

    Just as with an effective backswing and follow through, the club recognizes that tits would only get in the way.

    1. Yeah, the new CEO of IBM is a woman. I bet anyone 50-1 she likes the Masters sponsorship as is.

    2. “The prickly issue”

      This is worthy of a Butthurt Report!

    3. Just as with an effective backswing and follow through, the club recognizes that tits would only get in the way.

      After taking a moment to be shocked – shocked – by this horrifying display of insensitivity, I lol’d.

        1. My art demands both.

          Both tits?

    4. Sad that Ochoa retired. The best looking legs in the history of the human race.

    5. AUGUSTA, Georgia (Reuters) – The prickly issue of whether women should be allowed to join the exclusive all-male Augusta National Golf Club refuses to go away.

      Translation: We in the media refuse to shut up about it.

  11. I’m ready for Congress to stop passing bills with cutesy acronyms. Or I will be after they pass the American Social Security Financial Leadership And Promotion bill.

    1. Everyone does it. Michigan: MARA – the Michigan Auto Restoration Act – (it’s the no-fault statute). EPIC – Estates and Protected Individuals Code (formerly known as probate).

  12. Your monocle headline of the day:

    Greek pensioner kills himself outside parliament

    One down…

    1. From the link:
      “This is the point to which they’ve brought us.”

      “They’ve” meaning “we’ve”.

      1. Apparently Pogo can’t be translated into Greek.

        1. ++ double plus

    2. It’s absolutely horrendous what the communist mindset can do to an entire nation or culture. It slowly destroys your spirit and, left unchecked, will eventually turn you into a society of complete losers.

  13. Obama was joined by several lawmakers who pushed the bill through Congress, including Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, a Republican who has been targeted by Democrats and is expected to face a stiff challenge from Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard professor who helped launch the new federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

    Ouch for Brown, forced into a photo op with the electoral albatross known as Obama.

  14. Obama signs the STOCK Act to stop Congressional insider trading, notes “the powerful shouldn’t get to create one set of rules for themselves and another set of rules for everybody else.”

    But wait. Since insider trading is already illegal for everyone in the country, isn’t this bill specifically a set of rule written by the powerful for the powerful?

    1. And since the law does nothing and will do nothing, it’s really a nonrule written by the powerful to deceive the less powerful.

  15. Holder doubles down on disbanding the Supreme Court.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50…..propriate/

    1. It’s entirely possible that this attempt to threaten the court will push additional votes towards striking down the law. In the end, the justices are still humans, susceptible to being pissed off.

      1. I don’t think it’ll change any votes, but it’ll harden the ones already set to smack Comrade Barack’s power grab down.

        1. I’m hoping for EPIC opinions by both Scalia and Thomas that rage on Obama, indirectly for decorum and all, about the blatant power grab that this bill is.

          1. This won’t happen, but for the best possible schadenfreude, it would be great if the Court ruled that not only does the mandate go, but so does the line of cases since Willard. “Sorry, all wrongly decided. I mean, come on, it’s obvious!”

            1. that would be cool.

      2. How fucking sweet would it be if it came back as an 8-1 vote against the entire bill?

        (The one being Kagan, who I don’t see straying too far from the ranch.)

    2. Obama is his peeps…he’s got his back.

      1. No, dadblame, dadgum it. He said the attorney general is near!

  16. Crazy Larry hates Mormons.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..williamson

    1. If someone wants to call me a Bigot because of my hard atheism, go for it. Suck it Williamson.

      1. Sure you can. But then you can’t exactly be preaching tolerance anymore either.

        1. Except that’s not the point Williamson is making.

      2. Granted, not much to like about O’Donnell, but if one is going to get his panties in a bunch over the phrase attributed to him, color me unsympathetic.

        Freedom of religion also means that one should not get upset about criticism of a particular faith, its beliefs, dogmas, practices, rituals as well as its practitioners and their fidelity to the principles of their avowed faith.

        Hence, taking a swipe at Joseph Smith is A OK.

        1. Of course it is ok. But what is not ok is to do that and then get your panties in a wad about how everyone else isn’t tolerent enough

          1. Of course, agreed.

            1. and that is where Crazy Larry is wrong

              1. Among other places.

            2. John, in particular, I think it is generally fair play to probe one about his fidelity to the doctrines of his professed faith and to hammer him if he deviates from those doctrines in a significant and / or persistent manner.

              1. Like everyone goes after Pelosi for not being Catholic enough?

        2. And Larry is going to use his show to disdainfully comment on Muhammad’s sex life, including little Aishia, in 3, 2, 1….

          Still waiting, Lar.

          1. Technical difficulties, HM, just hang on…

          2. To his credit, O’Donnell has admitted that he’d like to be as critical of Muslims as he is of Mormons, but he’s just too scared to do it. It takes a kind of bravery to admit one’s own cowardice.

            1. He should do a documentary about William Penn’s kinky sex life (make one up if he can’t find historical verification). Then the founder of the Jains. Stay away from Muslims and Sikhs, though.

  17. So, what has it been, six years since SCOTUS said, yes, with some protections, you can try the Gitmo people at Gitmo with a military tribunal, that we finally get around to it?

    Don’t I recall Obama busting some balls over the horripilation of not giving these people full-on civilian trials?

    1. That was until Holder and Obama announced that KSM would be tried in NYC and Chuck Schumer shit a Fort Knox-full of gold bricks. Seems it endangered Chuck’s seat, hence O and H’s strongly-held principles were jettisoned and KSM again relegated to a military tribunal.

  18. In your surreal moment of the day, President Obama flashes a “Vulcan salute” with Lt. Uhura. At least we now know he possesses the manual dexterity for the job.

    1. Credit where credit is due. No way he just learned that, so he’s a Trek geek. Given his politics, probably more TNG.

      The Urkobold is always going on about how Jeri Ryan made him president, so maybe that’s got something to do with it, too.

      1. If he were really a Trek geek he would know that the Vulcan salute was Spock’s thing, not Uhura’s.

        If he wants my respect when he poses with Nichelle Nichols, he should be naked and covered only by strategically placed feather fans.

        1. Nah, they all do it. Takei is Vulcan saluting all the time. Trust me, I know, having to come up with Sulu Friday posts for most of the last five years.

          1. Five years and you still have to do the bitchwork for Urkobold. How does that make you feel?

            1. Grateful to have an intact taint.

            2. I mean, look at what happened to VM. All artificial.

              1. It’s a wonder that VM is still kicking with the year he had. The liver thing was bad enough, but then someone had to go and destroy his home. Now to learn that he has a Pfizer Taint Implant too? Jesus. The Book of Job wasn’t this bleak.

                1. Destroy his home? Are you serious? Or is this just more attacking poor, nice VM for no good reason?

      2. It’s a well known-fact that Obama is quite public about his Star Trek and Star Wars geekery.

        1. Somehow, I don’t find him to be any cooler for that.

          Star Trek had it’s moments, but Star Wars for a few years in the late 70’s almost wrecked the science fiction genre with publishers scrambling to find the kind of light fantasy in space ships that appealed to a more mainstream audience.

        2. Did he go to a convention at Cominskey park?

        3. Eh. I get the feeling that his “geekery” is an extremely well calculated affection to make him seem more like a normal person.

      3. No way he just learned that, so he’s a Trek geek.

        Why not? I fairly despise all things Star Trek, but I can still do that, and with either hand.

        1. Well, as you know, the so-called Vulcan salute is actually the hand symbol of the Jewish priesthood, the Kohanim.

          ZOMG!!! ZIONISTILLUMINATIFREEMASONLIZARDPEOPLE CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          1. Dear Lord, you’re right!

          2. Should totally be the basis of a South Park episode the next time Kyle and Ike attend Jewbulie.

          3. It’s not as if Nimoy was not upfront about where he cribbed it off from.

            1. It’s an open conspiracy!

        2. Why not? I fairly despise all things Star Trek

          Your card is in jeopardy.

  19. Obama signs the STOCK Act to stop Congressional insider trading, notes “the powerful shouldn’t get to create one set of rules for themselves and another set of rules for everybody else.”

    Our Fearless Leader has signed a landmark piece of legislation designed to fix a problem that never existed in the first place, which the economics ignorant call ‘insider trading.’

    1. To be sure, you and I can be locked up for it, so why not them, too? This law won’t do that, of course, but I don’t want them doing something we little people can’t do.

      Best, of course, would be to get rid of those laws altogether.

      1. Best, of course, would be to get rid of those lawmakers altogether.

        Fixed.

        1. Blessed are the lawmakers. Or is that lawbreakers? I can never get that right.

          1. Same thing.

          2. Well obviously it’s not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of legal restrictions.

  20. So when did we get registration? I haven’t been here lately.

    1. It started yesterday.

      1. Thank you. I find your handle refreshing and delicious.

  21. Jezebel proudly proclaims itself less sex-positive than Reddit:

    http://jezebel.com/5899168/wom…..ng-of-this

  22. “Obama signs the STOCK Act to stop Congressional insider trading, notes “the powerful shouldn’t get to create one set of rules for themselves and another set of rules for everybody else.”

    Vintage Obama.

    Talking as if he were some sort of outsider/bystander instead of being smack dab in the middle of that powerful crowd himself.

    It cracks me up that he apparently thinks he can still fool people with that bullshit.

    1. “It cracks me up that he apparently thinks he can still fool people with that bullshit.”

      Strike “he apparently thinks” and you’re golden.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.