Reason Roundup

Everyone Hates Brett Kavanaugh, Everyone Loves Brett Kavanaugh: Reason Roundup

Plus: D.C. wage law for tipped workers faces challenges, and Trump suggests kneecapping Pfizer.


screenshots from Trump speech announcing Kavanaugh

A dose (or a dozen) of perspective on Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump's new nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court. The 53-year-old D.C. appeals court judge once clerked for retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy—a fact that may have eased Kennedy's fears about retiring (…or maybe not)—and has strengths and weaknesses from a libertarian perspective. Here's what we know (and don't know) so far about Kavanaugh's judicial leanings, along with a healthy side of speculation from folks across the partisan spectrum.

Democratic senators such as Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut have been throwing all sorts of Kavanaugh alarm around to see what sticks—he's a "right-wing ideologue" (says Markey) who has been "screened and vetted by extreme right-wing groups" (Blumenthal), a puppet of corporations, or the Koch Brothers, or…something. Something bad.

Much of the criticism isn't aimed at Kavanaugh per se but at the allegedly crooked process that got us here. The crux of this strained argument is that Trump considered the recommendations put forth by the Federalist Society, a conservative legal organization (or "a small, secretive network of extremely conservative Catholic activists," if you're feeling hystrionic like The Daily Beast's Jay Michaelson).

But there's no shortage of fear—and praise—from the respective sides for Kavanaugh's record on actual constitutional issues, including gun rights, speech issues, and due process.

Kavanaugh is "receptive to cases that challenge gun control laws" and also "sensitive to the constitutional implications of regulations that interfere with freedom of speech," noted Reason's Jacob Sullum last week. But "Kavanaugh seems to take a narrower view of Fourth Amendment rights."

"Many observers have suggested that President Trump will try to replace Justice Kennedy with a jurist 'in the mold' of Antonin Scalia, or perhaps of Scalia's successor, Neil Gorsuch," Reason's Damon Root pointed out over the weekend. But with Kavanaugh, we "may well end up with a jurist in the mold of John Roberts."

The New York Times editorial board frets that "Judge Kavanaugh would shift the balance of constitutional jurisprudence to the right, creating a solid right-wing majority on the court possibly until the second half of the 21st century," and leaving Roberts "as the fulcrum for the court."

But the paper also published a range of perspectives on Trump's pick, including this from liberal Yale Law School professor Akhil Reed Amar:

The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be the next Supreme Court justice is President Trump's finest hour, his classiest move. Last week the president promised to select "someone with impeccable credentials, great intellect, unbiased judgment, and deep reverence for the laws and Constitution of the United States." In picking Judge Kavanaugh, he has done just that.

In addition, the Times notes that Kavanaugh "once argued that President Bill Clinton could be impeached for lying to his staff and misleading the public, a broad definition of obstruction of justice that would be damaging if applied to President Trump in the Russia investigation."

Here's what libertarian-leaning types—plus everyone's new favorite socialist—have been saying:


D.C. Council may repeal minimum wage for tipped workers. Initiative 77, approved by D.C. voters in June, would raise the minimum wage for waiters, bartenders, and other workers paid partially in tips to $15 per hour by 2026, up from $3.33 currently. But it might not make it into law. WTOP reports:

A bill to repeal the measure is being discussed and could be introduced during a council meeting on Tuesday, according to a spokesperson for D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson.

The measure is expected to be sponsored by at least six council members—including Mendelson—who have publicly denounced the measure.

Opponents believe the measure will force restaurants to raise menu prices, reduce their staff and lead to less take-home pay for servers. Supporters argue that the initiative will reduce worker mistreatment and give them a steady income.


He's been on quite the roll this week…


NEXT: Miami Politicians Do Their Level Best to Spend as Much as Humanly Possible on Transit

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. Self-described Nazis and white supremacists are running as Republicans across the country. The GOP is terrified.

    1. Hello.

      Trump is going full Bluto!

    2. At least they are terrified. Dems seem tickled “pink” with their candidates.

      1. I’m not so sure. The establishment Democrats don’t seem particularly thrilled with millennial socialists on the rise.

    3. If Republicans are Nazis, wouldn’t they be happy actual Nazis are running under their banner?

      You don’t even seem to have a clear idea of what you believe.

      1. I’ve never claimed Republicans are Nazis, you loon.

        Hardcore racists, Neo-Nazis, fascists, and their ilk make up about 15-20% of the electorate tops. Do they all vote Republican? Sure they do.

        But Democrats have a “socialism problem” that is just as pervasive. Bernie-Bros are every bit as crazy as the far right crazies infesting the GOP.

        1. There’s truth in what you say but it’s not finding its way to the top or in policy like it is in the DNC someone can argue.

        2. Hardcore racists, Neo-Nazis, fascists, and their ilk make up about 15-20% of the electorate tops

          Full on Marxists make up 20-30% of the electorate…tops!

          So says my ass.

          I’m going to reach in there for more numbers….back in a bit.

      2. You don’t even seem to have a clear idea of what you believe

        Well, he is retarded.

        1. Bullshit.
          The ‘tards won’t have anything to do with that slimy bag.

          1. he is not one of the nice retarded kids that hangs around the neighborhood helping old ladies with their groceries that everyone loves and looks out for. He is one of the retarded kids that sets things on fire and kills your cat.

            1. TEAM RED! circle jerk forming.

              Just add a LoveCons.

              1. TEAM Libertarian! circle jerk forming.
                Just add a LoveCons.


                1. TEAM Libertarian!

                  Your insistence is hilarious.

                2. John doesn’t even claim to be Libertarian.

                  1. John said that he was not a Libertarian.

                    $parkY said that he is not a Libertarian.

                    I cant remember what you, BUCS, said you were but I dont remember it being a Libertarian.

                    The fact that some people don’t want me to be a Libertarian is evidence that I ruffle non-Libertarian feathers.

                    1. That’s why I was pointing it out, as you are lumping yourself in with John there. John does not claim to be a Libertarian.

                      And, for the record, I have repeatedly said that I am the only true Libertarian in existence.

                    2. Very well, BUCS, you are the only true Libertarian in existence (in your mind).

                      I was not lumping myself in with John which is why I changed the Team to Team Libertarian that John does not want to be on.

                      I should have went with my first instinct which was to simply call Butt a lefty nitwit.

    4. If you read your own link, you’d see that these are almost all candidates in heavily Democratic districts where there wasn’t a lot of competition in the GOP primaries for the right to get thumped in the general.

      I imagine if we looked at the D nominees in heavily Republican districts, we’d see some whackjobs too.

      1. Of course. Democrats actually elected then reelected the biggest whackjob I can recall in my lifetime – Cynthia McKinney.

        1. I thought you were going to say Obama.

          I would have agreed with you.

          1. Why would you think Obama is crazier than McKinney? Nobody who has ever existed is crazier than Cynthia McKinney, not even shreek.

            1. I checked her out. She is crazy and active in her crazy pursuits too.

              Obama agreed with Democrats in Congress that the Constitution allows the government force you to buy something.

              If that’s not crazy, Its something bad then.

    5. Everyone I disagree with on the Right is a Nazi and everyone I agree with on the Left is a socialist. Deal with it

      1. *disagree with on the Left*

        1. Too late. Your inner-socialist has already been exposed. Now, let the hate flow through you.

          1. Urge to move to Brooklyn and purchase an infinity scarf rising

            1. Time to start delving deep into liberation theilogy.

        2. To be fair, everyone that I agree with on the Left is a Socialist too.

    6. Actual Nazis and white supremacists have been running as Democrats and Socialists for decades. The Democratic Party is not terrified.

  2. How Silicon Valley Fuels an Informal Caste System
    If there’s any nonviolent political hope here, it’s probably to be found among the Outer Party. The Inner Party lives estranged from reality. But the Outer Party still has to teach their kids not to pick up street needles and occasionally feels the depredations of crime to person or property (our household has experienced both within the past few months). Though the Outer Party has little collective identity, they have common interests around street cleanliness, crime, schools, and transit.

    The pessimist in me, however, thinks San Francisco can only continue further down this path, with the old-money propertied class dying or cashing out, the non-techies getting squeezed, and everyone getting pushed into the four-level hierarchy. In case there’s any doubt, I find the growth of this rigid caste system horrifying, and antithetical to both liberal democracy and the American project. It also seems that, at least in San Francisco, we’re close to a point of no return. Whether that’s true elsewhere remains to be seen.

    1. I’ve always thought the left wanted to bring back literal feudalism where only ‘gentlemen’ (i.e. the right social classes) can be armed and the cattle kept in their place by sumptuary environmental laws. Earth can handle a few people jetting around and living a first world life, but it can’t handle all of us doing so.

    2. TL;DR but the bit about the Service Class worrying about dropping to the Untouchable Class is ridiculous. The untouchables aren’t former Uber drivers, they’re mentally ill addicts and gutter punks.

      1. I think there is a strong contingency of people who believe the only thing that separates non functional drug addicts from a middle class family man is money.

        I don’t know why this is. Perhaps it makes us feel like the homeless problem is easier to solve, but it’s probably not an accurate analysis of why the outcaste of America is what it is.

        1. There’s the trope about most people being one paycheck away from homelessness.

        2. I see you’ve met my brother-in-law.

    3. There is accurate observation in the article, but the big observation it misses is how much the image Silicon Valley projects is built on hype. The reality is that not everything can be taken over by a killer app, and self-driving cars are not going to be everywhere in a decade.

      Many of the Inner Class are bullshitters, and th the world doesn’t need five bicycle sharing startups. As Mike Rowe points out, the world (including Silicon Valley) needs lots of welders and plumbers and painters.

      1. The only thing the Silicon Valley class is concerned with is their own hedonism. It’s populated with rootless, atomized people seeking out the latest stimulating experience to fill up their otherwise empty lives. It’s why their social media feeds are filled with photos of their latest hiking trek or restaurant visit instead of their families or communities.

        1. That’s true for some Silicon Valley folks. The prospect of striking it rich has drawn many status-obsessed assholes to the area. You used to be able to spot them easily because they would be the ones driving too fast in their BMW’s, weaving from lane to lane in morning traffic; now it’s completely different — they’re driving Teslas instead of a BMW’s.

          However, many people in Silicon Valley, part of what this author calls the Outer Class, are fairly down-to-earth, middle-class, family-oriented geeks. Guys who were in computer club in high school, and feel fortunate that they can actually get paid to program computers.

  3. A judge rebuffs the Trump administration’s request for permission to detain immigrant children longer.


    1. “This is not how you get put on a SCOTUS list, your honor.”

    2. I believe The Judge is Italian.

      1. Which is a kind of Mexican, right?

        1. I think you are right?

        2. A bit greasier and more likely to get in a shouting match with their mothers over dinner.

        3. “Latin”

    3. I thought District Court Judges were sanctioned by Thomas for issuing court orders outside their small judicial district?

      1. You mean like sanctioned in a non-binding way? Totally.

        1. You mean the circuit courts can issue directives outside their circuits now too? Sweet. The 9th circuit is fucked after all the other circuits issues directives that gun rights in California are not to be infringed.

  4. Tennesse’s “free college” program “is turning out to be a middle-class entitlement.”

    Thirteenth through sixteenth grades.

  5. Who could have guessed that the head of San Bernadino’s “Hardcore Gang Unit” doesn’t hold the most racially enlightened views?

    As long as you’re blue you’re true?

    1. Is this something Mrs. Fist says?


        1. Wait, are you telling me that’s an actual screenshot? I thought it was a drawing.

  6. ‘Italy has caused a MELTDOWN’ 700,000 migrants waiting to cross into Europe from Libya
    The NGOs are supposed to rescue people once they are more than 12 miles from the Libyan coast, but come in much closer, he said.

    He said: “They make it easier for the crime groups who now send a boat with not enough fuel on purpose as they know they will be picked up.”

    1. Italy has caused jack shit. It’s not them asking 700 000 to enter their country. NGO’s are not helping matters by picking these people up (often unwittingly helping criminals and even the Mafia I reckon) and dumping them on Italy’s shores.

    But I think the truth is worse. I think the leaders of the socialist movement are perfectly well aware that the inevitable result of socialism is tyranny and mass poverty. But for them, this isn’t a bug, it is a feature. In fact, it is the whole point. Socialism is now, and always has been, a pretext under which power-mad psychopaths seize power and terrorize their fellow humans.

    Viewed with cold realism, socialism works very well for those who bring it about. It worked for Lenin and Stalin. It almost worked for Trotsky, but socialism is like “Game of Thrones”?it is a risky business. It didn’t work for the Old Bolsheviks for the same reason: they lost out to the more vicious and more power-crazed socialist, Stalin. It worked for Yezhov, Yagoda and Beria, although they, too, lost out after years of demented revels. It worked for Khruschev, Brezhnev and Andropov.

    1. Socialism worked for Mao. It worked for Fidel Castro. It worked for Erich Honecker and Nicolae Ceau?escu, until the very end. It worked for Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, again with sad ends that didn’t inflict anywhere near enough pain to negate the years of glory and power that went before. It worked for Hugo Chavez, who like Castro, parlayed socialism into a multi-billion dollar fortune, and it has worked so far for Nicolas Maduro. All of these psychopaths, and many others, got exactly what they wanted out of socialism. From their point of view, it is a successful ideology.

      1. Its a murderous scheme of theft of national resources with human sacrifice of the serfs.

        What’s not to like?


    Lesbians clash with transgender at London pride parade. I guess women find it insulting when men throw on a dress and claim to be women. Who knew?

    1. That is just the sort of smack down I want to see. And will hopefully devolve into various lefty elements consuming one another.

      1. You and me both.

    2. They’re jealous because the trannies have mastered the butch look

      1. And the trannies are jealous because the lipstick lesbians have mastered the glam look. It is envy all around.

    3. “Shameless hussy!”

    4. TERFs Battle Over Turf

    5. I’ve been saying for many years that the various factions within the alphabet soup that were lumped together largely for being “different” never really got along except occasionally for appearances’ sake.

      Also, you couldn’t drag me to a parade of any kind these days. They are largely nothing but political grandstanding.

      1. The transgendered thing never made any sense. First, it has nothing to do with sexual preference. Second, the claim that gender is some kind of social construct that has nothing to do with biology completely contradicts the claim that sexual preference is entirely the result of biology such that it must be treated like race. They are in the position of claiming your chromosomes and body have nothing to do with your sex, yet, somehow your body, i.e. your genes, determine your sexual preference beyond any ability to control it.

        Transgenderism also is completely incompatible with pretty much all forms of feminism.

        1. I think the claim is that gender can be different from anatomy. Transgender might still be “biological.”

          1. If gender is different from anatomy, why isn’t sexual preference as well? That is the claim yes, but it just begs the question.

            1. You’re conflating and confusing matters.

              Biological is more than anatomical.

              The brain is an organ, and traits involved are genetically determined.

              Gender does not always match sex. Sex does not always match chromosomes. There are XY females, both sex and gender. There are XX males, both sex and gender. There can be male genes on an X chromosome and vice versa.

              Just because transgenderism may be often (not exclusively) traced to biological causes does not mean that presence or absence of a penis or vagina determines the gender, nor chromosome count, nor many other things we do or do not understand.

              1. Everything you said is completely made up nonsense. Literally, every word of it is completely without any basis in fact or science.

      2. I used to be a member of a Facebook group that was overrun with progressive types, and the fighting among various ostensibly-allied interest groups was something to behold. Sometimes they’d paper over the differences with some empty nonsense about “intersectionality,” but the inherent contradictions always came back out sooner or later.

        1. If you outsource your identity to a group or classification instead of finding it on your own individual terms, you’re gonna make enemies – every Us automatically creates a Them.

    6. bwahahahaha

      some enterprising individual should start selling popcorn to those events

      1. Needless to say, a lot of lesbians are not too fond of men. I can’t imagine what they must think of a man who pretends to be a woman. That must gall the living hell out them.

        1. “This new ‘queer’ LGBT politics thus coerces lesbians to accept the penis as a female organ and promotes heterosexual intercourse between male and female as a form of lesbian sex.””


          1. It is funny but honestly, I think that might be correct.

    7. I’m seriously confused. These lesbians look nothing like the ones on the internet.

    8. Reading the article, it struck me that a lot of the internal strife could be ended with a little — tolerance. But then it’s telling about the progressive worldview that they feel they need to have a statement of “What We Believe”, i.e. everyone has to think exactly alike.

      1. This was my thought. The entire thought process of basically everyone represented in that article was “the group is everything, nothing can be done individually”.

        One dude deciding he thinks he’s a chick, and acting like it, and possibly even getting surgery to make it appear more so… that does not in any way “erase” any lesbian.

        It’s only the idea that everyone is a representative of a group that makes it so that everyone has to be on the same page or it’s some horribly violent sct against them.

    9. It never, ever made sense to lump the ‘T’ in with the rest of that alphabet soup, if for no other reason than gay and lesbian people aren’t delusional about their preference to fuck members of their own sex. Transgender people hold a uniquely delusional notion that they perfectly understand what it means and feels like to actually be something that they are not.

      Go and try to explain to any woman you care to pick out of a crowd that you know exactly what it’s like to be a woman. I wager you’d have the same success explaining to a black person exactly how it feels to be them.

      Ludicrous. The gay lobby wanted the ‘T’ when it inflated their numbers, but now that they got what they wanted they’re starting to realize that maybe they don’t have anything in common after all and, in fact, the very existence of the transgender explodes a lot of their own arguments.


      This is purely an examination of their political rhetoric that cemented the governments power to decide what type of pairings are legitimate, which ultimately was the very thing they were railing against even if they never realized it.

  9. D.C. debates whether cashless businesses should be illegal.

    Pretty soon it will be the other way around.

    1. Illegal be should businesses cashless whether debates D.C.?

      1. Letters backwards, not just the words. Lazy ass.

        1. I’ll just wait for it to come out on vinyl so I can find the backmasked message.

          1. lagelli eb dluohs sessenisub sselhsac rehtehw setabed .C.D

            Or: cashless illegals debate whether D.C. businesses should be.

  10. The World Health Organization now officially recognizes both gaming addiction and sex addiction as diseases.

    Heart disease and venereal disease.

    1. I see my plan to continue ignoring anything coming out of the World Health Organization was a good choice.

      1. I guess it comes down to a changing definition of disease.

        1. Well, yes. “Disease” now includes “behaviors we disapprove of”.

      2. Ignoring the WHO is the worst kind of disease.

        1. No one knows what it’s like.

          1. As if anyone in the WHO has blue eyes.

            1. I know I won’t get fooled again.

            2. No, but I hear they’re pretty badass pinball players. Almost, Wizard like.

          2. I’m a boy
            I’m a boy
            But my mom won’t admit it

        2. What is the WHO?

    2. So, all men are sick?

      Or does this only apply to women?

  11. Bateman pulled out a few bills to pay for a taco lunch in the nation’s capital. To his surprise, his money was no good in the city where money is printed.

    Should be an interesting case for SCOTUS: What does “legal tender for all debt, public and private” mean?

    1. Yeah, as much as I hate standing behind people paying cash… this seems like a slam-dunk for any judge.

      1. “this seems like a slam-dunk for any judge.”

        So 5-4 in SCOTUS then?

      2. Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled “Legal tender,” states: “United States coins and currency [including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks] are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.”

        This statute means that all United States money as identified above is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law which says otherwise.….._12772.htm

        1. Yep which is why it’s perfectly legal for say a landowner to rent their property to people with the stipulation that they can not pay in cash. It’s pretty common, is my understanding, and probably has more to do with the liability angle of accepting large sums of cash along with the hassle of actually dealing with physical cash.

          We’ll probably never know how popular reserve notes would have been vs. gold though, since apparently it was totally legal for the government to suck up all the gold in the United States and give you worthless paper in exchange.

          So, with that in mind, it’s pretty strange that businesses aren’t required to take cash but perhaps the reason why is because it was assumed no one could ever use anything except cash for anything ever again after all their ‘real’ currency was deemed illegal to have.

    2. It means in the free market, a business can choose what transactions they wish to make. They can choose to trade a taco for an electronic debit in their account. They can choose whether to trade a taco for physical money.

      Compromise: A taco costs $1003, but you get a $1000 discount for using electronic payment.

    3. The places that are doing this are the sorts of places where you go up, place your order, give them your plastic, and they bring out your food. So they aren’t letting you incur a debt for which you can use “legal tender for all debt, public and private.”

  12. …transgender women taking synthetic hormones have an elevated risk of strokes, heart attacks, and blood clots. The same did not hold true for transgender men.

    Is this genetic patriarchy?

    1. You mean flooding your body with hormones and trying to transform it into something it is not may have some nasty side effects? Well knock me over with a feather.

      1. [knocks John over with a feather]

        1. These masturbation euphemisms are getting out of hand.

          1. Getting out of hand he says. I see what you did there.

      2. Though it says right there it’s not true for FtM.

      3. You mean people shouldn’t have the freedom to do what they want with their bodies, because some people find it icky?

        1. No I mean doing stupid shit results in bad things. You are free to be as dumb as you want. No one is throwing you in prison are they?

          1. Who says it’s dumb? It’s their decision as to whether it is worth it for their specific case.

            1. Well, luckily the American Psychiatric Association doesn’t think it’s a great ‘treatment’ either for a delusion disorder but what do those hacks know right?


  13. Never forget, never forgive:

    The Huffington Post, Weigel pointed out, ran “a picture of Sarah Palin, linking to a poll that suggests 45 percent of Americans believe her death panel lie. But as long as the top liberal-leaning news site talks about it every single hour of every day, I’m sure that number will go down.”

    “Let’s move the fuck on already,” Weigel wrote.

    Weigel seems to harbor special contempt for a type of conservative he calls a ratfucker, a favorite phrase of his.

    …In the e-mails, Weigel appeared particularly invested in the President’s health care law, expressing undisguised scorn for moderate Democrats who seemed fearful about voting for it.

    Rep. Daniel Lipinski, a pro-life Democrat from Illinois who expressed reservations about the abortion provisions in the legislation was, according to Weigel, a “monster” because he represents “a deeply safe seat” and could afford to vote for it.

    1. Now Longtorso has a Weigel obsession as well? I feel some deuce chills coming on.

      1. Longtorso is Mikey’s fellow passenger on the Shreek Is Weigel train. This train runs express to Retardsville, where it derails and plows through a preschool, a dozen homes, and an oil refinery.

        1. Every day.

          1. You’d think somebody would have learned something by now.

            1. I just want to say, many of the retards I have known were nice people. They live hard lives and most of them try quite hard.

              So please, no need to slander retards by adding whatever the hell Mikey is to their ranks.

              1. Upon rereading your story, I rescind my comment. As I realize that in your example Retards are damaged deeply every day by the actions of my Poppa.

                1. Exactly. Mikey aspires to retardation, and fucks up even at that.

    2. Lipinski is the guy that Democrats went all in on trying to oust with Democratic Senators endorsing his rival in the primary and millions poured into the race. Man, Republicans are really obsessed over abortion

  14. Declining to be outraged by such a patent slander but joining in with it thus becomes a way of reassuring your newly radicalized allies that you are on their side. The question that interests me is: How has the fashionable Left in this country?which can hardly be said to have existed in this newly militant and radical form before the Occupy Wall Street movement seven years ago?acquired the power to exact from its sympathizers such extreme affirmations of loyalty? Or, to put it another way, why are smart people in professions that would seem to demand a judicious and rational approach to political questions so eager to demonstrate their willingness to throw judgment and reason to the four winds for the sake of being counted among the good people? I don’t know the answer to this question, but I suspect it has something to do with the power of fashion in a political culture from which honor has been banished.…..bad-people

  15. BMW to shift some SUV production overseas in response to tariffs

    BMW is the largest U.S. auto exporter, and employs 10,000 people at a plant in Spartanburg, S.C. The brand’s key SUV models are produced there, the newspaper reported.

    Trump hit China last week with steep tariffs on about $34 billion worth of products.

    1. “The benchmark Shanghai Composite Index jumped 2.5 per cent to 2,815.11 on Monday, the biggest single-day gain since May 2016. Still, it has fallen 21 per cent from a January high as the US-China trade war continues and the deleveraging to rein in shadow banking denting economic growth dampen investor interests.”
      Chinese Stock exchange plunge

  16. raise the minimum wage for waiters, bartenders, and other workers paid partially in tips to $15 per hour by 2026

    Thus ending tipping and turning the experience of going to a restaurant into the same experience as going to the DMV. Only with longer lines because most of the restaurants have gone out of business.

  17. Thank you to all of my great supporters, really big progress being made. Other countries wanting to fix crazy trade deals. Economy is ROARING. Supreme Court pick getting GREAT REVIEWS. New Poll says Trump, at over 90%, is the most popular Republican in history of the Party. Wow!
    ? Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 10, 2018

    If it’s on the internet it must be true.

    1. To be fair, my stock portfolio gained 8% in 2018 and 22% in 2017.

      Taxes are lower. Gorsuch and now Kavanaugh are new SCOTUS conservatives.


      1. You would like Kavanaugh.

        1. I am not sure that will like Kavanaugh like I like Gorsuch. Time will tell.

          I like Kavanaugh far more than RBG, Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan, and John Roberts.

      2. How did your portfolio do in 2009 and 2010?

        1. How did yours do in 2001 and 2002?

          1. I got in the market October 2001 (I had just graduated college in 2000). I figured things wouldn’t get worse after the initial 9/11 drop. Things did…not great for a bit, and then went terrible, for a couple years. As a whole, the Bush presidency was a lost time for investments, even counting from after the bubble and 9/11 effects. The Obama years made up for that, and more.

        2. My portfolio did great in 2008-2012, I sold short. I saw the housing market collapse unfolding while many people were paralyzed. I didn’t get in first but soon enough.

          Then I bought a bunch of stocks that had bottomed out in 2012.

          The big $$ was getting into Bitcoin in 2013 when it was under $100 each.

          Capitalism is great!

  18. between 2 and 4 percent of the UK population suffer from compulsive sex behavior. In the US, it’s estimated to affect between 3 and 6 percent of adults

    “… and the rest are liars.”

  19. The failing NY Times Fake News story today about breast feeding must be called out. The U.S. strongly supports breast feeding but we don’t believe women should be denied access to formula. Many women need this option because of malnutrition and poverty.
    ? Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 9, 2018

    With an apparent subscription, the president is doing his part to keep the Times afloat.

    1. He is such a liar. The “failing” NY Times makes about $250 million before taxes/interest, has a clean balance sheet and their stock is up 40% in the last year.

    2. Who are you kidding? It was a story about boobs. I’m sure it used up his third free NYT article of the month.

    3. Q1 2018 not so good.
      NYT financials
      Q2 2018 advertising expected to be down also.
      NYT earnings

      1. Stock just about double from 1/20/2017. While many media companies are laying off staff and closing.

        1. Stock just about double from 1/20/2017. While many media companies are laying off staff and closing.

          They can move to the city and learn to code.

  20. “often sex addicts don’t come forward.”

    But they *do* come often.

    1. Some of them like coming backward.

      1. Quite a comeuppance.

          1. Cream in your coffee?

          2. Oh, come now.

      2. Always coming and going?

        1. And always too soon.

  21. I look forward to the upcoming hearings, reviewing the record, and meeting personally with Judge Kavanaugh, with an open mind.
    ? Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) July 10, 2018

    No immediate condemnation = endorsement.

    1. There’s no place for an “open mind” in today’s political climate, Senator Paul. Either rage or cheerlead… pick one.

    2. Well yeah. The hearings are all show, no substance. The only way a hearing can tank a nomination these days is if the nominee does something unusually embarrassing during questioning.

      So Paul is unlikely to get any new information on the guy before or after the hearings. Barring something truely unusual, he’s got all the data to decide his vote that he’s going to get.

      And let’s be honest, even in the unlikely scenario where one or two Republican senators defect, it wasn’t going to be Paul.

      1. Well yeah, Kagan was confirmed and she was never even a judge. With that kind of record of confirming justices, it’s a wonder anyone cares anymore since the only thing that’s really being looked at is ‘will you lie to us and tell us you’ll toe the party line after being confirmed’. Nothing else at all.

  22. ….. a “right-wing ideologue” (says Markey) who has been “screened and vetted by extreme right-wing groups” (Blumenthal), a puppet of corporations, or the Koch Brothers, or…something. Something bad.

    I wish we could get a Koch puppet on the Court! Then we’d at least know the new justice would have the correct libertarian position on immigration.

    But Kavanaugh is even worse than we feared: Forget abortion or same-sex marriage?contraception could be banned under Justice Kavanaugh

    Orange Hitler and his religious extremist base are trying to ban contraception. Do not allow them to turn this country into The Handmaid’s Tale. Contact your Senators and tell them to do whatever they can to prevent this illegitimate right-wing court-packing.

    1. You are slipping and cutting corners. You forgot


  23. free college programs disproportionately benefit students from middle-class and wealthier backgrounds because those students do not qualify for federal Pell Grants or other assistance

    NY’s “free” college program is designed exactly the same way.

    1. Wait, so you’re saying that poor people already get free college?!?!?!?! You lied to us Bernie!

      1. It is almost like the entire thing would end up being a giveaway to the upper middle class. A social program that just benefits the politically connected and not the people it was sold to the public as benefiting? That is just shocking.

        1. I think you’re giving the socialists too much credit. The whole thing was a talking point to rile up a base for free stuff that, unbeknownst to them, they can already get through Pell Grants.

          1. That is part of it. But the truth is most poor kids can’t get into college or afford to live while they do, even if it is free. If you ever actually did make “college free for all”, the people who would benefit would be upper middle class kids who have the ability to go now and would end up not having to pay for it. It would be a giant giveaway to the universities and the gentry left. Actual poor people would not benefit much at all.

            1. From my own personal experience, this is on the money John. While school is the largest expense, I could defray that would loans, grants, scholarships etc. but the living costs were strangely enough the biggest hurdle to get over even while paying thousands of dollars a semester just to attend.

              You’d need to essentially be a genius poor person (or just really dedicated in writing scholarship applications) to get enough in financial aid to live while going to school, assuming you’re not living with a parent or something along those lines.

  24. Democratic senators such as Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut have been throwing all sorts of Kavanaugh alarm around to see what sticks…

    Your rigged system put up a terrible presidential candidate, so this is what you get. Central planners are just lucky he shares their views on the 4th Amendment.

    1. Ezra Klein is claiming that Trump getting to appoint another Justice now makes the Court “anti-Democratic”. In Klein’s view, the party that wins the White House and a majority in the Senate appointing and confirming a Justice to fill a vacancy on the Court is “anti Democratic” because apparently “Democracy” means the party that loses the election gets the powers that are supposed to go to the party that wins them.

      That is some top thinking there.

      1. because apparently “Democracy” means the party that loses the election gets the powers that are supposed to go to the party that wins them.

        No, in Klein’s view and the rest of the Blue Checkmark Mafia, “Democracy” means “Democrats get to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and always get what they want”.


    More people use guns in self defense every year than die in car wrecks. So the next time someone asks you “why do you need a gun”, just say for the same reason I wear a seatbelt.

    1. I maintain that the best argument against gun control is that it subjects people to criminal prosecution who have never violated anyone’s rights with a gun.

      100 million gun owning Americans out there, who have never shot anybody, never threatened anybody with a gun, never fired a gun at anybody–and gun control people want to subject them to criminal prosecution even though they’ve never violated anyone’s rights?

      1. You forget that this is “for the children.” Stop trying to use logic.

    2. There are still a few people in this world I will patiently answer when they ask me that. But very few. I’ve found that the majority of people who ask “why do you need a gun” have already decided that I don’t. Their “logic” is “well I don’t need one, so you don’t either”.

      1. I am the same way. My answer to such questions is usually “because I like them”. It is my right to own one. I don’t need a reason much less a good one.

      2. how about this for a response?
        “You don’t need one because you’re allowed to have one”

  26. “Brett Kavanaugh is a true Second Amendment radical. He believes assault weapon bans are unconstitutional, a position way out of the judicial mainstream, far to the right of even late Justice Scalia.”

    —-Chris Murphy

    No, he’s not saying that the idea that assault weapon bans are unconstitutional is outside of the mainstream–he’s saying it’s outside of the “judicial mainstream”, which I guess is the mainstream of elitism, specifically.

    It’s like there’s an Overton window inside another Overton window, and the idea that assault weapons are unconstitutional is outside of that, I guess?

    Leave it to a Democrat senator from Connecticut to argue for elitism inflicting its will on average people. Poor Chris Murphy, couldn’t even get into an Ivy League college, much less Harvard of Yale. Bet it eats him up inside.

    1. It doesn’t bother you that every Supreme went to either Haaaaavad or Yale?

      1. You really don’t get that what I wrote was a dig on that?

        1. I hardly ever understand your posts, Ken.

          1. One clue: Stop trying to figure out whether they’re pro-Trump or anti-Trump first. I suspect it’s extremely hard for people to understand me who only see the world in those terms.

            1. I think it’s more that your posts are boring and far too long winded.

              1. Then don’t read them, asswipe!

                How’s that for brevity?

                1. I think you should partner with CliffNotes, Ken.

  27. STEVE SMITH sighting.

    No reported reason for his departure, but #metoo charges are sure to follow.

    Also, strange how his participation in hockey has never been highlighted. Is the NHL trying to coverup their rape problem???




    2. Smith was responsible for the team’s defensemen and penalty kill.

      I don’t completely understand Canuck-speak, but killing the team’s defensemen seems pretty in-character. STEVE SMITH SIGHTING CONFIRMED!


  28. We were talking about this last night, but it remains true . . .

    One of the reasons a libertarian might have voted for Trump was because Hillary was campaigning on appointing judges who are hostile to gun rights, where Trump wasn’t necessarily hostile at all.

    Consciously or otherwise (I suspect otherwise), Trump is making gun rights safer for the next generation.

    This issue won’t go away come 2020 either. Democrats will pick SC justices based on their hostility to gun rights, and having a Republican president in the White House is a good thing for the protection of our Second Amendment rights.

    Yeah, there are other issues, and we might vote for someone else (or no one at all) for other reasons, but if the Second Amendment is up near the top of your priority list, there’s an excellent case to make for voting for Trump for that reason come 2020.

    P.S. Yeah, I can think of excellent reasons to vote against him, especially in the primaries, too.

    1. Had Trump not won the election, the 2nd Amendment would have been read out of the Constitution and likely not returned in our lifetimes. Regardless of your politics, it is pretty hard to see how it would have turned out any other way.

      1. Had Trump not won the election, the 2nd Amendment would have been read out of the Constitution and likely not returned in our lifetimes. been interpreted as it had the first 200 years of the country.


        1. You gun controllers are cute with your ahistorical thinking.

  29. But the paper also published a range of perspectives on Trump’s pick, including this from liberal Yale Law School professor Akhil Reed Amar:

    You mean former liberal, he’s a right-wing extremist now. Of course, that transformation is nothing compared to the fact that Akhil woke up this morning and discovered he’s suddenly a white man.

    1. “discovered he’s suddenly a white man.”

      A racist white man who is doing the bidding of Putin, just like Glenn Greenwald.

  30. Are the Democrats still banging Kavanaugh on the abortion issue?

    My understanding (from Wikipedia) is that Kavanaugh considers abortion rights a done deal. He may favor some restrictions, but he thinks abortion rights are here to stay, and he wouldn’t support overturning Roe v. Wade.

    If that’s so, I see two more likely reactions.

    1) The Democrats keep pounding on the abortion drum to oppose Kavanaugh anyway–who cares about facts?

    2) Total denial: We were never at war with East Asia.


    2. I heard someone last night say something to the effect that it is true that Kavanaugh said that about abortion but that was when he was on the appellate court and he would do differently as a Supreme Court justice,

      On CNN, Rick Santorum and Jennifer Granholm (who is quite the looker) were talking about ACA. Santorum pointed out that Roberts was the swing vote and Coach K (which was a good line on the judge’s part even though it took the room a few minutes to figure it out) would vote as Kennedy did. Of course, Granholm (did I mention she is a damn good-looking woman) then say that Roberts could change his mind.

      So anything they may have done or said in the past is irrelevant. Kavanaugh is bad bad bad and that is that.

  31. Critics of no-cash policies say they shut out the 1 in 10 District residents who don’t have bank accounts and undocumented immigrants who can’t easily sign up for cards.

    Racists discriminating against the poor and the undocumented. That ought to be enough pressure on the no-cashers.

    1. Every business should be required to accept cash. I don’t want to live in a cashless society. A cashless society is just one where the government can control all commerce with a push of a button. Central planners slobber all over themselves at the thought of banning cash. No thank you.

      1. So you don’t think I should be able to run a business purely in Bitcoin?

        Statist slaver.

        1. Considering that by running it on bitcoin, you have effectively turned over control of your business to the government, you are already a slave. Forgive me for not wanting to join the plantation with you.

          1. The question isn’t you joining me on my “plantation”. It’s you trying to *outlaw* my plantation.

            Banning other people’s businesses because you wouldn’t run your own business that way is not josher with the NAP. You shouldn’t need *me* to explain that to you.

          2. by running it on bitcoin, you have effectively turned over control of your business to the government

            You don’t understand Bitcoin at all.

            1. John admitted to not knowing much about bitcoin, so not sure why he said what he said there.

              Government until recently had zero to do with bitcoin.

      2. No, every business should have the right to decide what payment types they accept. Don’t be a statist, mang.

        1. Bullshit. Cash is the legal tender. It should always be good. If it is not, the government will just bully and cajole every business into not taking it and create a cashless society without explicitly banning cash. You are a fool if you don’t understand that. You require cash because doing so prevents the government from coercing businesses into not doing so. You assume that not requiring it means businesses get to make a free choice. You are very naive in thinking that.

          1. You’re using assumptions and a sort of “slipper slope” to justify the restriction of private entities’ freedoms.
            Also your anger is upsetting my cats and amputees. Please try to dial it back, babe.

            1. The fact is that there is, and there has been, an on-going war on cash. That is simply irrefutable.

              1. I don’t disagree that governments across the globe want to stupidly eliminate cash or at least remove the larger denominations, but to infringe upon the liberties of others to obviate or retard this process isn’t right. There’s other methods in which a populace can prevent their government from eliminating cash that don’t force businesses and people to militate against their needs.

          2. So, to prevent the government from coercing businesses, the government should coerce businesses to take cash? Should they arrest business owners who don’t perform the transactions that the government says they must?

            An interesting proposition, but very far from Libertarian.

        2. It’s a little foolish to try to do away with cash at this point. Look what happened in Puerto Rico when the power went down for weeks and credit and debit cards no longer worked.

          Everyone needs some cash at least for emergencies.

          1. Everyone also needs a bit of silver and gold for emergencies when cash is worthless.

  32. Pfizer & others should be ashamed that they have raised drug prices for no reason. They are merely taking advantage of the poor & others unable to defend themselves, while at the same time giving bargain basement prices to other countries in Europe & elsewhere. We will respond!

    Pfizer probably raised prices on everyone else because they give away so many of its drugs and treatments to the poor and gives massive discounts and aid to those who can’t afford them, which apparently partly consists of all of Europe.

    1. “which apparently partly consists of all of Europe.”

      And the entire nation of Canada who get ’em cheap while those rich Africans pay ull boat to cover the subsidies.

    2. I thought pricing was based on what the market will pay. The only way the pricing in Europe or Canada affects US pricing is somewhat limiting how high the pricing can go before grey market imports become more attractive.

      1. In America, sure. In most other doesn’t work countries there are government price controls to keep them down.

      2. Happy Chandler|7.10.18 @ 12:53PM|#
        “I thought pricing was based on what the market will pay.”

        Yeah, right after the government rescinds ‘price controls’.
        I’m uncertain if you are disingenuous or not real bright.

  33. “(Casey) said he cannot support a “corrupt” process that has led to the president picking from a list of 25 candidates “funded by the corporate right.”

    Now, if it had been “funded by the corporate right.”, that’s a whole ‘nother kettle of money …

  34. Err, I meant to change it to
    “funded by the corporate left.”

  35. Err, I meant to change it to
    “funded by the corporate left.”


    Those pesky Republicrats have CONSPIRED with the neo-Nazi, right-wing FEDERALIST SOCIETY!

    It’s all controlled by this small, SECRETIVE SOCIETY!


    We “cannot support a ‘corrupt’ process that has led to the president picking from a list of 25 candidates funded by the CORPORATE RIGHT.”

    Trumpsters are COLLUDING not only with the SOCIALISTS in RUSSIA but with the SOCIALISTS leftovers from NAZI GERMANY to steal first the election and now the Supreme Court!!!

    They’re dominated by people on the extreme Left and extreme Right!

    And, this is the only explanation for why Trump failed to pick a DEMODONKEY!



    Better yet, he should have picked HILLARY, since it was HER TURN!

    Hee-haw! Hee-haw! Hee-haw!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.