Jeff Sessions

Jeff Sessions, Fan of the Drug War and Asset Forfeiture, Confirmed as Attorney General

Sen. Rand Paul votes aye with rest of GOP.


Jeff Sessions
Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom

By a vote of 52-47, senators this evening approved one of their own, Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), to serve as the attorney general for President Donald Trump's administration. (The one missing vote from the Senate was Sessions himself.)

It's not a good outcome for civil libertarians, but his nomination was never really that surprising, given Trump's "law and order"-focused campaign.

Sessions is a well-known supporter of the drug war, and back in the 1990s wanted to execute dealers. He is a major supporter of civil asset forfeiture, the system by which police and prosecutors seize and keep citizens property based on suspicion of crimes, not their convictions. As Jacob Sullum has noted, Sessions conflates drug offenders with "violent criminals" and wants to treat them accordingly under the law. And based on his Senate testimony, it's not entirely clear whether he will call on the Department of Justice to enforce federal bans on marijuana even in states that have legalized or decriminalized it. He has also been concerned about reform agreements between the Department of Justice and local law enforcement agencies to correct bad behavior as potentially undermining officers.

Of interest in the vote, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) gave Sessions a thumb's up. This matters because Paul voted against confirming the previous attorney general, Loretta Lynch, partly because of her support for civil asset forfeiture. Sessions is no different in his position in support of its use by police as a tool to fund and fight the drug war.

The vote was almost completely along party lines: GOP yes, Democrats no. The only senator to switch sides was Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia. He voted in favor of confirmation.

Reason on Jeff Sessions here. His confirmation doesn't mean that additional criminal justice reforms and protections can't happen, but it's probably going to be a tougher battle. The good news is that there's increasing bipartisan support for things like sentencing reform and tighter rules on asset forfeiture.

NEXT: New York City Libertarians: Watch Ben Powell Debate Mark Krikorian on Open Borders at Next Week's Soho Forum

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Of interest in the vote, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) gave Sessions a thumb’s up.”


    1. You ok, Eddie? That language is not like you.

      1. Ha ha.

        I didn’t use to talk like that, the H&R community corrupted me.

        1. Way to be accountable for your own actions there!

            1. He is not a “Fan of the Drug War” – He is a Fan of the Drug Cartels.

              “Whose interests are served by the drug war? The U.S. government enforces a drug cartel. The major beneficiaries from drug prohibition are the drug lords, who can maintain a cartel that they would be unable to maintain without current government policy.” –
              – Milton Friedman

    2. I HAS A SAD.

    3. The last thing a sitting senator needs is for the president of the United States of America to make fun of his hair on Twitter because of a wrong confirmation vote.

      1. Assuming Trump thinks he has the standing to criticize anyone else’s hair.

        1. Trump’s hair is huge. It’s just the best.

        2. Trump has the best hair. You can ask anyone. They all think so.

      2. Oh please. If Trump mocked his hair, Rand could just twitpic his palm and say talk to the hand.

        1. He’s the harry handed gent…

    4. Maybe Rand knows something we don’t. Or maybe he’s been in DC long enough that he’s starting to morph into little Turtlehead. It’s one of those things.

      1. I’m hoping for “he got promised something really good in exchange for his vote.”

        By “really good” I mean *really* good, like supporting his Obamacare replacement bill or something similarly awesome.

        1. Hopefully it is something else. Replacing Obamacare with anything more than a repeal and more deregulation is just bullshit.

          1. IIRC Paul’s bill replaces it with a better system that’s a lot more free market-y.

            But it’s irrelevant because I doubt he was able to obtain such a concession in exchange for his vote.

            1. You don’t need to replace it with anything to be free market. You need to repeal more of what came before it.

              1. His “replace” mostly involves effectively repealing rules and regulations

            2. You don’t need to replace it with anything to be free market. You need to repeal more of what came before it.

            3. “IIRC Paul’s bill replaces it with a better system that’s a lot more free market-y.”

              Nope. The exemption to Fed antitrust laws is bullshit (not that anyone has the balls to challenge the ongoing collusion/price fixing).

              1. You think the government should be in the “trust” busting business, eh?

                1. You think having the price of a service hidden and then negotiated arbitrarily is legit? Service that get paid mostly out of pocket improve and have gone down in cost over time (lasik, plastic surgery) while “healthcare” and “health insurance” cost are skyrocketing. Yeah, fuck antitrust laws.

            4. You can’t replace it with ‘a system’ and be free-markety. It’ll be free-markety when the government acknowledges that it doesn’t really have a mandate to regulate it in the first place.

              Until then you’re just trading one master for another – its just an admission that you *should* have one.

              1. “Until then you’re just trading one master for another”

                So is moving from Venezuela to California, but if those were the choices, wouldn’t you prefer California?

                1. Have you read Karl Denninger’s blog? I know he’s a founding tea party member and not libertarian, but having worked in the healthcare industry, he makes some very valid points.

                  “I’ve repeatedly, over some 30 years time, heard that there’s “some law” that exempts health care from anti-trust when the discussion turns to the topic of price-fixing, collusion, differential billing for commodities of like kind and quantity and similar. Every time I hear this claim I respond the same way: “Show me the law.”

                  Nobody ever has.

                  And I haven’t asked just once or twice. I’ve asked dozens of times since the 1990s. I’ve asked politicians. I’ve asked lawyers. I’ve asked political candidates. I’ve asked policy “wonks” of various flavors. Gary Johnson got asked (Lib candidate for President) in person a number of years back in his suite during the Libertarian convention in Orlando. Yet not one of the people I’ve asked has ever replied with a title, chapter and section of US code that provides such an exemption.

                  As just one of many examples I heard this claim during the campaign from a (Democrat) candidate for the US House when I asked him whether he would demand that the executive enforce anti-trust law against all medical providers and suppliers. He said he’d call me with a cite to the law when I responded that with all due respect the exemption he claimed didn’t exist at a meet-and-greet in a room full of Libertarians. He never did call me. (He lost the election, incidentally.)

                  1. I’m utterly convinced that’s because the oft-claimed exemption doesn’t exist. I’m in fact quite sure of it, because I can actually read the US Code — it’s public, of course, and the sections that could bear on this matter are reasonable in size (that is, I can and have read through them in a day or two.)

                    Never mind the contravening evidence too – like this case from 1979 that went to the Supreme Court which ruled that Mccarran-Ferguson does not protect insurance companies against anti-trust claims related to drug “discounts” on collusive actions. In other words the insurance company took the case to the Supreme Court and lost, which is damn good evidence that (1) anti-trust does apply to health care broadly including the criminal provisions in the Sherman and Clayton Acts and (2) health insurance firms and providers are not exempt to the extent they collude to restrain trade or fix prices.

                    It is thus my considered position that the reason the law isn’t enforced isn’t because it doesn’t apply — it isn’t enforced because the Executive voluntarily chooses to refuse to enforce it in collusion with Congress and the States and has done so for 30+ years despite the evidence being clear that the law — a law that carries both ruinous civil and felony criminal penalties — is being violated on a daily, continuing basis by the entirety of the so-called “health system.”

                    Nonetheless this line of crap continues to be put forward.

                    1. Well, you can stop with that nonsense now, because Rand Paul has just announced intent to file a bill (which has a bill number, but the text is not public as of the date of this post) that explicitly exempts Health Care providers from anti-trust.

                      Anti-Trust Reform for Healthcare

                      Provides an exemption from Federal antitrust laws for health care professionals engaged in negotiations with a health plan regarding the terms of a contract under which the professionals provide health care items or services.

                      This section applies only to health care professionals excluded from the National Labor Relations Act. It would also not apply to contracts or care provided under Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, the FEHBP, or the IHS as well as medical and dental care provided to members of the uniformed services and veterans.
                      Isn’t that special?

                      Rand Paul understands full well that the law prohibits what the entire health system does on a daily basis right here and now. He is thus proposing to make that financial rape-room, which includes apparent violations of both civil and criminal conduct under 15 USC Chapter 1, explicitly legal on an ongoing, forward basis for everyone who is not covered by the government.

                    2. So anti-trust law appears to be another tricky area for libertarians. I thought freer markets would lead to more competition, not less.

                      And besides the utilitarian argument, there’s the moral principle of self ownership, including ownership of one’s capital and the ability to combine it with others. If you favor anti-trust laws, then you favor police action against what owners of capital can legally do with it. Unless you can show me something aggressive or fraudulent about “collusion,” I’m not buying that anti-trust law is good or needed.

                    3. I have been trying to determine the libertarian views on the healthcare system overall. It’s not just a matter of anti-trust laws, but also in lack of free market. The entire industry is shrouded in secrecy. You cannot get prices or shop around for doctors, hospitals, drugs or insurance plans – yes you can compare insurance plan rates, but there is no disclosure or way to determine what the prices are paying for.

                      The fee-for-service structure incentivizes specialists and surgeons to perform more procedures and surgeries, and to forego conservative therapy or to document it with the most minimum standards required in order to get a patient/customer into the OR.

                      Tort reform is needed, as medical malpractice rates increase the costs of healthcare and of unnecessary testing. Practitioners and hospitals operate under the pressure to avoid lawsuits when the focus should really be solely on outcomes, evidence-based-medicine and reducing accidental injury and M&M rates.

                    4. The drug industry is an example of private industry that is not always efficient or performs better than government agencies. The industry has a ton of waste, inefficiency and corporate greed. If the recent price gouging stories of Valeant, Turing and Mylan pharmaceuticals have not been evidence enough that sometimes, some laws or regulations might be necessary in order to protect customers, then I don’t know of many better arguments.

                      Yes, the FDA absolutely needs to be revamped and have a faster, more affordable and timely process of approving generics, drugs already approved in other developed nations and experimental drugs, but with the exception of regulations and restrictions in getting drugs approved, the pharma industry literally has tons of competition and almost no regulation on business practices. Perdue has already been sued and is continuing to get sued for blatantly lying to doctors about the addictive properties of Oxy and for basically causing the opioid epidemic.

                    5. The libertarian argument for free markets and increased competition is challenging for the pharma industry. The industry actually voluntarily regulated itself – PHRMA guidelines – were created in 2002 after the DOJ was about to crack down on them for unethical business practices, off label promotion, kickbacks, etc.

                      The patients/customers have almost no choice and there is no transparency. I don’t know how to make this market more free, because there is already a lot of competition (for the most part and in most major cities) from hospitals to doctors to drug companies to health insurance providers, yet the costs keep rising, and we are not privy to the said costs nor is government or healthcare working to drastically reduce said costs.

        2. Rand’s replacement bill is not all da stuff. I read it. Meh.

            1. Take a gander for yourself. I’m just not so into this replacement bullshit anyway. Just repeal the damn thing already.

              1. They tried and tried and tried when Obama was President. For some strange reason, it’s a lot harder to pass a repeal now.

                1. it’s almost like they don’t/didn’t actually want a repeal, just a cudgel to use for votes. For some reason, I suspect the lack of a repeal may result in some primary challenges.

                2. IIRC, the GOP do not have the numbers to repeal. I believe that it would take 2/3 majority to repeal the entire law. They can, and will, reconcile certain provisions of the law, because reconciliation only requires simple majority. And the only sections they can reconcile are provisions to spending (or taxation, I cannot recall which or both).

            2. National Review has an interesting artice about the political difficulties of replacing Obamacare here.

        3. I can almost guarantee that the ‘something good’ he’s been promised was along the lines of ‘vote with the Party or find yourself frozen out and unsupported come re-election time’.

          1. I think it’s pretty much been proven that support by other politicians these days is not all the shit. In fact, it may make things worse for you if you’re endorsed by establishment politicians.

      2. Yeah, he knows all AGs are assholes

      3. Maybe it’s that the number of politically qualified persons who aren’t fans of drug war & civil asset forfeiture is negligible?meaning you won’t get anyone better on those matters who could be confirmed?and that he’s a good candidate overall. It’s not like these are the only issues.

      4. Maybe Rand thought that it’d be better if Mr. Sessions was in the branch of gov’t that executed the laws rather than wrote them.

    5. Every Republican did. Even ones who pretend to be otherwise

  2. OT: My 13yo cousin said that to he and his friends, an example of an “ancient” video game is……. Halo 1.



    1. They should be locked in a room and forced to play pong for hours.

      1. Halo is ancient.

        Pong, Tetris, SMB… Those are timeless.

        1. There is that. Most of the games that the kids love are just the latest AAA release hyped to all hell – they playthrough it for 5 hours, finish the game, never touch it again. But it was the most anticipated thing in their lives – until the next release is announced.

          Hardly anyone will be playing Halo in 2021 – if the consoles even entertained the possibility of allowing it. People are *still* playing DOOM (not the recent DOOOOM).

          Hell, there’s a thriving player and development community for Nethack – which started out as a *mainframe* game in 1980. Or look at JA 2.13.

          1. I do give the kid credit though. He has been playing Super Mario World on emulator and loved it when I brought my NES, SNES, and N64 over.

            1. If you can get him a NES Mini, he might lose his mind!

              Though I’m told the only way to experience it is on CRT (I wouldn’t know, I’m a Commodore kid).

          2. I will now speak as a former Bungie fanboy and throw all blame on Microsoft. Had Bungie not needed to

            a) target a retarded PC instead of non-retarded PC
            b) hit the retarded PC’s release date

            Halo could have been another Doom. They would have had proper wide open spaces, and level design that’s not “oops, we’re out of time, back you go through old levels”.

            What I’m saying, we coulda gotten fully 3D Marathon experience. And fuck it, Marathon 2 is a classic!

            Also, Myth: The Fallen Lords is the best RTS ever made.

            1. Also, Myth: The Fallen Lords is the best RTS ever made.

              That’s a weird way of saying “anything Relic has ever made, even the weird stuff”.

            2. What I’m saying, we coulda gotten fully 3D Marathon experience. And fuck it, Marathon 2 is a classic!

              Absolutely QFT.

              After hours at the printing company… cranking up the Quadra 950s and playing Marathon on the LAN for hours.

              Fucking Bungie. Fucking Microsoft.

              I’m STILL bitter about that shit. =(

          3. I’ll be playing Halo CE in 2021 and onward. I love that game. I love punching the gold elites to death (on Legendary). I love all the dumb rules my brother and I had to invent to make the game harder than it would otherwise have been.

            Of course, it was my first console and first console game, so there’s that.

      2. See how those little bastards handle Robotron 2084.

    2. Don’t pay attention to him. He doesn’t even have a bike.

  3. *grabs whiskey bottle, starts drinking*

  4. This is the thing that worries me most about Trump. And from the beginning, Trump’s law and order rhetoric was very concerning for me. If not for that, I probably could have voted for him.

    I think though, we really have to see how Trump ‘evolves’, God I hate that term, on the issues. If he comes to some enlightenment on this topic, and restrains Sessions from doing really crazy stuff, like going after legal cannabis in states, then maybe it won’t be so bad. If he lets Sessions just run wild with all of his reefer madness fantasies, then obviously we have a serious problem. I think maybe someone close to Trump should have him look at polls on that issue. Not a popular thing for a alleged ‘populist’ to do.

    1. A lot depends on what priorities Trump sets for the DoJ. I bet that pot and civil asset forfeiture are not high on the list. (Opioid abuse might be, though.) I suspect priorities will be illegal immigration and Islamic terror, which is fine with me.

      Look at it this way: Hillary wanted “mistress of disaster” Jaime Gorelick as AG. Feel better now?

      1. “Feel better now?”

        I feel better that Hillary will never be president. It’s hard to top that. Sessions is a minor concern compared to that, but still a concern.

    2. Granted he was speaking to the National Sheriffs Association, but this morning Trump vowed to stop all these illegal drugs coming into this country. With Trump, “stopping illegal drugs” might mean he’s planning on legalizing all drugs and *poof* no more illegal drugs, but I suspect not.

      1. Sounds like Trump is working up to getting in on some sweet crony deals with the cannabis industry for when he retires from POTUS.

    3. A lot depends on what priorities Trump sets for the DoJ. I bet that pot and civil asset forfeiture are not high on the list. (Opioid abuse might be, though.) I suspect priorities will be illegal immigration and Islamic terror, which is fine with me.

      Look at it this way: Hillary wanted “mistress of disaster” Jaime Gorelick as AG. Feel better now?

      1. Squirrels!

        1. Squirrels are priority? What about moose?

      2. I will be pleasantly surprised if asset forfeiture goes away, but I highly doubt that will happen.

    4. I think, re: pot legalization, it’s too late. At least in Denver, it has become too big to re-criminalize.
      If Sessions tried to close it down, I think he’d be rebuffed. Might even force Congress to address the issue, or *gasp* make the courts show where the Constitution authorizes the Federal government to ban it.
      That always pisses me off: they had to pass an amendment to ban alcohol, because the feds didnt have the authority, but, magically, just a few yrs later, the Federal government now has the power to ban pot?

      1. Oh yeah one of my favorite things to fuck with conservatives who style themselves strict constructionists is ask where the government has the power to ban drugs.

        1. Let me guess at the responses you get.

          1. But I have children!

          2. Democrats are dopers! Why do you support Democrats? Are you one of them dopers!?

          Conservatives can be just as stupid and authoritarian as progs.

          I’ve posted this here before, but one time on WaPo, this guy posted a long, very long post about how Conservatives are for freedom and how under his ideas everyone would be equal under the law and the Constitution would be followed to the letter, and everyone would be welcome in his new Constitution party, except for people with tatoos and potheads. And it wasn’t sarcasm, he was dead serious.

          1. “..everyone would be welcome in his new Constitution party, except for people with tatoos and potheads.”

            Damn, 0 for 2.

            *kicks pebble, shuffles away*

  5. Reposting (didn’t think there would be another blog post tonight):
    Comedian cons his way into giving a TED talk. Talks about the future. People aren’t sure whether or not to take him seriously.

    It’s the same dude who had his show yanked from Adult Swim (it was called ‘World Peace’) for having ‘alt-right connections.’ Spoiler alert: he didn’t have any alt-right connections.

    1. You don’t need any alt-right connections, just assertions. Even hints will do for the latest witch hunters.

  6. Crimmny, all the progressive screaming about DeVos being nominated to a mostly useless cabinet postion and the most objectionable nominee is put forward for one of the most powerful cabinet posts and all the left can muster is a half-hearted, “racist!”

    1. “all the left can muster is a half-hearted, “racist!”

      Well, I mean that’s pretty much all they had on Devos too. It’s pretty much all they have.

      1. Bigotry toward Christians and hatred of school choice seems to animate them more than the human embodiment of the pro-drug-war mentality.

        1. One takes away (at least some small, measure amount of) power from the state.
          One gives power to the state.

          Seems consistent to me.

    2. Union dues to the dnc.

    3. DeVos’ confirmation hearing demonstrated her inability to answer basic questions and that is what riled people up against her. It wasn’t just the issue of vouchers.

      With Sessions, you couldn’t even bring up any questions. The senate is full of snowflakes now. I am sadly surprised that Rand Paul went along with the crowd on this and that he didn’t disagree with Trump on the immigration “ban.”

      1. Exactly! I know many conservatives that were against DeVos. I live in SC, a deep red state, and all over Tim Scott and Lindsay Graham’s Facebook pages and their websites, people all across the state, including many avid Trump supporters were absolutely against DeVos, and vowed not to forget in 2018. I was actually surprised to see the number of people across the board who are ardently opposed to her.

        I think almost anyone else (with experience and proper knowledge) advocating school choice would have been a much greater success.

      2. It’s hard to answer questions about a complex system when the people asking the goddamn questions don’t let you elaborate. It’s not like those were just yes/no questions.

  7. OT: Seattle cuts ties with Wells Fargo, citing Dakota Access Pipeline.

    The crowd erupted in cheers and chanted “water is life” when the council unanimously passed the measure, which directs officials to end the city’s contract with the San Francisco-based bank once it expires in 2018 and not to make new investments in Wells Fargo securities for three years.

    Yeah, I’m sure y’all care about water.

    “The example that we have set today can become a beacon of hope” for activists across the country, said Councilmember Kshama Sawant, who co-sponsored the legislation.

    It is sanity’s hope that Kshama Sawant is removed from power.

    1. Stagecoaches and Injuns have a complicated history

    2. “The example that we have set today can become a beacon of hope”

      I don’t understand how anyone talks like this. I make sure that what I’m going to say makes sense before I say it, unless I’m *very* drunk.

      Seattle should be careful. California has a lot going for it (weather, mostly), so people will always want to live there. If Seattle becomes more of a shithole, there’s really no reason to live there. They might become the first intentional-Detroit in history.

      1. Religious people often talk like that, and Progressivism is a religion.

    3. They have a goddamn Lenin statue in Fremont and it isn’t there ironically.

      Kshama isn’t going anywhere.

      1. I’ve seen this episode of Sliders.

    4. These people are effectively loony bin candidates. That actually makes me want to make WF my main bank.

      1. It’s mine, and my youngest brother works at one of its Seattle branches.

      2. Wells Fargo has historically been one of the biggest players in cocaine money laundering, so it’s got that going for it.

        1. That’s unlikely to stop any libertarians from banking with them.

            1. Do you know how much paper work you have to do to completely shut your account? Then you’ve got to fill out a ton of paperwork to open a new one…Fuck it, let’s watch Archer.

              (If you don’t think that all of the other banks are probably doing some of the same heinous shit, you’re deluding yourself.)

        2. But OTOH Wells Fargo remembered to send me a birthday form letter this week, so I still like this.

        3. Wells Fargo also had the recent scandal of opening a bunch of fake accounts and cards in clients names to boost numbers and then firing anyone who complained to the ethics hotline. So they’re not all good.

  8. The Sessionasaurus is loose! Hide your weed and puppies, dopers!

    1. My puppy ate all my weed 🙁
      Just kidding, i got plenty.

      1. Plenty of puppies?

        1. Yes, Mike. My bitch just had a litter of seven. How many do you want?

          Just kidding, but that has happened to me in the past.

          1. Seven puppies is a lot of puppies. If I were you, I’d stick to having a lot of weed instead. Easier to deal with.

  9. “Oh, Senator Paul, I’m go glad to see you, you gotta stop Jeff Sessions, his asset forfeiture policies are…Wait, Senator Paul, what are you doing?”

  10. Well, I’ll try to look on the bright side.

    Of course, being prolife should be the *absolute minimum* the Senate should look for in an AG.

    It would be nice if the Attorney General could be anti-theft as well as anti-murder, but I suppose you take what you can get.

    1. So he opposes the death penalty?

      1. Can you think of any relevant distinctions between a convicted murderer and a baby in the womb? Any relevant distinctions whatsoever?

        1. If you want to go full prog, you may as well criticize him for voting against Obamacare, the greatest prolife bill ever!!!

        2. Convicted murderers are definitely viable.

          Fetuses in the womb may or may not be viable.

          That’s a relevant distinction.

          1. So you *are* going to go full-on prog, are you?

            OK then, here are some talking points you can use:

            “In his 1996 HBO special Back in Town, the late comic legend and social critic George Carlin nailed the hypocrisy of social conservatives who rail against abortion and birth control with “pro-life” rhetoric while simultaneously attacking social programs designed to support struggling families, supporting war and inciting violence against women. “They’re all in favor of the unborn,” Carlin says in the clip. “They will do anything for the unborn. But once you’re born, you’re on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don’t want to know about you!” Carlin paced the stage, hyping the audience with assertion that the same conservatives who use pro-family rhetoric object to programs like food aid, free school lunches and cash payments to the nation’s many deeply impoverished families. “No nothing! No neonatal care, no day care, no Head Start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing! If you’re pre-born, you’re fine. If you’re preschool, you’re fucked!””

        3. I always thought the “but teh deth pinalty!” retort was really retarded.

          1. Ted S. adopted the prog talking point that if you’re *really* prolife you have to be against the death penalty in all cases.

            Next he’ll start babbling about Head Start.

            1. I am against the death penalty because I don’t trust the state. I don’t get a fuck about murderers.

              1. This.

                I’m more just sick and tired of Eddie’s monomaniacal fixation on imposing Catholic dogma on the rest of us.

                1. Whatever, Ted S., but what you *said* was that you can’t be against abortion without being against the death penalty, which is a talking point for progressives, including, I might add, Catholic progressives.

                  Perhaps you’re a Catholic dogmatist?

            2. I’m not sure what Catholic church you were brought up in, but I distinctly remember being taught that being pro-life meant opposing abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia in all forms.

        4. Oh good, an abortion thread. Just what everybody wants.
          *Wacks Eddie in the head w/ rolled up newspaper*
          No! Bad Eddie! Bad!

          1. “We’re talking about the post of Attorney General and suddenly you bring up abortion, that was totally out of left field!”

            1. Lol. Ok. But really, Eddie, does the AG have much to do with what’s basically already settled law?
              Sure, maybe a few more Groseman (or whatever that monster’s name was) types will be prosecuted, although I would think it’s a state’s responsibility to prosecute that kind of thing.
              I agree Sessions is bad. So far, it’s the only real criticism of Trump I have, although the travel ban could have been better planned/communicated.
              Are there specific state laws you think a Hillary AG would have sued to overturn? I just don’t see AG having much to do with abortion.

              1. Bear in mind that the DOJ vets judicial candidates – Trump may already have his list of potential Supreme Court nominees, but he’ll have to rely on the DOJ for lower-court judgeships.

                So a key issue with prolifers is whether the lower federal courts will end up with a bunch of squishy Republican judges or committed constitutionalists who have the intellectual firepower to go toe-to-toe with the best the progs have to offer?

                1. Put it another way: How many times will prolifers have to read triumphant articles in the MSM about how Republican-appointed judge so and so agrees that such and such prolife law is unconstitutional?

                  1. From 2012

                    “U.S. District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III temporarily blocked the new law that, if enforced, could shut down the state’s only abortion clinic.

                    “Jordan (pronounced JER-dun) is a former GOP county chairman. He was recommended for the bench in 2006 by his former boss, Republican U.S. Sen. Trent Lott, and nominated by President George W. Bush. But even in a state where top Republicans supported a failed 2011 ballot initiative to declare that life begins when a human egg is fertilized, attorneys from across the political spectrum say Jordan is not ideologically inclined.”

                    Translation: Judge Jordan allowed the clinic to keep operating even though the abortion doctors didn’t have local hospital admitting privileges as required by statute. “Because the abortionists leave the state after their abortion shifts, they are not available to provide continuity of care for patients experiencing complications.”

                    Because allowing abortion clinics like that to continue operating is what progs mean by “non-ideological.”

                  2. I understand what you mean, but the fact of the matter is that Roe v. Wade is established precedent. All courts obey precedent. There are times precedent are overturned, but that’s supreme Court level stuff. Any judge appointed by any president to any court lower than the supreme Court is going to rule according to precedent, and even the supreme Court will be very slow to overturn RvW, even if all nine of the Morgul were Republican appointees.

                    1. Roe v. Wade is a lawless decision which means whatever the judges want it to mean.

                      By its very nature, the decision is vague and subjective – if the Justices were into clarity and objectivity they wouldn’t have issued the decision in the first place.

                      So the job of lower court judges, until the Supreme Court overrules a bad and wicked precedent, is to contain the damage, or at least try to. Let the Supremes work out the “logic” of their evil decision.

                    2. “Oh, so you say abortion is a constitutional right but it can be regulated so long as the regulation isn’t an undue burden? OK, then, it doesn’t seem like an undue burden to require the abortionist to have local hospital admission privileges. Hey, if you don’t like that, overrule it.”

                    3. Imagine you’re a local party boss in some Communist state, and you get an order from the Central Committee telling you to “hunt down and exterminate all kulaks and wreckers.”

                      Assuming for the moment you don’t resign (though that ought to be on the table).

                      Do you take the “nonideological” approach and look for wealthy peasants to kill, because that’s probably what the Central Committee has in mind?

                      Or do you adopt delaying tactics, telling the Central Committee that, gosh, you looked for kulaks and wreckers but couldn’t find any, but you’ll definitely keep looking!

                    4. (Do I get points for not going Godwin on that one?)

                    5. Yes, collect your cookie at your nearest bakery/gas station.

        5. Um, the murderer brought it on himself?

      2. Well there was that one bill proposal in Alabama where he wanted the death penalty for peddling drugs…

        1. My 8:32 reply to See Double You was intended for you.

        2. Good people don’t smoke marijuana, Lee, and 98% of all asset forfeitures come from violent drug dealers.

        3. You know who else wanted the death penalty for selling drugs? Choose one:

          a. Rodrigo Duterte

          b. Newt Gingrich

          c. Hitler

          1. For cryin’ out loud, I’m agreeing Sessions is bad, I’m just trying to look on the bright side, such as there is. At least the bright side from my point of view.

            I want to acknowledge that many prolifers are glad he was appointed – because, IMHO, prolifers have grown accustomed to betrayal from Republicans and are so enthusiastic when a Republican AG is actually prolife.

            My response to this prolife enthusiasm is below at 8:09 PM.

    2. To adapt the Chris Rock monologue.

      “Republicans say, ‘I’m not pro-abortion.’ Well, what do you want, a cookie? You ran on a prolife platform, you need prolifers to get elected, you’re not *supposed* to be pro-abortion, you low-expectation-having motherfucker!”

  11. Rand always said he wasn’t his dad and he wasn’t libertarian – he’s a Republican. His dad got away with being Dr. No, Rand might not have the same slack and he sees which way the winds are blowing. Sad.

    1. He said he’s a libertarian Republican. He’s said that on more than one occasion.

    2. He sees he can’t accomplish anything on his own, and that Dr. No got nobody anywhere.

    1. Yep. I’m waiting to hear *anything* about this from the MSM.

  12. Libertarian moment over?

    1. Of course, it’s now the epoch of the Great Orange Trumpallo. Where you been, bro?

    1. Bannon looks like Johnny Cash in Folsom in that photo. Just needz more black.

      “Bannon, described by one associate as “the most well-read person in Washington,” is known for recommending books to colleagues and friends, according to multiple people who have worked alongside him. He is a voracious reader who devours works of history and political theory “in like an hour,” said a former associate whom Bannon urged to read Sun Tzu’s The Art of War.”

      But obviously he doesn’t freaking love science since he’s a Republican. Amirite?

      1. “the most well-read person in Washington”

        That’s like the tallest midget in the circus.

      2. They seem to have gone out of their way to light the guy in an unflattering way. None of that Hollywood Photoshopping for him.

    2. BTW, thanks for that link. I’ve been wanting to learn more about Bannon. I didn’t even know who the hell the guy is before he joined Trump’s team. I’m also constantly curious about how much influence Thiel is having on Trump.

      1. Mencius Moldbug.

        The core of our problem is that there is no one with the secure authority to fix things. The core of our solution is to find a man, and put him in charge, with a real chain of command, and a clear ownership structure.

        Real leadership would undertake a proper corporate restructuring of USG: Pardon and retire all employees of the old regime; formalize obligations as simple financial instruments; nationalize and restructure the banks, media, and universities; and begin the long slow process of organic cultural recovery from centuries of dysfunction.

        I believe that’s some sort of “we’re stronger together, you know, like a bundle of sticks – but we need a Man of Steel to lead us” stuff. Like “Make America Great” is not quite the same aspiration as “Make Americans Great”. Serving the needs of the Homeland is your highest duty, comrade.

        1. Curtis believes in the benevolent dictator. Always has. I briefly met him in college, strange dude.

        2. That guy definitely sounds like a fascist.

          1. Yes. And he’s not a moron like your average neo Nazi. He’s thought about it and he means it.

            1. Well, I mean it’d be ok if I’m made Supreme Overlord. I’d just fire all the bureaucrats and then leave everyone alone. But you’re more likely to get a Mugabe. The guy is wacked. There’s a thin line between genius and insanity they say.

            2. Yeah, the argument goes back at least as far as Plato’s Republic.

          2. I like Moldbug for his dissection of the problems of leftism and of democracy itself, not for his policy prescriptions. He seemed more like a monarchist to me.

        3. When the organizer of a computer science conference canceled Yarvin’s appearance following an outcry over his blogging under his nom de web, Bannon took note: Breitbart News decried the act of censorship in an article about the programmer-blogger’s dismissal.

          Ok, comrade.

        4. I like Moldbug too. He reads deep history.

        5. What Moldbug needs to understand is that while doing the things he lists would be great – the guy who had the power to do that would have the power to do whatever he wanted. If that sort of angel existed among men, then we wouldn’t need limited government. Because they don’t, we do – and so periodically have to violently remove the cruft that builds up.

          Government’s should come with a built-in 4 year lifespan.

        6. Together we form the mighty faggot!

        7. Pardon and retire all employees of the old regime

          “Pardon and retire”?

          Is that a euphemism for a one way helicopter ride?

          1. So they jump out at the with a parachute? Like a going away present?

      2. The best thing about Bannon is that he was smart enough to secure a large chunk of the Seinfeld distribution rights.

        The second-best thing about Bannon is that he’s a slob.

    3. I had to go see what Politico had to say about Moldbug where I found this quote:

      “To believe in nonsense is an unforgeable [sic] demonstration of loyalty.

      Which retard reporter/editor threw that {sic}?

      1. I noticed that, too. It’s an unusual word in that context, but it makes sense.

      2. It’s pretty easy to guess what Politico thinks of Moldbug.

        1. My guess is they had to look him up. Is there a Voxsplainer on Moldbug?

          I’m still amused they couldn’t comprehend “unforgeable” from root and context and assumed it must be a misspelling of “unforgettable”.

    4. I hope Bannon gets those uppity generals to toe the line.

      1. Now you’ve went and done it. The tow cult in gonna pounce.

        1. Man, you ain’t lion.

    5. Taleb is entertaining. He’s one cynical son of a bitch though.

      1. “He’s one cynical son of a bitch though.”

        So you’re saying he’d fit in just fine around here?

        I read the article in that link and I think I agreed with everything he said. Especially about elites fucking with the system and not caring about the results because it won’t affect them. That’s what I think about Congress. Why should they care if what they pass is a clusterfuck that affects a lot of people in a negative way? It won’t affect them, they’re immune to the law.

        1. I didn’t say I disagreed with him. Cynicism comes easy to me. I guess that’s why I find him entertaining. But as GSL stated below, Taleb’s ego is yuuuuuuugggggge.

      2. He can be an insufferable prima donna as well, but he is undeniably smart and very interesting

  13. Worth noting,the”party of civil liberties” issues with Jeff Sessions don’t really overlap withReason‘s (stated) concerns. Of course, considering the editorial direction this electronic publication has taken, Shackford could be secretly dog-whistling VOTING FRAUD RIGHTS!

    1. This is a cuck-free zone, cuck.

      1. Cock! He wants cockfighting.


  14. Jefferson Beauregard “Jeff” Sessions III. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

    I do suspect he is an American.

    1. Beauregard?

      There goes the Robert E. Lee…

      1. Jeff Sessions is the Boss Hog character with a bigger budget.

      2. Joan Baez is also an American, but the song “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down’ was written by a Canadian.

    2. “Jefferson Beauregard “Jeff” Sessions III”

      Crikey, does he have some slaves in his basement who work the baccer fields in the dead of night?

      1. Bammer’s not really baccy country. That’s NC, KY, SC, and a couple of others.

        1. Virginia also.

  15. And I still think if Trump were smart, he’d nominate a few Democrat senators to head the soon-to-be-redundant cabinet positions and then just get Congress to defund as much as possible and EO their operation as much as possible to remove any discretion from the department head in how the agency is run. I mean, why not nominate somebody like Elizabeth Warren to head the DoEd, hire DeVos as some sort of “educational advisor” to tell him how the department should really be run and then issue EO’s to make Warren run the DoEd the way DeVos wants it run?

    Which is at least one good thing about Sessions getting the AG nod – at least that evil bastard ain’t in the Senate any more and presumably his career path is at a dead end. What’s John Ashcroft been up to lately?

    1. it’s not like his successor will be cut from a far different mold.

    2. Meh. The point of having underlings in the first place is that the President can’t ride herd over all his bureaucracies at the same time.

      It would be amusing, but even if they accepted it would be too much effort to make sure they didn’t color in around the blanks of his EOs to undermine them and even if he managed to box them in perfectly they’d just resign.

      Now, publicly making it known he was considering them for the post and/or inviting them to meet him to discuss it, like he did Mitt Romney, would be valid and given how much the prog base hates Trump could be a kiss of death for them.

      Which is why they would all just publicly say no like musicians at his inauguration parties.

    3. SoS used to be the springboard to the presidency, a path She-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named tried to resurrect and which one can imagine could be resurrected fairly easily. Not by Sessions, of course.

  16. For the hundredth time, the primary qualification for Attorney General, since Watergate, is personal loyalty to the President so as to protect him from scandal investigations.

    The only Republicans who were willing to bet their political futures on Donald Trump during his campaign were people who had no political future–except for Jeff Sessions.

    John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin, Chris Christie, Newt Gingrich, and Jeff Sessions. Five out of six of those names had no political power to speak of, and no real influence beyond their fame either. The other one was Jeff Sessions. Trump trusts Sessions to watch his back because Sessions threw his lot behind Trump during the campaign when no one else would–and that is why Sessions is the AG.

    It has nothing to do with Sessions’ stand on any policy–except his policy of watching Trump’s back. And Trump really needs that kind of protection, too, because every Democrat in Washington, half the establishment Republicans, and a lot of the Tea Party leaders, too, would love to see Trump impeached. So don’t read too much into Trump’s appointment of Sessions. It’s simply about loyalty–it’s not about policy.

    1. So don’t read too much into Trump’s appointment of Sessions.

      I feel better now. Thank you.

      1. Yeah, I don’t think the concern is trying to read Trump’s agenda for DoJ. The concern is Sessions’ agenda, and the likelihood of Trump letting him just do whatever.

        1. That’s my take, too. Funny enough, that’s the opposite of what Fauxcahontas tweeted, wherein she decried Sessions as the yes man instead of Trump.

    2. I don’t expect any better from Trump, I do from Paul.

    3. Well, it’s absolutely a loyalty thing that got Sessions the AG gig. Now we only hope that Trump has the wisdom to keep the garden gnome in check.

      1. Trump has already said that marijuana should be decided on a state by state basis and that he would respect state laws.

        That was my biggest concern–that Sessions would raid, raid, raid, raid, raid, raid, raid.

        1. He also once said all drugs should be legal. Which is the correct position.

          1. I don’t see a conflict there.

            If he things states should legalize it and that their laws should be respected by the feds, then there’s no inherent conflict.

        2. I don’t really buy Trump as a drug warrior either, but while I think it’s plausible that he’ll keep his legal attack dog away from the potheads, it’s still perfectly likely he’ll still be having him do unpleasant things to keep up with his law and order attitude.

          I suppose time will tell.

        3. If anything, Trump seems to be too hands-on with what the administration is doing, unlike Obama who plausibly claimed he only knew about what his administration was doing when he read it in the papers.

    4. This makes a lot of sense

  17. Fuck Paul. A million times Fuck you Paul you sack of shit.

    Being in California my consolation is that if Sessions decides to fuck with marijuana legalization, politicians here might actually fight, and hard, because RESISTANCE! If it were anybody’s else under any other president I think they would roll over because none of them wanted legalization anyways.

  18. It wasn’t too long ago that people voted to confirm those they disagreed with merely because that person met the qualifications for the job. Their political positions weren’t relevant as the executive had the right to nominate people of his persuasion so long as they met the qualifications for the job.

    As far as I can tell, Sessions meets the qualifications for the job of Attorney General. Therefore he should have been confirmed by a 100-0 vote unless someone could show that he was unqualified. This isn’t Harriet Meyers. He’s qualified, so he should be confirmed. And once in place we can gripe about his actions.

    It worked that way for over two centuries. It should work that way now, elections having consequences and all that.

    1. Obviously the Senate elections had consequences, otherwise I disagree with you.

      There used to be fewer contentious Cabinet nominations, but then, Cabinet officers used to have less power than they do now.

      The more power these officials have, the more second-guessing the Senate ought to do when the President proposes to give someone that power.

      1. Then we should reel in the power these people have, not diminish executive privilege in who can be put in a cabinet post.

        1. The Senate should vet the people to whom they are asked to give their “advice and consent.”

          I’m afraid that what you’re advocating is buck-passing – “don’t blame us, we just confirmed the guy, it was the President who nominated him!”

          1. With the decline in the rule of law, cabinet officers have more and more discretion, so the question of who occupies the office becomes more and more important policywise. I wish that weren’t the case, but it is.

        2. I agree. Let the people have the government that they voted for, good and hard.

    2. It worked that way for over two centuries.

      Baloney. It is unusual for a cabinet nom to be rejected in a floor vote, but that’s because the nomination is nearly always withdrawn if it looks like they don’t have the votes. Which happens a lot when the president picks somebody who’s way far to their end of the spectrum.

      I’m not seeing the benefit of giving the president even more unchecked power, tbh.

  19. There’s a rumor going around saying Plain is gonna be the Ambassador to Canada.



    1. Let me guess…from what I hear from the Canadians on H&R, Trudeau would approve Palin’s appointment and give her a good down-home Canadian welcome?

      1. Oh, shit, Palin!

        Yeah, Trump doesn’t have the brains to do it. It’d be as trolly as appointing Farage as his “special representative” to EU.

      2. “A good down-home Canadian welcome”

        So he would make sure she wasn’t a drain on their healthcare system before she was allowed in?

        1. He’s not man enough to give a good down-home Canadian welcome.

    2. Plain?

      Er…Rubio? Jeb?

      Cruz would be better, but he’s way too ugly to qualify as “plain”.

      1. Argh!


        1. What does John McCain wake up screaming every night?

  20. Trump is fucked. PM Zoolander’s trade minister is ready to rumble!

    “It’s good to be good at playing defence, but the best defence is a strong offence,” she said. “And Canada definitely will be and is good at taking strong offensive positions.”

    Huh, I’m not sure competing with Trump when offensive positions are at stake is wise, but…

    The American readout of the meeting said the pair discussed “dairy market access.” The Canadian account did not mention this issue.

    “As I would expect from a representative from Wisconsin, Speaker Ryan did indeed raise the issue of dairy,” Freeland confirmed.

    “As I always do, I forcefully defended our national interest and I forcefully defended that sector.”

    I.e. ability of Canada to limit amount of milk produced in the country, and ban import of cheaper milk and dairy from elsewhere, because that’s what level playing field is all about.

    1. For background, yes, that’s the woman who cried when it looked like Canada-EU Freest Tradingest Agreement would founder after seven years of negotiations, of which her party did…six months or so.

      And if you want more, I recommend her magnum opus, a true work of Classical Liberalism.

      1. She was also bitched slapped in front of millions of viewers by….Bill Maher.

        She’s part of our ‘war room,’ Pan. Her and her overemotional drivel is gonna take on T-Rex and Trump.

        1. T-Rex vs the Great Orange Trumpallo. Hmm, you could be onto something. As T-Rex and the Great Orange Trumpallo are raging through Tokyo, Godzilla also appears, and then out of nowhere the Great White Squaw appears with her Tomahawk of Social Justice. Who wins? The suspense awaits…

          1. Is this where I plug King of Tokyo? You bet it is!

      2. “There has always been some gap between rich and poor in this country”

        Does anyone ever talk about the gap between the rich and poor in Europe? You have a few people who have had all the wealth for 500 years or more and the rest of the population are effectively the lower middle class version of a serf. You don’t see much of the upward mobility you see in the USA. But never mind that, let’s talk about the USA cuz guns and other stuff that no one really needs.

        1. Shockingly, leftie politicians in Europe talk about it all the time. Because it’s always growing all the time and by now Europe is basically a Mad Max deathzone (but Mad Max 1, not Road Warrior, that’s the US), except of course health care is guaranteed (that’s Fury Road).

          Here’s Saint Margaret, demolishing a cretin on the issue, 26 goddamn years ago.

          1. Yeah, I know. Healthcare if guaranteed for only 50% of your earnings. Whether you want it or not.

    2. We’re in such great hands.

    3. My bowels thank her

    4. “Come back here, you coward, I’ll chew your legs off!”

    5. “As I always do, I forcefully defended our national interest and I forcefully defended that sector.”

      Jesus Christ, she sounds like a little girl trying to act tough.

  21. Maybe Shikha needs to do a European tour

    1. *Furiously typing letter to Trump* Don’t let that one back in!

      /just kidding

      1. Where are these liberals she speaks of?

    2. I’m also emitting how many of those who didn’t want to answer agreed.

      1. Hmmm… Wondering become emitting. Nice job Auto spell, can’t wait until an algorithm is driving my car.

    1. Pantsed the link, brah.

        1. Do it often, but never look at it?

    2. A Kennedy?

      1. I thought for sure before I couldn’t click the link, that I was going to see Chelsea’s ugly mug.

        1. That’ll ruin a good evening

      2. I think his real name is Eight-of Eleven.

    3. Aren’t they all dead?

    4. I had a great joke about how at least with a Kennedy as governor, given their ability to avoid prison, at least they wouldn’t contribute to the overcrowding problem at the Illinois Governors Wing of the federal penitentiary.

  22. Sessions is a well-known supporter of the drug war, and back in the 1990s wanted to execute dealers. He is a major supporter of civil asset forfeiture, the system by which police and prosecutors seize and keep citizens property based on suspicion of crimes, not their convictions.

    Fuck, and fuck.

    1. He is right about one thing, if you don’t want the laws enforcened, then change them. That’s what really needs to happen. We need a new Congress. If we had a decent Congress, then who the AG was and even who the President was wouldn’t seem so dire. They want to delegate all power to the executive so they don’t get blamed for anything.

      1. It’s extremely hard to change laws at this point. Getting 50% + 1 of the House, 60 senators, and the prez to agree on something is like ordering a two-topping pizza for all the women Bill Clinton has boned would enjoy.

        1. Sperm and regret?

  23. Walk through living room; SIL is giggling at Melissa McCarthy’s portrayal of Sean Spicer melting down at a press conference. Leans over to my brother and asks, “Who is she supposed to be?”

      1. The first couple minutes are pretty funny. But the presstitutes are played totally straight, as if they’re not in fact the other side of the shitty A-frame that is the presidential press pool.

        1. I liked the moose-lambs joke.

  24. How President Trump Could Seize More Power After a Terrorist Attack.

    Spoiler alert: They quote the concerns about too much Presidential power of Jack Goldsmith and John Yoo, the two men most responsible for building the machine Trump now has the keys to.

    But it does feature this great line with regards to Yoo’s piteous mewling: This was as if Trump had written an essay arguing that he was concerned about developers adding their names to buildings in lettering that was too large.

        1. Damn you!

      1. Good pun, but yeah, wasn’t he the dirt bag who wrote the “torture memo”? He should be waterboarded daily during a life sentence.

        1. By “screw Yoo” I meant “don’t take his legal ideas seriously again.”

        2. Yes, he was. Alberto Gonzalez was his boss at the time.

      2. Screw yoo too!

    1. You mean politicians will abuse crises and use any pretext to expand control? Shocking.

    1. Alex Jones is on it man.

      1. I heard that whole thing on the JRE last week. Now this? Are interdimensional psychic vampires a thing too?

  25. His confirmation doesn’t mean that additional criminal justice reforms and protections can’t happen, but it’s probably going to be a tougher battle.

    I agree he has shitty views, and will take a hard-stance on shitty laws that exist….

    …but what exactly is the rationale for the claim that he makes anything “tougher”? The DoJ enforces the law. congress makes (or reforms it).

    If there’s going to be things like reforms of drug law, then getting Sessions OUT of congress is actually better for reform. Because its one less drug-warrior with a vote.

    I don’t see the justification for shirt-rending about the future. unless i missed something?

    1. All you are missing is the libertarian tendency to focus on the empty part of the glass.

      1. I’m a glass half full person. But this foolish libertarian moment stuff pisses me off. I mean I’m also a realist.

    2. The DoJ enforces the law. congress makes (or reforms it).

      Ever heard of prosecutorial discretion?

      1. You know any prosecutors who aren’t dicks? Except for that Preet. He’s so dreamy.

        1. The best thing about Preet is that he’s a dick to everyone. No professional courtesy.

      2. I already said he’s going to take a harder line w/ laws already on the books.

        But that wasn’t the question – which is about “future change”. with him out of congress it should be *easier* – not harder, to pass reforms. And he can’t enforce laws that no longer exist.

        So why exactly do you think prosecutorial discretion matters with regards to criminal-justice reform, again?

      3. Ever heard of prosecutorial discretion?

        You mean special treatment for friends and associates of the prosecutor? Of course!

    3. Agreed. I don’t see how Sessions stops Congress from doing criminal justice reform. What I do see stopping it, is that most Republicans don’t want to do it. Although, I do think the outlook on that is moving in the right direction.

    1. Funny. Also funny – she’s gonna win that argument in the real world.

      1. No, that’s not going to fly. In the STEM professions of the real working world, being able to actually do the job is what matters. People actually expect the stuff you do, to work. I know that’s racist and all the other isms and phobes, but it’s just how it is. If you’re good, you can start your workday at 10am, run around with your shirt untucked and maybe wear a clown shoe on your head. No, I don’t do any of that stuff! But mabye you could, if you’re good.

        In my final semester of CompSci, a lady in my class made the comment ‘I just want to write computer code, I don’t want to be the person who actually fixes it if there’s bugs and stuff’. She was a really nice person, but I doubt that she ever made a career out of building solutions for clients.

        1. Reducing standards to graduate + preferential hire is how you do it. Have them graduate, spend some time doing pointless busywork or be a part of the team where they can’t do much damage, then kick them up to management for double bonus of “they don’t do damage” and “diversity on display”. They can be as bed as Jen on IT Crowd and still have a career.

          Analogous to Adam Smith’s “there’s a lot of ruin in a nation”, “there’s a lot of slack in a big company”.

      2. She didn’t even come close to winning it on, I assume that’s Facebook.

    2. That was funny:)

    3. I hope that conversation is real, because it’s perfect.

    4. Judging by the persistence of the squirrels, I’m guessing Reason hired this woman to run their Web site.

      1. She’s been working on that edit button for twelve years.

    5. Sometimes I despair of the laziness of other women. Why must so many of them be so stupid?

  26. This Sessions guy looks just like the sort of person that goes around assuming people’s genders.

    1. Garden gnomes do not have a gender.

      1. Not according the web form changes I’ve had to make for a client over the last few years. I’ve lost count of how many gender checkboxes there are now. But there are more than two. In fact, I’m sure there are at least 5 now.

        1. Only 5? Doesn’t Facebook have, like, 50?

          1. Well, there may be even more than five, but I’m sure that two of them are ‘not sure’ and ‘prefer not to say’. Not sure? Really? I sometimes find it hard to not make totally smartass remarks in those meetings. Sometimes I actually do that, but they just roll their eyes.

        2. Five? Let’s see. Male, hot chicks, milfs, would but would lie and say I wouldn’t, gross.

          1. Would
            Probably wouldn’t
            definitely wouldn’t

            1. Definitely wouldn’t = Would after a 6 pack

              1. Yeah, you can always go by bar time or number of drinks. That’s traditional.

            2. So, to Crusty there’s only one sex?

    1. Damnit, isn’t it late for a squirrel attack?

    2. I was having problems as well

  27. Not shocking. The NY Times doesn’t understand the 1st Amendment

    1. “Ninety-one percent of the students may support the right to express unpopular opinions in general, but only half as many ? 45 percent ? support that right when the speech in question is offensive to others and made in public.”

      Ha ha, it’s all in how you phrase the question.

      Or else the kids are trolling the pollsters.

      1. You are allowed to express your unpopular opinion so long as you keep it to yourself. #Ifuckinglovedoublethink

        1. this is basically the view Robby has taken about “free speech” since the day he’s showed up.

          his method is to speak very highly of the *idea* of free speech… while throwing anyone who happens to ever exercise it under a moving bus

          1. lol

            i remembered i’d made some similar point about robby long ago, and i went looking for it.

            it went (paraphrase) like this =

            [Robby’s idea of free speech] is reminiscent of a cloying mother who concedes that it will be OK to buy little Jimmy his dirt-bike, so long as he only rides it in circles in the driveway.

            iow = “freedom is wonderful! as long as you do what others find acceptable”

    2. They understand it according to the communist manifesto.

  28. It’s not a good outcome for civil libertarians

    Compared to what?

    I suspect compared to Hillary picking one of her girlfriends, Sessions is still the better outcome.

    1. And nominating the fugliest man hating bull dyke in the country to SCOTUS? Yeah, you have a good point.

  29. OT: Watch Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters show their senility.
    On autopilot, brain not even ticking over. Sad!

    1. I saw that. I’m sure that all the progs think that was a display of genius and Trump was completely destroyed by it.

    1. You forgot to say ‘would’ for the mayor.

      When I was a kid and suffering through the torture of being forced to go to church every Sunday, sometimes twice in the same day, we had a bunch of old curmudgeons who sat in the from bench, whatever those things are called. They were known as the ‘Elders’ and they held supreme authoritah over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and over smartass little boys and sassy broads. And one day a singing group from another church came to perform at our church. And some of the Elders got upset because the group had a set of drums, like those long haired weirdos and their demon rock music. So the Elders said that drums are of the devil and they cast the evil group out.

      This is a true story, I swear. No, really it is. I have more!

      1. we had a bunch of old curmudgeons who sat in the from bench, whatever those things are called.

        Did you hear about the man who farted in church?
        He sat in his own pew.

    2. This took some time to download, but here we go:

      There it is on p. 205, Section 9-403: “No public dance hall is permitted where the same is located within 500 feet of any church or public school.”

      And it seems a public dance hall is defined to include most places where dances are held.

      There is, however, an exception for members-only, invitation-only dances held by “permanently organized clubs, societies or corporations.”

      I don’t know how it is in Oklahoma, but in many places they organize “members only private clubs” to avoid certain regulations. They even charge “membership fees.”

      Mind you, I don’t know if that would pass muster in that town; she can ask her husband, the City Attorney.

    3. Check it out, here’s another hick town with a law that restricts dancing:

      “A popular song from the 1980s said that “you can dance if you want to,” but in New York City, that may not exactly be the case thanks to a prohibition-era law that persists to this day limiting recreational dancing in the Big Apple.

      “The city’s much-derided cabaret law dates back to 1926 and states that if three or more people decide to dance in a bar or club, a special “cabaret license” is needed….

      “Mayor Giuliani used the law in the late 90s as part of his quality-of-life campaign to rid neighborhoods of problem nightspots.

      “A police source, with knowledge of the city’s cabaret enforcement, agreed the law is used as a tool.

      “”The law is archaic and not particularly useful, but it’s a tool police use when they’re having problems with a particular location,” the source said.

      “He added that the law cuts both ways by helping police to control problem locations that may be havens for illegal drug use and/or gang activity but it also can be tough on smaller bars and clubs, such as many Latin dance spots above 59th Street.”

      1. Bottom line: I understand the Daily Mail’s need for clicks, but it feeds the narrative that lets big, proggy cities off the hook for their busybody governments.

        It seems the NYC cabaret law actually gets enforced – from time to time, at least, when the cops want to enforce it – whereas in this Oklahoma town it was an individual who volunteered to comply with a law which wasn’t being enforced against anyone.

        So guess which community gets mocked as the home of busybody killjoys?

  30. They play chicken on tractors or is it some kind of euphemism?

    1. Never saw the movie.

  31. He is a Republican, so it’s all good

    1. Actually, that’s why it’s all bad.

  32. Justin Amash, still awesome.

    (first tweet is from November)

    Justin Amash Verified account

    Justin Amash

    He supports indefinite detention of Americans w/o charge or trial, mass surveillance of law-abiding Americans, civil asset forfeiture, etc.

    Justin Amash ?@justinamash 40m40 minutes ago

    Justin Amash

    Just a few of my concerns about AG Sessions. Note that he shares these anti-liberty positions with AG Lynch, AG Holder, and Pres. Obama.

    1. Thankfully, Fast and Furious Holder and Mega Cankles are gone. Now we have the garden gnome to worry about.

  33. In regard to cannabis, I think it’ll be a little while before Sessions does anything on that issue. But when he does I think he’ll follow the the Bush/Obama first term approach. He’ll likely target some of the bigger dispensaries in California, Colorado, Washington, etc. for raids and prosecution, except for Alaska, I think they’ll get a pass as a red state. Same goes for whatever medical dispensaries open up in Florida, and in red states/ some swing states, they’ll get pass too. Sessions will cite Prosecutorial discretion and Gonzales v. Raich. Democrats won’t do anything about it because they don’t give a damn about cannabis or personal liberty, and most Republicans will fall in line and praise Sessions for restoring law and order.

    A few of the politicians from the states that legalized will complain and push for reform. But most won’t because either they didn’t support legalization in the first place, their spineless, or the 40%-49% of anti-cannabis voters in their states are more politically involved and ideologically cohesive than the 50%-55% coalition of pro-cannabis voters (libertarians, civil libertarian liberals, libertines, and small government conservatives) who are harder to organize than cats.

    I base all of this on the fact that I don’t think Trump gives a shit about cannabis outside of the few states he won where it passed and I think he’ll largely give Sessions free reign on the issue.

    I hope I’m wrong, but only time will tell.

    1. Sessions will be hauled before the Supreme Court and asked = where in the US Constitution does it authorize the war on drugs? He will stammer and say “it doesn’t?”

      Some people take for granted that just because there is a so called ‘law,’ it is justified. One of the worst things a government can do to you is to jail you. So in order for this to be just, there must be a justification (or put in some fancy law word). The government can’t put you in jail because it passes a law – FDA says donuts are bad for you so we will jail you for making some. That may seem silly, but change donut to LSD and the same is true. If I want to take some LSD and eat a dozen donuts in the privacy of my own home it’s no concern to the government. The US Constitution does not grant government authority over my mind and body.

      The US Constitution is the law of the law and the role of the government is limited to what the document states. Even the early 20th century progressives knew this and that’s why they help pass the 18th amendment which prohibited the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors. In order for prohibition to be justified, the 18th amendment was passed – and even the progs knew this.
      So is Sessions a prog or even something worse – the enemy within -???

      1. The AG usually doesn’t argue before the courts, that’s done by the Solicitor General or some assistant of theirs.

  34. There are two kinds of communists: one is the obvious one like Obama, and the other is the not obvious one, the enemy within, like Jeff Sessions.

  35. Of course Rand voted yes. Sessions was going to be confirmed anyway, and in this climate, nothing is really gained by being the only Republican voting against a former GOP senator appointed by a Republican president. It’s along the lines of why he got so close to Mitch McConnell.

    1. So the only people who will make him pay political consequences for voting in a way they don’t like…are the big-government types? The liberty-preferring crowd will give him a pass?

      Nice incentive structure there.

      1. The liberty crowd is smaller and has fewer options.

        1. OK, that’s a fair point.

  36. Good night, all you frankentrumpensteins!

  37. Too bad there isn’t a real opposition party. You know a party based on the principle of individual liberty and responsibility that doesn’t have a fat guy strip down to a thong on the main stage of its national convention.

  38. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do


  39. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do


  40. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.