The Independents

Tonight on The Independents: The Supremes! (As in Court.) Starring Damon Root, Judge Napolitano, Peter Suderman, and Timothy Sandefur!

|

Well? |||

We have a totally sweet Red Meat Friday theme episode of The Independents waiting for you on your television boxes at 9 p.m. ET, 6 p.m. PT (with repeats three and five hours later) on the Fox Business Network. It's all about the Supreme Court, and who better to give us a tour of its secret quasi-libertarian history and futureshock than beloved Reason superhuman Damon Root, author of the splendiferous Overruled: The Long War for Control of the U.S. Supreme Court. Damon shall provide a précis of his penumbras, as a way of re-jiggering the dull-witted modern understandings of the truly meaningful divides on the High Court.

Hi Damon! |||

You think your body's had enough of libertarian SCOTUS-analysis? THINK AGAIN, MORTAL. Beloved Senior Editor Peter Suderman, who will bring a very fine price where we're headed, breaks down Obamacare's upcoming judicial vulnerabilities, and participates in a super-competitive Supreme Court trivia contest. Timothy Sandefur, principal attorney of the Pacific Legal Foundation, talks about the fascinating Facebook/violence/free-speech case Elonis v. United States. And I dunno, maybe you've heard of Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst and Reason.com columnist Andrew Napolitano, author of the brand new Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat to American Liberty? Well, our favorite WHAT-PART-OF-THE-CONSTITUTIONist will be on to assess who is the most libertarian member of the Supreme Court.

Do you even deserve such a good show on cable television? Well, yes, because you have been donating early and often to Reason's annual Webathon, in which we are seeking an audacious $200,000 in tax-deductible contributions by the end of December 9. (Please donate right the hell now, etc.) Part of our essential value proposition is that we serve as your tribune, injecting libertarian arguments into all sorts of venues where they had been previously scarce. Watch tonight's show, and tell me how that's going.

Follow The Independents on Facebook at facebook.com/IndependentsFBN, follow on Twitter @ independentsFBN, hashtag us at #TheIndependents, and click on this page for more video of past segments.

NEXT: Rolling Stone's Botched Account of a UVA Gang Rape Does a Disservice to Rape Victims

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. Hey, who is that bald headed pussy that is responsible for ruining my healthcare system?

    1. Jerome Horwitz?

  2. Root, Suderman and the Judge? All stops have officially been pulled out.

  3. “Do you even deserve such a good show on cable television?”

    Do you?

    1. Probably not.

  4. Seen on Twitter:

    neontaster @neontaster

    Apparently a Rolling Stone also gathers no evidence.

    Burn!

    1. “Apparently a Rolling Stone also gathers no evidence.”

      Clever turn of phrase, but it is more damning that RS LIED about having fact checked the story.
      It’s not that they were mislead, it’s that they flat-out lied about it.
      Do they now expect anyone to believe anything they print without outside corroboration?

      1. What an appropriate place to be your typical boring self.

    2. This article isn’t fit for AARP Magazine!

      1. That’s COLD!
        How about Parade?

  5. And more feminists who insist on reinforcing the old stereotype that women are not logical:

    Melissa McEwan @Shakestweetz

    I can’t state this more emphatically: If Jackie’s story is partially or wholly untrue, it doesn’t validate the reasons for disbelieving her.

    1. Sarc, I hope

      1. It isn’t. McEwan is a good little Outer Party feminist.

        1. So if the story is “wholly untrue”, we are still to believe what?
          Doesn’t she understand that if it is untrue we are bound to believe it is untrue?
          Or is she simply maintaining that “up” = “down” because she wishes it so?

          1. She’s maintaining that engaging in mindless moral panics is totally okay when feminists do it and that pointing out the sexual paranoia of modern feminism is meanspirited and heretical.

            1. I would translate it into something like: “Just because critics were right this time doesn’t validate critics of feminism.”

              1. If that is the case, she needs to go back to school and maybe learn how to use the English language.

          2. Truthiness. It FEELS true, ergo it is thus.

            Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous bullshit, it really doesn’t matter because screw you, LISTEN AND BELIEVE DAMMIT.

      2. It’s Melissa McEwan.

        She just published this today.

        It has a content warning of ‘rape apologia’ and is about how anyone who doesn’t believe her wants all the women on Earth to be raped in service to the Dark Corpse God we know by the name of Patriarchy.

        In the article she lists a bunch of supposed gang rapes in order to claim that since gang rapes happen, this gang rape must have happened. However, half the gang rapes she links to ended in acquittal which means that legally they weren’t gang rapes, since people were found innocent.

        Secondly, none of the other gang rapes have any resemblance to Jackie’s claims. She basically argues that because one thing that was kind of like a gang rape happened in a super poor neighborhood in Cleveland, we should believe that it also happened to Jackie, even though her story makes no sense.

        This is your brain on 21st century feminism.

        She also claims it’s believable that a fraternity would stage a gang rape as an initiation ritual and links to this story as proof. You’ll notice that in this story there was no gang rape, it was just a fucked up and dangerous hazing ritual where they drank tremendous amounts of alcohol and did fucked up stuff with sex toys.

        So her argument that this must have happened is based entirely on linking to stories that are completely different.

        1. But at least she is not asking us to believe her story if it is untrue; she is maintaining that it is true.
          I find that at least a bit comforting in that (per above), I was afraid she was simply saying the truth of the matter was ittelevant.

        2. ” Melissa McEwan Moderator ? 7 hours ago

          LaurenB So sad that these journalistic errors have clouded the issue.

          Rolling Stone did not make “journalistic errors”–even if it turns out Jackie’s account was deliberately or inadvertently (it did happen over two years ago) inaccurate.

          If media only ever reported on sexual assault cases where all of the facts were 100% verifiable, virtually no sexual assault cases would ever be reported on at all.

          If your goal here isn’t to actively make sure that doesn’t happen, then I am asking you to stop peddling this garbage about journalistic errors in this space.

          1. “Journalistic errors” my ass!
            How about bald-faced lies?

            1. RAPE IS NOT A LIE IT IS REAL

              1. Check out this gem from FB.

                We know rape is rampant in this country, the exact number is not significant no matter what’s the number is, it’s happening.

                No matter what the number is, theft is happening. No matter what the number is, speeding is happening. No matter what the number is, (Kennedy) interrupting is happening. No matter what the number –

                You see where I’m going. This person’s statement has no legitimate, discernible premise, but is meant to be taken seriously.

                1. The best is that it’s provably untrue that ‘no matter what the number is’ rape is ‘rampant.’

                  Our rape rate is not high. It is actually very low. We know what the numbers are, and they fall well short of ‘rampant.’

          2. These (some) people have journalism degrees.

            THIS is the frightening part of all.

        3. This is your brain on 21st century feminism.

          Which is little more than a cult that puts scientology to shame.

        4. Shakesville is run as a safe space.

          Translation: Dissent will not be tolerated. Opposition will not be tolerated. The Narrative is All.

          1. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

    2. “disbelieving”

      I have seen in multiple fembot locations the argument made that ‘disbelief’ requires extensive evidence and extraordinary justification….while “Belief” should be the default view of any ‘reasonable’ person.

      Not just for ‘rape’, but basically ANYTHING that a woman says. Because its the most ‘radical’ thing society can do = Listen and Believe when wimmins are sharing their ‘experiences’

      In short = its an argument that effectively turns what we normally think of as “Reason” (DRINK) and turns it on its head.

      You don’t need ‘evidence’ for an argument.

      You need ‘evidence’ to justify an absence of agreement with someone. Skepticism is not a legitimate POV and is hateful and bigoted and sexist.

      Which is why the ‘facts’ here are not important to many people. Its about the sinfulness of the *skepticism*

      1. but basically ANYTHING that a woman says

        I have known women to lie or at least be disingenuous to me more often than other men are.

        Skepticism is not a legitimate POV

        Same with the AGW crowd.

      2. She certainly seems to have some confusion regarding “fiction” vs. “non-fiction”.

      3. Penises are guilty until proven innocent.

    3. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

      She just posted this:

      Melissa McEwan @Shakestweetz
      Listen, conservatives, I know you’re having fun deliberately misunderstanding my tweet & normally I wouldn’t deny you your fun @ my expense.

      Melissa McEwan @Shakestweetz
      But while you’ve been going at me all day, I’ve been at the vet with my ill dog. So if you have a trace of humanity, please stop now.

      Who are you to criticize her moronic claim that you’re a rape apologist? She has a sick dog, man! Her dog is sick! What, are you a dog illness denier in addition to your support of the rape-Holocaust?

      1. “” deliberately misunderstanding “”

        Again – its the same thing i’m talking about above

        They don’t believe in “Reason”

        ‘Blind Acceptance’ is an example of RightThink

        Any form of skepticism or attempt to apply rationality is DELIBERATE CRUELTY

        I’m not kidding. That’s how their universe works, apparently. They’ve entirely *abandoned* reason.

      2. Or she could, you know, *turn off* Twitter for a while.

      3. But while you’ve been going at me all day, I’ve been at the vet with my ill dog. So if you have a trace of humanity, please stop now.

        “I was talking to the dog.”

    4. “I can’t state this more emphatically: If Jackie’s story is partially or wholly untrue, it doesn’t validate the reasons for disbelieving her.”

      This woman is insane.

      The feminist line is that truth is unconnected to belief or credibility. That is some first rate, pure crazy.

      1. Yuri Bezmenov could not have been more accurate.

      2. Yeah, but the scary part is that they acknowledge it. Crazy people actually believe the nutty shit they say. Charlatans pretend to believe their lies to fool the gullible. These people openly deny the importance of truth or reality.

  6. … who is the most libertarian member of the Supreme Court.

    Good question. Maybe if you Frankensteined the nine justices you might come up with a libertarian one.

    1. I think we should take Thomas’ views on the first amendment, Scalia’s views on the second, and Ginsburg’s views on the fourth and fifth.

      We might have a passable Supreme Court Justice!

      1. Thomas’ views on the First? He doesn’t think the Establishment Clause should apply to the states. Also, see Black v VA and Holder b Humanitarian Law Project.

        1. He doesn’t think the Establishment Clause should apply to the states.

          That’s actually a pretty reasonable position if you believe the Bill of Rights was meant to bind the Federal government and not the states.

          1. I don’t think he’s against incorporation in general, but if he was, wow, that would make him worse.

            1. Scala is against incorporation so his sidekick no doubt is.

              1. Did your mother have any children who weren’t mouth-foaming racists? Or was that your entire family, not just you?

          2. Irish, this explains his stance better
            http://m.wsj.com/articles/BL-LB-47999

            1. In a separate opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that while the First Amendment “probably prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion,” it wasn’t intended to restrict states from adopting their own official religions. Under this view, not only could state or local officials ordain religious exercises for their meetings, they could use tax dollars to fund an official church. He cites the clause “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” saying that “choice of language?effectively denied Congress any power to regulate state establishments.”

              After all, “at least six States had established churches in 1789,” Justice Thomas wrote. Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Hampshire “maintained local-rule establishments whereby the majority in each town could select the minister and religious denomination (usually Congregationalism, or ‘Puritanism’).” Georgia and Maryland “permitted taxation in support of all Christian churches,” while South Carolina limited its subsidy to “all Protestant churches,” he added. And while Delaware, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island “had no history of formal establishments,” they “maintained religious tests for office.”

              I don’t see any problem with this. I don’t think states SHOULD have a state church (and individual state constitutions should also outlaw such things) but his point about state churches existing in early America is pretty reasonable.

              1. In other words, I think every state should individually not have a state church, but it’s the Supreme Court’s job to interpret the Constitution, not to decide what they want the Constitution to say.

                Thomas’s argument is an originalist reading of the Constitution and I think he documents his argument well.

                1. Fair enough, but if the metric is most libertarian and not most reasonable originalism he comes out worse there.

                  1. Fair enough, but if the metric is most libertarian and not most reasonable originalism he comes out worse there.

                    It’s possible for a polity with a state church to be more libertarian than a secular polity.

                    I’d rather live under the government of colonial America circa 1730 then under Soviet rule in the 1930s.

                    1. It’s possible for a polity with a state church to be more libertarian than a secular polity.

                      I’d rather live under the government of colonial America circa 1730 then under Soviet rule in the 1930s.

                      Well, that is a bit of a false dilemma.

                    2. Well, that is a bit of a false dilemma.

                      Eh, I’m talking about the real world.

                      You give me a rocket ship and a suitable planet to land it on, and I’ll go set up a truly libertarian polity. Until we get that, we’re going to be dealing with an endless series of compromises and small victories.

                    3. Yeah, I’ll take neither, thanks

                    4. Yeah, I’ll take neither, thanks

                      Good luck with that.

                2. Thomas disregards the 14th Amendment in his support of a state religion.

                  Dumbass.

              2. “….his point about state churches existing in early America is pretty reasonable.”

                I am less than convinced. Many actions by the federal and state governments which were widely accepted at the time were clear violations of the constitution and of natural rights.

                Failure to live up to our ideals in the past is not justification for failing to live up to them now.

              3. I’m pretty sure that if a state government can violate a ‘human right’ then its not a human right.

                Our rights do not *derive* from government, government is merely supposed to protect our ability to enjoy them.

                To say that a state can establish a religion is like saying that a state can disarm its citizens, board state employees with those citizens, does not need warrants to conduct searches, citizens can be obligated to testify against themselves, etc.

                1. Okay, you guys convinced me. Stop piling on, I concede.

          3. “…if you believe the Bill of Rights was meant to bind the Federal government and not the states.”

            That would be somewhat difficult to resolve with the notion of natural rights.

            1. It would be difficult to resolve but, if Thomas is an originalist, he is at least being consistent. The Bill of Rights was produced not only to protect individual rights but to attempt to maintain the primacy of the individual states wherever possible. Hence the wording of the Tenth Amendment reserving rights to the States and the people.

              1. But the 10th amendment does not give arbitrary power to state governments.

                It simply says that those things not explicitly federal (nor explicitly forbidden) can be done by the states – but the caveat is that the interpretation ‘state can do anything not forbidden’ runs afoul of the basic principle the constitution was created for, the protection of individual rights.

                1. uns afoul of the basic principle the constitution was created for, the protection of individual rights.

                  OK, I won’t say this is a settled debate, but the this statement is not the one which has the most support among historians. The Constitution was not designed to create a government of unlimited power. BUT, it was designed to create a government with more power that the government which existed under the Articles of Confederation.

                  This is why so many duties are spelled out in the original document: because the framers wanted to give specific powers to the new government. It was because these powers were seen by many as not being restricted that a BoR was drafted – see my post below.

          4. I think the BoR was meant to bind *government in general*.

            1. I think it has come to mean that – and that’s a good thing. But, within the historical context, it was written specifically to bind the new federal government.

              1. I think it has come to mean that – and that’s a good thing.

                Well it binds government to the specific restraints of the BoR. But the anti-federalists were right way back when: placing the BoR in the Constitution, even with the 9th Amendment in there, has led to the statists insisting that only the enumerated rights are actually right.

                A more diffused power locus in this country might have led to one or more aggressively libertarian state governments with the authority to chart their own course to a greater degree then is possible in the modern USA.

    2. Of the three pictured above?

      Scalia has the occasional brainfart that the First and Second Amendments matters, or that some judge-made test is an absurd legal fiction that ignores history, reason, or both, or that the Court will (wrongfully) toss reason out the window and bow to public pressure a la Korematsu.

      Thankfully, he comes to his senses in time to remember that the Commerce Clause is all-powerful, the Fourth Amendment is toilet paper, and all possible deference must be given to the police.

      That said, Thomas is simply a statist Republican and Kennedy, in a just world, would be impeached, flogged, and exiled along with the other eight Nazgul.

  7. So it’s Red Meat Friday (except for GKC, who will be permitted fish due to his sky daddy), what’s everyone eating and drinking tonight?

    Here: Red Wine and Balsamic Glazed Filet Mignon with pancetta brussel sprouts. And the real surprise: no booze for the fourth day in a row because I need to shed the developing gut.

    1. Beer and chili

      1. We had Chili cook-off at work today. So just beer this evening.

    2. Whataburger and Clown Shoes Chocolate Sombrero

    3. Sam Adams Winter & chicken.

    4. Tacos and chili fries.

    5. I made a huge pot of baby lima beans with generous portions of meaty neck bones, lots of onion, garlic, jalepeno and chicken broth.

      I dont do that very often, but I had a craving. Go figure.

      1. That sounds good. I made a great soup the other week with hot italian sausage, cheese tortellini, tomatoes, onions, peppers, etc. Was fantastic.

        Might make chili tomorrow. Or a big thing of pinto beans with ham. New place up the road a bit does this

        Hickory Hill Huevos Rancheros

        ham-cooked pinto beans over corn bread with melted cheese. Topped with 2 fried eggs*, tomato, onion and sour cream garnish

        1. Try replacing those Pintos with Black Beans. You will never go Pinto again.

          1. I like black beans fine in a lot of stuff, but pintos with a big ole hambone is what it’s all about.

      2. Celeriac remoulade.
        Fried baby artichokes with lemon.
        Arugula salad with tomato bruschetta and fresh mozzarella.
        Terrina fonduta Albese with white truffles.
        Cheese plate.

        Jacques Lassaigne and Cedric Bouchard Champagnes.
        ’54 Lopez de Heredia Rioja.
        ’91 Cote-Rotie Guigal “La Turque”.
        Glenmorangie 18 Extremely Rare

        Nice little dinner at home with some close friends.

    6. I had shitty pizza and watered down fruit punch at a kids birthday party.

    7. I had half a chicken for first dinner, a couple pork chops for second dinner, and now a can of salmon and a bunch of olive oil in a salad. Very little red meat, actually. I need to step up my red meat game.

  8. you have been donating early and often to Reason’s annual Webathon

    I’m a poor, recent college grad. Can’t you just call the Kochs?

    1. You can at least “polish their monocles,” if you know what I mean and I think you do.

      1. Do I get to voluntarily choose to do so, then claim I was raped when I regret that decision later?

        1. Don’t be ridiculous. Everyone knows only females get raped, and, of course, there are no female libertarians.

        2. No, but you can agree to comp time in lieu and then turn around and sue for back overtime wages.

  9. You think your body’s had enough of libertarian SCOTUS-analysis?

    MY BODY IS READY!

    1. I dont know what that is but it is disturbing

  10. Since it’s a SCOTUS focus, here’s an update on a case I flagged a week ago here

    “The Supreme Court will review whether Texas’s rejection of a proposed license plate featuring the Confederate flag violated the free speech rights of the group that wanted the special plates.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..id=HP_more

    1. I see a 9-0 decision coming.

      License plates are produced by the state. As such, I think they can control what is printed on them. They’re not saying you can’t stick a Confederate flag on the back of your pickup.

      1. But if the government creates a public forum they usually can’t deny speech there based on content of the speech

        1. But if the government creates a public forum they usually can’t deny speech there based on content of the speech

          Really? Public access T.V. exists because of an FCC mandate. So if I wanted to run pornography on Public access T.V., they couldn’t stop me?

          1. They could stop you on obscenity grounds but not other content. There’s been cases on that

            1. If they can stop you on obscenity grounds, why can’t they stop you on ‘we think this is racist’ grounds?

              Surely calling someone a nigger is worse than showing a pair of tits.

              I also have a feeling that if I wanted to start a show on public access T.V. in which I did nothing but talk about my hatred of Jews, they would probably find grounds to prohibit that.

              1. Obscenity is treated as a historical exception to the Free Speech Clause.

                1. It being treated as a historical exception in no way makes it rational. Where exactly in the Constitution does it say ‘oh, obscenity doesn’t count?’

                  1. I agree it’s irrational, but there you go. It’s not the only irrational thing in our legal system.

                2. So has speech that incites violence.

                  So stop with what is obviously going to be a stupid drawn out attempt by you to draw a stupid fucking distinction when we live in a world where hate speech laws exist, and the SC can gin up a justification based on an exception just like if it was obscenity.

                  1. There are no hate speech laws in the US, though there are hate crimes laws ( I think these have a speech element, but they’re different than straight up speech regulations)

                    1. “There are no hate speech laws in the US”

                      So what, I never said there were

                      “we live in a world where hate speech laws exist”

                      Learn to read what you’re replying to properly before you make a fool of yourself replying to it.

                    2. So your argument is that hate speech laws exist somewhere in the world therefore????

                    3. ” the SC can gin up a justification based on an exception just like if it was obscenity.”

                      How fucking stupid are you? I said read fuckboy.

                      And this is the point where you stupidly say “nu uh, the SC can’t just DO STUFF” and then we laugh at your naivety.

                    4. So your argument was ‘since hate speech laws exist somewhere in the world our SC might just apply them here?’

                      Um, okaaay.

                    5. “Um, okaaay.”

                      That’s a solid counter, fuckboy.

                    6. By the way, this is where we laugh at you for your naivety, AND your ignorance of the historical background of the court considering international jurisprudence.

                      If you’re really a law student, you suck and should get your money back.

                      AHAHAHAHAA HOW FUCKING NAIVE AND IGNORANT ARE YOU?

                    7. We?

                      You have a frog in your pocket?

                    8. I have your wife in my lap, that counts.

                    9. Oh, you’re that crazy guy. Thought so.

                      Apart from your legal silliness, do you not get that your first section really does no work? If SC might just do whatever they want and make hate speech laws so what that other countries have them?

                    10. NO stupid fuck. The prevailing opinions of the populace at large are legitimizing the idea of “hate speech” laws. The SC considers the opinions of the populace at large. That’s why the rest of the world matters fuckboy.

                      In addition, the entire point of my response was to point out that you were patently irrefutably wrong in your claim that “They could stop you on obscenity grounds but not other content.

                      I cited an example that totally refuted you, and then continued the idea that exceptions are not novel or hard to manufacture.

                      It is no wonder a multi part idea was lost on you.

                      fuckboy.

                    11. AHAHAHAHAA HOW FUCKING NAIVE AND IGNORANT ARE YOU?

                    12. “They could stop you on obscenity grounds but not other content.”

                      That was wrong and a lie. I have no intention of continuing to explain a very simple point to you, when you’re not even intellectually honest enough to admit you’re a liar.

                      I’ll even accept “mistaken” even though you’d be lying about that.

                    13. we live in a world where female genital mutilation laws exist, and the SC can gin up a justification based on an exception just like if it was obscenity.

                    14. we live in a world where laws banning the word meow exist, and the SC can gin up a justification based on an exception just like if it was obscenity.

                    15. We live in a world where you were wrong and a liar.

                      “we live in a world where female genital mutilation laws exist, and the SC can gin up a justification based on an exception just like if it was obscenity.”

                      “we live in a world where laws banning the word meow exist, and the SC can gin up a justification based on an exception just like if it was obscenity.”

                      Neither of which have what I stated, “The prevailing opinions of the populace at large are legitimizing the idea “.

                      You can’t even make a cogent counterargument because of how stupid you know it would sound.

                      Yes bitch, you’re totally right, the Supreme Court never considers prevailing opinion and never gins ideas up out of nowhere.

                      AHAHAHAHAHAHAA HOW FUCKING STUPID AND NAIVE ARE YOU?

                    16. You said ‘the populace’ meaning, incredibly stupidly, ‘the world.’

                      China just banned ‘meow’.

              2. Surely calling someone a nigger is worse than showing a pair of tits.

                I think both are innocuous. (or at least should be on the grounds that one is just words and the other is just tits.)

                Also, consider that the State gov’t has a monopoly on license plates and, by extension, what is on them. With this in mind, should they not make any and all customization options available?

              3. According to our courts – tits are worse than nigger.

                1. What about nigger tits?

                  I jest, but courts are not always right and are not intended to be the end all be all of what is moral or just.

                2. which poses the age-old legal question:

                  How would the SCOTUS rule on a plate reading “tits trump nigger”?

              4. How about nigger tits?

                1. Ooops, sorry Reb, should have read first.

  11. I think some credit should go to the Washington Post for eating Rolling Stones lunch. That ‘Lame Stream Media’ thing was always a sloppy overgeneralization

    1. WaPo has actually been consistently good since Bezos took over. I have problems with some of their editorialists, but I haven’t really had much problem with their reporting, even pre-Bezos.

      Plus they no longer have Ezra Klein. That immediately increased the quality of their website.

      1. And Novak died then George Will left. They have to be better than they were.

        1. So they’re 8% better? Is that similar to O-care’s effect on the election?

      2. Adding Volokh was good too. I don’t mind reading WaPo even though they’ve had their own issues in the past.

        No question WaPo offends me less than NYT. Plus, their commenters can get derpy but nothing on the level I read at NYT. Lord, those people LOVE to suck statist cock.

        1. Don’t forget Balko. Now you have to go to Wapo to get your nuts punched.

          1. What’s the female version of the nut punch?

            The cunt punt? The ovary uppercut?

            1. Come on Irish, we don’t want Rolling Stone to do an article about this thread

              1. “It was at that point that Lady Bertrum was slammed in the face with a chair that shattered on impact.

                ‘Please,’ she cried, ‘I am but an innocent lass, quite unused to this raucous roughousing of you vile, obstreperous libertarians.’

                ‘Quick,’ a man we’ll call ‘English’ said with malice, ‘tie it down so we can harvest its organs. Let’s do this quickly so that we can get back to our fruitful enterprises of orphan wrangling and laughing at rape victims.'”

                /Rolling Stone’s version of this thread

              2. Bo Cara Esq.|12.5.14 @ 9:17PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                Come on Irish, we don’t want Rolling Stone to do an article about this thread

                Jez will, anyway

            2. I’m going with the titty slap.

            3. Wearing the same skirt she’s wearing for the party.

              1. the same skirt *some other woman* is wearing

    2. Bezos’ ownership, and the subsequent purge of some of the WaPo’s staff have improved the overall quality of the product.

    3. Partly

      It was the interview with Erdley w/ the Slate feminist peoples on their podcast, and their subsequent “WTF”-article that seems to have triggered the investigation by WaPo

      meaning, they (WaPo) didn’t really scoop that something was fucked up before anyone else. They just closed for the kill when they realized that there were some problems with the reporting being reported elsewhere, and they had the resources to do the additional primary reporting.

      1. Have you no shame? After trying to argue that competition does not effect prices last night?

      2. If credit goes to Slate that’s even more undercutting the whole LSM thing.

    4. OTOH, the Washington Post has been one of the biggest people going after that Republican staffer who criticized (mildly) the Obama daughters.

  12. 300,000+ jobs created in Nov! This GOP Senate is kicking ass on jobs (best since 1999), gas prices, the deficit, and the record setting market!

    Go Team Red!

    1. I thought you believed in capitalism?

      The senate does not create jobs

      1. Turd lies. That’s all.

      2. I do. Capitalism has never been more ascendant than now. The US is kicking ass in fact.

        1. We haven’t kicked this much ass since 1978! Just fucking awesome!

    2. Go Team Red!

      You do not ever actually read and process, and try to understand anything that is ever said to you here, do you? (I.e. What is a “Turing Test”?) Also, what Gilmore said.

      1. Go Team Red! is said more than anything else here.

        1. Really? find one example and quote.

          At best, it may keep you busy while your meds kick in.

          1. See any post from John or Irish for starters.

            1. I’ll just leave this here for you, shrieky.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_too_much

            2. Hasn’t John stated that he does not identify himself as libertarian? (not to imply that he is inherently “Team Red”) And you are really going to have to cite something significant to claim that about Irish.

              1. Upthread Irish is arguing the paleoconservative view that the establishment of a state religion is Constitutional.

                I am an Ayn Rand rationalist and like her I despise conservatives.

                1. He only said he found Thomas’ argument reasonable on legal grounds

                2. I am an Ayn Rand rationalist and like her I despise conservatives.

                  I’m sure you’ll find that you’re loathed right back.

                3. He is making a Constitutional argument based on the Federal Constitution as opposed to State Constitutions. The first Amendment to the Federal Constitution states “Congress shall make no law…” in reference to the Federal Congress. State Constitutions may, necessarily vary on this. 14A is irrelevant to 1A in this instance because 1A is specific to the Federal Congress. He also states that he does not think that a State should define a State religion, just that they have the authority to do so (via Constitutional Amendment or original definition) whereas the Federal Gov’t does not. Though I would not understand someone as dense as you to understand this distinction.

                  1. would not *expect*…

                  2. “14A is irrelevant to 1A in this instance because 1A is specific to the Federal Congress.”

                    That would make the free speech, assembly and exercise clause not applicable to the states.

                    1. That would make the free speech, assembly and exercise clause not applicable to the states.

                      And look at what we have stumbled on to. No worries, I believe all State Constitutions have a 1A equivalent that refers to the General Assembly of a given State.

                      E.G.

                      that the General Assembly shall not pass any law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press – Constitution of the Commonwealth of VA

            3. Palin’s Buttplug|12.5.14 @ 8:55PM|#
              “See any post from John or Irish for starters.”

              Turd lies. That’s all turd does. Turd lies.

              1. Fuck you – you little Team Red cocksucker. You just bleat pure shit all day.

                1. Somebody must have new meds they’re adjusting to, such hostility…

                2. Palin’s Buttplug|12.5.14 @ 9:06PM|#
                  “Fuck you – you little Team Red cocksucker. You just bleat pure shit all day.”

                  Turd lies. That’s what he does. Turd lies or when he’s caught he shouts “BOOOOOOOOOOOSH!”
                  Turd lies.

    3. 8% of those jobs involved tin.

  13. Prediction: Interruptions.

  14. Prediction: Oregon by 10.

  15. Root forgot his mustache. Again.

    1. Were you hoping for a ride?

  16. THEN WHAT THE EFF DID HE THINK THE COURT WAS FOR?

  17. Is there a new link to the streaming?

  18. Chinstrap goatee = too 1990s? We think so.

  19. should have a health or safety purpose

    Um, no. It should fall within the defined powers of the government.

  20. Root is on a roll. Time for the Kennedy speed bump, methinks.

  21. One thing I want to know is how Jackie’s story changed. Was it initially partly plausible and thus possibly an embellishment of a real event?

    And how much of this story was Erdely’s creation? Did she coach Jackie to spice it up? Or did they both decide to exaggerate?

    I’m still pretty surprised how quickly RS gave up. Looks like they didn’t really believe it let alone do much investigating. I mean they lied about knowing who the guys were.

    Pretty clear that Erdely was looking for rape story and got a really nasty one and ran with since it suited her agenda.

    Oh and will the AFI change their list of Greatest Heroes? Can’t have that rape apologist Atticus Finch at the top.

    1. She’s admitted she was looking for a rape story. She approached several women from several schools, but decided on this fantastic one in part because UVA was a ‘genteel, public school’ but also well known

      1. She’s admitted she was looking for a rape story. She approached several women from several schools, but decided on this fantastic one in part because UVA was a ‘genteel, public school’ but also well known

        I read an interesting article earlier that pointed out how depraved Erdely’s search for a proper rape victim was.

        They mentioned that, in essence, Erdely had decided not to pursue stories on documentable sexual assaults because the circumstances were too prosaic and lacking in the narrative she wanted. Instead, she chose a case she could not document with a ‘victim’ who refused to even tell her the names of her alleged assailants.

        This is quite literally the opposite of how a journalist is supposed to behave. I think it’s unbelievable that Rolling Stone tried to put all the blame on Jackie when clearly the biggest villain here is Erdely. She should be fired immediately.

        1. What would Hunter S. Thompson think?

          1. Or the intrepid China correspondent, P.J. ORourke?

        2. “I think it’s unbelievable that Rolling Stone tried to put all the blame on Jackie when clearly the biggest villain here is Erdely.”

          Along with whoever approved the story and that lying POS who claimed they knew who the perps were.
          You can start with the publisher of RS all the way through Erdely and not find an innocent party.

        3. This is quite literally the opposite of how a journalist is supposed to behave. I think it’s unbelievable that Rolling Stone tried to put all the blame on Jackie when clearly the biggest villain here is Erdely. She should be fired immediately.

          Yeah, they should have realized that Jackie was lying. If she has mental problems then that means that they took advantage of mentally ill person and caused her more trouble.

          1. Jackie is responsible for her actions as well.

            1. I’d also throw in Emily Renda, the “activist” (and “survivor” of an unreported rape) who brought Jackie and Erdely together. Wouldn’t be surprised if Renda took a damaged kid and coached her into telling the victim narrative Erdely needed.

              Renda needs a career, ya know.

            2. SIV|12.5.14 @ 10:25PM|#
              “Jackie is responsible for her actions as well.”

              By now, there is reason to question whether there IS a “Jackie”.

              1. By now, there is reason to question whether there IS a “Jackie”.

                No there’s not. WaPo talked to her and she’s spoken with people from Slate as well.

                She’s real. The only question is what she told Rolling Stone and what they made up themselves.

  22. Are Foster and Welch even on the show?

    1. Who?

    2. This is problematic for me.

      If its a Kennedy solo show w/o the boys, I’m taking a bye.

        1. i can’t do it

  23. Kennedy was so enthusiastic about Damon Roots book. ‘yeah, uh… go buy that shit.’ Even she’s bored of the topic already.

    1. Well, normally it takes about 15 seconds for Kennedy to switch topics, so this is actually record breaking patience from her perspective.

  24. OT: Fun and insightful piece by Andrew Ferguson.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/…..?nopager=1

  25. Did anyone watch The Onion News Network on IFC? I swear Shannon here was the anchor on that show.

    1. She might be since she worked for Fox News prior to the Onion News Network. I’m not watching, but it would actually not be surprising if she went back.

    2. I honestly confused it with the feminist bookstore on Portlandia.

    3. I think you might be right.

      Although ‘blonde talking heads’ may bear close resemblance to one another.

      1. It was the voice that really made me wonder.

        1. I think not, but they could be sisters.

  26. Look who decided to show up.

  27. We’re at the 30min mark and i have not seen either Matt or Kmele so that is my Official New Excuse for not doing attire review. And dammit, it sounds legit to me.

    1. 9:21 is 30 minutes? You were never going to do one. You were coasting on the reddit mention, weren’t you?

      1. oh, christ, alright. Its not going to be funny though!

        1. So you were going for “funny”? Good to know.

        2. I knew you could do it, kid

  28. The JUDGE is in the house!

    1. Is anyone really in the house?

      1. I am in a house.

        1. Does the judge ask rhetorical questions?

    2. The Judge was on TDS show last week. They embraced like lovers.

      1. I saw that. Stewart was very restrained if that is what you mean. He was respectful and didn’t pull his usual editing bullshit.

        Didn’t want his ass handed to him I guess.

        1. Well, turd lies, so it’s hard figuring what turd’s lies mean.

  29. A four-star admiral is just an admiral.

    1. Isn’t that the films with Robin Williams contemplating suicide?

  30. I tune in and the first words I hear are “speculum” and “caverns”. hmm.

    1. Wha’d ya have for dinner?

      1. left hand milk stout

  31. Because wigs are gaaaaaaaay.

    1. what about whigs?

    2. George Washington begs to differ.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl7CLaZFG1c

        1. Because that just got superseded.

          1. Nah…that was one of the few EBRs that sucked.

      1. that was good

    3. I believe that was an exact quote of what Jefferson said.

  32. The Independents Attire Review, 5 December 2014

    From Here to Fraternity-Edition

    – Kennedy: Queen of the Nazgul-Kennedy chills us to our marrow with her ghostly-white presence hovering within folds of limitless blackness. We are clearly running out of shit to say about “Black”. Is she making a chromatic allusion to the Black-Robed Justices? We doubt it.

    – Matt: We’ve thrown out our view on the ‘pink shirt/blue tie’ thing: not our fave. We think lilac remains the idea pairing with pink, but sadly there’s probably little we can do here to dissuade him. This pairing is a sad carry-over from the “Formula” days. We should simply be glad his wife probably burned that old suit.

    – Kmele: I am always a sucker for Kmele ‘doing it straight’, and the charcoal blazer and maroon tie is classic-‘classic’. The maroon ties are (like the purple) always victorious in my mind; however, we think Kmele’s best-look with ‘greys’ are his monochromatic combos (layered shades of grey)… like what

    – SUDERMAN:… is wearing!! We’re glad we belatedly decided to do this, because Pete’s super-sharp ‘Mad-Men’-esque getup tonight deserves special props for overall sartorial victory. His last 2 appearances have gotten progressively better to where he’s now rivaling Kmele for King Of All Dapness despite few-and-far-between opportunities. Pete takes the rare win.

    Efcharisto

    1. Are these the royal we’s or do you have a team putting these things together?

      1. Royal “We”

        its a holdover from from my equity-research days

    2. Welch can’t properly tie (or wear?) a tie, but otherwise not too bad.

      1. We’ve tried/encouraged him to look into the ‘half windsor’. No avail.

  33. The ACA might be judged on what it says vs. how it is being carried out? RACIST.

  34. Let’s see how many negative left wing cliches we can fit into one liberal’s negative opinion of The New Republic:

    TNR has been an Islamophobic, Israel-right-or-wrong, back the Democrats by default,pro-war, intellectually lazy and uninteresting, center-to-barely-left, irrelevant sinecure for pseudo-intellectualism for a very long time. Apart from some solid book reviewing, it has been intellectually bankrupt since the early 70s, at least, and deeply dishonest, racist, and journalistically incompetent for at least a decade. Goodbye, good riddance.

    RACIST! INCOMPETENT! PRO-WAR! ISLAMOPHOBIC! JOOOOOOOOOOS!

    1. How many “likes” did that get?

    2. Wow, sounds like Reason commenters talking about Republicans…

    3. Which is basically the NYT in magazine form, yet no prog would dare criticize the ‘paper of record’ outside of griping about the ‘aluminum tubes’ story on occasion

  35. sinecure…someone’s hoping to get 5 cents for using that.

  36. OKAY WHO TRANQ’D SUDERMAN?

  37. plain text of the law

    Lol! Words don’t mean anything anymore, Suderman.

    1. That’s sometimes how I feel after I’m done with a TV appearance.

  38. I did not have textual relations with that law

    -Obama

    1. I almost giggled at that one.

  39. Timothy Sandefur sort of sounds like Sheldon Cooper

  40. Threats =/= Actions

    1. but, but, Bullying!

  41. 2 MINUTES HATE IS PROTECTED SPEECH.

    1. And should be longer!

  42. Welch wants to watch judicial grandstanding.

  43. We were just talking about oral arguments

    I was just talking about oral.

  44. So I see a lot of people are upset that some girl didn’t get gang raped, and I see Bo is busily arguing about nothing for no reason. Coincidence? Or conspiracy?

    1. At least Bo is consistent.

      1. HAHAHAHAHA…Oh, you meant consistently annoying. Yeah, OK.

    2. Its pretty appalling that the progosphere is expressing ‘disappointment’ that someone lied about being *gang raped*

      Not ‘relief’ or ‘concern about bad journalism’ or ‘worries about effect on actual rape-victims’… but actual sadness that their narrative has been de-railed.

      Because they WANTED it to be true. And they don’t think there’s anything weird about that.

      1. Nor a lot of concern about those who were accused by that lying bitch.

        1. Which is what i think the story is really about for these people.

          I don’t see ‘frat boys’ as either a problem or ‘my kind of people’. They just are

          Whereas for the progs? They are the ENEMY

          And they liked this story because it was (in their minds) ‘a blow against the enemy’.

          Now that its a lie, instead of being relieved that there was no heinous gang-rape, they’re pissed off because they didn’t “bust the baddies”.

          its disgusting. The fact that none of them see the parallels with To Kill a Mockingbird makes it even more appalling. They don’t realize that they resemble no one more than a Racist Lynch Mob

          1. What is it with the hate of fraternities? I’m not some huge fan of them, but I guess they don’t get that many fraternities are minority fraternities. Many are service fraternities, and nearly all have some service function. It’s like they imagine all fraternities are wealthy, white legacy admits. They are living in a Revenge of the Nerds movie.

            1. White privilege.

              (At least according to NeoGaf, home of the biggest SJWs in gaming)

              1. But lots of fraternities are not white. Black fraternities have a long and distinguished history as a valuable system of voluntary association institutions.

                1. …”Black fraternities have a long and distinguished history as a valuable system of voluntary association institutions.”

                  Yeah, all nine of ’em you insufferable twit.

                  1. Little experience with colleges, Sevo?

                    1. Plenty, twit.

          2. To draw a further example, commie-kid is “yawn” about Gruber’s lies.
            The ‘story’ and the ‘intentions’ are supreme; the means of achieving same can harm just about anyone with a total lack of concern.
            You might even draw comparisons to mass murder under the commie dictators if you wish.

    3. So I see a lot of people are upset that some girl didn’t get gang raped, and I see Bo is busily arguing about nothing for no reason. Coincidence? Or conspiracy?

      Little known fact: If Warty has sex with a girl, it’s always technically gang rape, even when he’s alone. For Warty is large, and he contains multitudes.

      1. Don’t start your hypotheticals with something so implausible.

        1. Oh, Bo. You’re too sweet to exist.

          1. Vertibaly, perhaps, like your sex life, I’m a figment of your imagination.

            1. AHAHAHAH

              You have no idea how off base your line of thought is.

              1. I only base it on this hilarious comment by Warty. Butthurt over something I said, he literally tried to insult me by saying something like ‘omg, you’re an undergraduate, you must be a virgin!’

                Anyone who thinks that contemporary college students are ‘virgins’ had a pretty sad college experience.

                1. Bo. You poor idiot. I called you that because you’re autistic, annoying, stupid, and an infant. That you still haven’t figured that out is astounding. But then, you are stupid.

                  1. I raped him earlier upthread and he resorted to gibbering stupidity again.

                    1. “The prevailing opinions of the populace at large are legitimizing the idea of hate speech laws, and the willingness of the Supreme Court to consider tthe change in popular opinion in the past has resulted in bad law”

                      was given the response from bo of “we live in a world where laws banning the word meow exist, and the SC can gin up a justification based on an exception just like if it was obscenity”

                      Yes, he’s so fucking stupid that he actually though that was a counter. No shit. He actually cannot tell what you mean when you tell him explicitly that there is no popular opinion to ban the meow, and that’s why it’s different.

                      He’s so fucking dumb and blind that you actually have to explain it to him. And he still argues anyway.

                    2. The ‘popular opinion’ to ban hate speech is not US popular opinion you maniac. You are incredibly ignorant of how US law works; you’ve obviously heard some snippet about the influence of foriegn opinion on US law with no idea of the context.

                    3. Right bitch, the SC never considers public opinion and never gins up justification from thin beginnings…

                      AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA HOW FUCKING STUPID AND NAIVE ARE YOU! SHOW US EVEN MORE NOW!

                    4. Public opinion…in other countries?

                      You really are dense.

                    5. AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA HOW FUCKING STUPID AND NAIVE ARE YOU! SHOW US EVEN MORE NOW!

                    6. No substantive response trolly?

                    7. Big of you to admit that.

                    8. Go To:11:17

                    9. Go to the center of my asshole, where you still were wrong and haven’t admitted it.

                      Why do you continue to ignore that? And expect me to do anything other than call you scum for it?

                    10. Because, like all trolls, you’ve long given up on making any point.

                      But you’re funny.

                    11. The point is you lied and haven’t addressed it and are scum for it.

                      Again, why ignore that and pretend otherwise?

                      You’ll only get called scum more.

                    12. The lie charge?

                      Awesome.

                      If I were you I’d be worried about a billy goat attack.

                    1. This is right up your alley, HM.

                      U wot m8?

                    2. That’s unkind, HM, you could’ve just recommend that he read Born on a Blue Day by Daniel Tammet.

                    3. I respect Tammet too much for that. I mean, anyone who bothers to learn Icelandic is all right in my book.

                    4. I enjoyed that and Embracing the Wide Sky. I have no point of reference to assess his language theories though.

                    5. I love that this perfectly sane discussion about an interesting book is sandwiched between two walls of insane stupidity.

                    6. Not like Warty. That fellow has a lot to say about…something.

                    7. Don’t be so hard on yourself warty.

                    8. In all seriousness though Warty, shut your fucking mouth you’re boring and dumb.

                    9. I love that this perfectly sane discussion about an interesting book is sandwiched between two walls of insane stupidity.

                      That did cross my mind. Although it’s a conversation with HM, so the stupidity is a step up from intelligent conversation between yiff pics.

                    10. Did you not notice the Sonic the Hedgehog pic above?

                    11. Did you not notice the Sonic the Hedgehog pic above?

                      Sigh. Gotta love the internet. Anyway, gotta jet, running late for Korean sauna and Japanese noodles.

                      Have a great rest of your Friday everyone!

                    12. I love that this perfectly sane discussion about an interesting book is sandwiched between two walls of insane stupidity.

                      Hey now. Rog and Tyrone are not stupid.

                    13. So is this new annoying guy a sock of an old annoying guy? It seems familiar enough.

                    14. It’s you, isn’t it? You both kind of showed up.

                    15. God shut your fucking idiot mouth Warty.

                    16. Warty|12.5.14 @ 11:31PM|#
                      “So is this new annoying guy a sock of an old annoying guy? It seems familiar enough.”

                      Been around irregularly. Don’t recall a particular POV.
                      Seems as ignorant as Bo; they can duke it out.

                    17. And you can also shut your constantly off topic whining about stupid shit nobody but you cares about then follows up with ridiculous insults that aren’t even coherent mouth you tiresome cunt.

                    18. The Whole Truth|12.6.14 @ 12:02AM|#
                      “And you can also shut your constantly off topic whining about stupid shit nobody but you cares about then follows up with ridiculous insults that aren’t even coherent mouth you tiresome cunt.”

                      Mary?

                    19. I love that this perfectly sane discussion about an interesting book is sandwiched between two walls of insane stupidity.

                      I call it “Internet Zen Archery”.

                    20. Here’s where the regulars do a group hug.

                  2. Yes, of course, it wasn’t because your college experience was a lonely and sad one. Sure.

                    1. Says the asshole who is

                      1) in college
                      2) posting on a web board on a Friday night.

                    2. Wow, you didn’t go to college either I guess.
                      Maybe commuted?

                    3. Why are you still here proving my point about you web board on a friday night poster?

                      Please argue more by proving my point and posting again.

                    4. I understand that for old, lonely people 11 is bedtime.

                      It’s not for college age people, my nutty troll.

                    5. Wait what, you think I’m saying it’s LATE?

                      How fucking stupid are you, I’m asking how you can be such a fucking loser that you aren’t already three parties deep on a friday night you aspie cunt.

                      LATE! The loser thought I meant it was late

                      AHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAOMFG I’m having a scotch on you, LOLOLOLOL

                    6. I love your all caps strings.

                      Maybe we’re watching the Oregon game and I’m responding to you on my phone, goofball?

                    7. That’s actually even more sad, you’re out but are compelled to troll here instead.

                    8. I genuinely pity you if that’s true, seriously, how awful.

                    9. You’re hilarious, give yourself credit!

  45. DAHBS!

  46. Screeeeeeeech!! DOBBS!

  47. When I predicted Oregon by 10, I presumed Arizona had a defense which played tackle football.
    Oregon by 30.

    1. One gang rape that must happen is TCU must totally smite Iowa State, so that they cannot sneak OSU into the playoffs.

    2. It’s going to be by more than that, unless

      Oregon puts a bunch of their walk-on seniors in the game as a thank you.

      1. I hope you’re right, but OSU has all that history that journalist types eat up, and it ‘represents’ a powerful region. TCU has neither, but they seem, as long as they win out, obviously more deserving.

    3. I may have spoken too soon. Oregon appears to not have practiced cover 2 very much.

      1. And Arizona didn’t bother practicing tackling.
        So, 30?

        1. ehhhh, probably.

          I’ve been wrong a lot this season.

  48. “You think your body’s had enough of libertarian SCOTUS-analysis?”

    I knew it was gonna be a Dr. Hook reference! What else could it be? That song, so gross.

  49. Meanwhile in St. Louis, another Bosnian was attacked by a gang of youths

    http://www.stltoday.com/news/l…..e56f3.html

    Only this time apparently it was a “hate crime” (unlike the guy who was killed in a hammer attack), I guess because she said they used a Bosnian slur (which to be honest, I can’t think of what that would be).

    And also a story that didn’t get national coverage (since the victim is white), but the highway patrol is being sued for drowning a guy who he had arrested. Basically the cop handcuffed him, then drove too fast and he fell into the water and drowned because he was handcuffed. To be fair, the cop did try to rescue him, but seemingly panicked and had little experience in water policing.

    http://www.stltoday.com/news/l…..1626e.html

  50. My best friend’s mother-in-law makes $85 /hour on the internet . She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her pay was $16453 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    Visit this website ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.