Reason Roundup

Pirates, Pot, and Police: The Supreme Court Has Been Busy

Plus: intra-conservative culture war, Tulsi Gabbard on Snowden, and more…


A flurry of recent Supreme Court activity. With just about a month left in session, the U.S. Supreme Court has been handing down decisions and issuing case rejections at a rapid pace. The past week alone has seen a host of court actions concerning issues we watch carefully at Reason, including police conduct, speech regulation, immigration policy, Medicare, and more. Here's a frills-free overview:

New Cases: Pirated Pirate Pics, Pot Sentencing, and Inflated IBM Stocks

The Court agreed this week to take three new cases, including one that involves pirates—actual pirates, as in those of Blackbeard's boat, the Queen Anne's Revenge, and those who "pirate" copyrighted material—in a case that pits state legal liability against artist and creator rights.

In that case (Allen v. Cooper), "the justices will consider whether Congress had the power to repeal the states' immunity from lawsuits for copyright infringement when it enacted the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act," as law blogger Amy Howe explains. Lawyers for plaintiff Frederick Allen—who copyrighted photos and videos he took of the Queen Anne's Revenge shipwreck and sued the state of North Carolina for allegedly violating that copyright—say that a decision in the state's favor would mean "creators of original expression will be left without remedy when States trample their federal copyrights."

The other cases SCOTUS just agreed to consider involve:

In the latter, plaintiffs allege that the fiduciaries of IBM's stock-ownership plans were amiss in continuing to invest in IBM stock they knew was artificially inflated, thereby violating federal securities law. A lot of powerful interests, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are urging justices to side with IBM.

Cases Rejected or Delayed: DACA, Death Row, and D.C. Metro Ads

The court denied a Trump administration request to speed up consideration of cases involving the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program for children of undocumented immigrants.

The court also declined to hear a case (American Freedom Defense Initiative v. WMATA) involving the District of Columbia's right to ban issue-oriented ads on public transportation. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) ad ban was put in place in 2015, after Pamela Geller's "American Freedom Defense Initiative" attempted to purchase space for anti-Muslim ads. Last year, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the WMATA ban was not a violation of the First Amendment.

And SCOTUS (again) declined to hear an appeal from an Alabama death row inmate, Christopher Price, who was found guilty of murder in 1991 and executed by the state last Thursday night. In a dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that the case (Price v. Dunn) "demonstrates once again the unfortunate manner in which death sentences are often—perhaps inevitably—carried out in this country" and said the "Court should reconsider the constitutionality of the death penalty in an appropriate case."

New Decisions

SCOTUS has issued new decisions recently in cases concerning Medicare, anti-discrimination lawsuits, pre-trial imprisonment, wrongful arrests, and debt collection.

  • Fort Bend County v. Davis In this unanimous June 2 ruling, the court ruled in favor of a former city employee from Fort Bend, Texas, who had sued over alleged discrimination. The employee said she was fired for reporting sexual harassment and out of anti-religious animosity. SCOTUS did not rule on the merit of her claims but disagreed with the city that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. Full decision here.
  • Azar v. Allina Health Services: In this 7-1 ruling, the court struck a blow against an Obama Medicare rule. It held that a Medicare hospital reimbursement rule should be struck down because the Department of Health and Human Services had not properly followed the notice-and-comment rulemaking process. More here.
  • Nieves v. Bartlett: This case concerning a man alleging retaliatory arrest in Alaska has some folks worried about its implications for free speech, protest, and police brutality. With its May 28 ruling, the court "made it more difficult for people who say they were arrested for exercising their free speech rights to bring lawsuits against the officers who arrested them," suggests The Root. "This could include behaviors like throwing insults or refusing to talk to officers, or protesting and filming the police." Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented on the outcome of the case.
  • Mont v. United States: In a 5-4 decision, the court held that "pretrial imprisonment on a new criminal charge puts a term of federal supervised release on hold," as SCOTUSblog explains. This relatively in-the-weeds sentencing ruling is notable for the strange alliances it produced among justices, as Reason's Damon Root points out:

The Mont lineup is interesting "on multiple levels," suggests law professor Jonathan H. Adler, continuing:

At first the decision appears to have produced a traditional 5-4, conservative-liberal split, until one notices that Justice Ginsburg joined with the conservatives and Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the liberals. The resulting division is thus neither one we expect to see ideologically, nor is it readily explained on the basis of other common jurisprudential divisions, such as the formalist-pragmatist split we've often seen in other criminal justice contexts. Further, while we've seen Justice Gorsuch cross over to vote with the liberal justices in other cases, we have not seen this in a case in which one of the more liberal justices also 'switched sides.'

  • Taggart v. Lorenzen: In this case, the court unanimously held that "creditors could face civil penalties if their attempt to collect old debt that was canceled in bankruptcy is 'objectively unreasonable,'" The Wall Street Journal explains. More here.

And if you've still got an appetite for legal conundrums:


  • Here's a very good National Review piece on "the huge albatross to the conservative movement that few want to talk about."
  • "Granting states some authority to mint visas to meet their specific labor market needs would help dry up demand for undocumented workers, stave off depopulation, keep businesses in place, and fill in fiscal gaps," writes Will Wilkinson in The New York Times.
  • "The devil usually tells us we're saving others' souls when he's trying to convince us to sell our own," suggests Reason's Stephanie Slade, weighing in on the First Things/theocracy versus David French/classical liberalism controversy.
  • Migrant children between the ages of 5 and 12 years old were left on a bus overnight (after what was supposed to be just a 30-minute ride) in a botched family reunification attempt.
  • What happens when you reclassify independent contractors as employees? Reason's Christian Britschgi explores.
  • Protecting and serving:

  • ICYMI:

NEXT: Consenting To Be Paid for Sex Is Still Consenting!

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. As president, I will protect whistle-blowers who expose threats to our freedom and liberty.

    How candidates think of themselves vs how presidents actually are.

    1. Hello.

  2. Clarence Thomas questions sources of retirement rumors

    I thought for sure, Thomas would retire before 2020 but I guess not.

    Maybe he’s waiting for RBG to die before 2020, so he can retire then and give the GOP controlled Senate a Two-Fer.

    1. Speaking of RGB, when she votes with the conservatives, and Gorsuch votes with the liberals, you know what the right decision was.

      1. Poor Chipper, doesnt know how to read SCOTUS opinions.

        Gorsuch concurred in part and dissented in part.

        He didnt vote how you think he voted.

  3. Granting states some authority to mint visas to meet their specific labor market needs would help dry up demand for undocumented workers, stave off depopulation, keep businesses in place, and fill in fiscal gaps…

    Sounds like too much federalism, NYT.

    1. States can issue their own visas because federalism. But they can’t enforce immigration law on their own borders. Because federalism.

  4. At least four dead, two more injured after Australian gunman goes on shooting spree: reports

    I was assured by Lefties that gun confiscations would reduce gun violence to ZERO.

    1. They lied.

  5. Cranberries could save us from “superbugs”

    what about superbogs?!

    1. Subtle.

    2. It’s berry frightening.

    3. do you have to let it linger?

  6. Imagine being this person

    The Chick-fil-A culture wars have escalated
    There is no neutral stance on Chick-fil-A any longer. It’s become a potent symbol in fierce debates surrounding religious liberty and corporate responsibility, and those arguments aren’t likely to abate any time soon. A few Takeout commenters have said our site shouldn’t cover the chain at all. So the question becomes: Where does this lead? What does a resolution to the Chick-fil-A wars look like? Six months ago, I might have said the issue would largely pass from public consciousness: Some people will eat there, some people won’t. But the public now demands a sort of reckoning, a final decision on where we as a country stand on Chick-fil-A as an idea, not just a chicken restaurant.

    1. How about telling the SJWs to go fuck themselves? That is always a good stance.

    2. It’s become a potent symbol because idiots like you make it one in your faux-righteous rage.

      Go get a job….at Chick-fil-A.

    3. the public now demands a sort of reckoning, a final decision on where we as a country stand on Chick-fil-A as an idea, not just a chicken restaurant

      LOL, First World Problems.

    4. Chick-Fil-A didn’t succumb to the Lefty demands, so it must be destroyed.

      Since Chick-Fil-A is expanding, its almost as if much of America has told the SJWs to fuck themselves.

      Eat More of your Own, Lefties.

      1. And I like how “corporate responsibility” is a good thing only if the corporation in question supports lefty causes.

        1. Well, that a given.

          Corporate power can only be used for “good intentions”.

        2. There is a new Chick-Fil-A less than a half-mile from my office. The drive thru lines are unbelievable, like nothing you have ever seen and I’m not using truthful hyperbole. There are 50-60 cars in the lines during much of the day beginning with lunch up to 8 or 8:30.

          That sure must roil the proggies, i.e., Sevo’s San Fran-sicko set.

          1. Every Chick-Fil-A that I have been to has top notch customer service.

            This also infuriates Lefties that minimum wage workers can do a great job and be professional about it.

      2. Two of them opened a year apart within walking distance of me – in midtown Manhattan.

        Chicken sandwiches > virtue signaling

        1. Are they so busy that local cops have to direct traffic.

          Lunch at Chick-Fil-A in Georgia can get crAAAAzy.

          Ever in Georgia, visit the Dwarf House. Were it all started.
          Dwarf House: Serving the Soul for 70 Years

          1. Went there a few times in high school for all you can eat nuggets

    5. For fuck’s sake, it is just a chicken restaurant.

      1. It’s not JUST a chicken restaurant.

        Biscuits and fried okra are almost as good as momma used to make.

      2. I don’t eat there because it’s a shitty fast food restaurant with stale chicken sandwiches, not because of some political stance they took. I hate Sweetgreen’s shitty paper straws virtue signaling, but it doesn’t stop me from enjoying their fantastic salads.

        1. “I don’t eat there because”

          No one cares and you’re just going to lie about why anyway

          “it’s a shitty fast food restaurant with stale chicken sandwiches”

          Oh I was right again. Ho hum.

        2. WTF is a “stale chicken sandwhich”? Bread and vegitibles get stale not meat. If you are going to virtue signal and try to pretend to be a foodie, at least learn the lingo and how to fake it properly.

          1. Breaded chicken can get stale. As can the bread it is served on.
            All seemed pretty fresh to me though when I’ve been there.

          2. Don’t forget the shakes. They are awesome. Its too bad that the drive thru lines are so long at the new one near my office. Although I admit that I am lazy, the park and go in option is limited as well because the parking spots all appear to be taken whenever I ride by the place.

            1. I actually ate Chick Fila for the first time as the last meal before getting the nurovirus. I didn’t get the nurovirus from Chickfila. So, it is not the chain’s fault. But, I was left with a very strong association between Chick Fila and nausia such that I can’t eat there to this day. It is a shame because their food is supposed to be pretty good. I just can’t do it.

              1. Try to have someone secretly get you chick-fil-A and sneak it into a meal somehow (chicken salad, if you eat salads).

                Its a twist on Exposure Therapy.

                Sometimes Exposure Therapy can break the mental link between something and anxiety.

          3. It was a pretty pathetic attempt to virtue signal.

        3. No, it’s a good fast food restaurant. Burger King is a shitty fast food restaurant. Be fair.

        4. See there you go Chipper. The responses to your comment demonstrate that the culture war over Chick Fil A is being fought on both fronts.

          If you eat at Chick Fil A, you’re a bigot supporting bigotry.

          If you don’t eat at Chick Fil A, you’re a progressive SJW bent on destroying a wholesome Christian company.

          How about this:
          People ought to be free to eat, or not eat, at Chick Fil A, without having their motives questioned one way or another.

          1. WTF does there being no such thing as a “stale chicken sandwhich” have to do with the culture war?

            1. Thank you John, jeff seems to be incapable of posting without including his hallucinations.

            2. Why can’t you simply accept Chipper’s stated motivation for not eating at Chick Fil A because of the food?

              Why does it have to be some ulterior motive?

              Believe it or not, some people don’t eat at Chick Fil A for reasons that have nothing to do with their views on gays or Christianity or anything else, but based instead on the perceived quality of the food (or lack thereof).

              1. Because you’re both lying pieces of shit.

                1. You said it more straightforwardly.

                2. So Chipper is lying? You know this how?

                  1. Experience.

                    The same way you claim to know I am lying.

                  2. I said YOU and Chipper are lying pieces of shit.

                    It doe snot matter if he is lying about this issue about Chick-Fil-A because I don’t care what he says. He lies on a wide range of topics, so he cannot be trusted.

                    Same with YOU.

              2. “Why can’t you simply accept Chipper’s stated motivation for not eating at Chick Fil A because of the food?”

                So you’re saying you’re allowed to judge me based on my posting history, but we can’t judge Chipper on his.

              3. Why don’t I take his motives? Because there is no such thing as a “stale chicken sandwich” and that fact that he would use such an absurd term shows he has no idea what he is talking about.

                For the record, as I explained above, I can’t even eat at Chick Fila because of a bad experience with the nurovirus. The only person virtue signaling here is him. And he is doing it very poorly.

                1. There is such a thing as serving fried chicken on stale bread, which may be colloquially referred to as a “stale chicken sandwich”.

                  Which you would give the benefit of the doubt to, to anyone else. But because it’s Chipper, or me I suppose, perceived to be THE ENEMY, our stated reasons can’t be our real reasons, we are trying to undermine a wholesome Christian American company with culture war bullshit. Right?

                  This is just absurd levels of paranoia. Sometimes a chicken sandwich is just a chicken sandwich. You don’t eat there because of norovirus. Chipper doesn’t eat there because of what Chipper perceives to be the poor quality of food. I don’t eat there because frankly I find the chicken to be dry and bland. Let’s just leave it at that and not use stupid fast food eating choices as proxies in the culture war.

                  1. I don’t give people who make patently absurd statements the benefit of the doubt. No. People say a lot of things about Chick Fila, their having bad food is not one of them. The idiocy of his statement speaks for itself. You just deny it becuase you are pedantic and will die on any hill if doing so means defending someone you see as part of the leftist great crusade.

                  2. “But because it’s Chipper, or me I suppose, perceived to be THE ENEMY, our stated reasons can’t be our real reasons”

                    So what’s your excuse when you pull that shit on me?

                    Or are you just going to keep ignoring that you pull that shit on me so you can bitch about it when it is done to your boy?

                    1. Tulpa, your STATED reason is to troll here.

                    2. Troll doesn’t equal liar.

                      So, that try failed.

                      Care to try again?

                    3. (He won’t try again, he knows I’m right)

                    4. Tulpa, I don’t call you a liar because you’re a troll. I call you a liar because you’re a liar.

                    5. But as usual all you really want to do is to drag people down to your level of depravity. Sorry I’m not in the mood for playing your narcissistic games.

                    6. “Tulpa, I don’t call you a liar because you’re a troll. I call you a liar because you’re a liar.”

                      Then why did your stupid ass say “Tulpa, your STATED reason is to troll here.” fuck wit? And why do YOU get to judge people’s honesty but no one else does?

                      “I’m not in the mood for playing your narcissistic games”

                      In other words, you know I’m right and need an excuse to avoid explaining why YOU get to judge people’s honesty but no one else does.

                  3. John, you are the one being the pedantic idiot when you parse colloquial phrases to an absurd level of accuracy in order to “prove” some ill intent.

                    People say a lot of things about Chick Fila, their having bad food is not one of them.

                    So people who don’t like the food at Chick Fil A, *for whatever reason*, are progressive SJW activists, concealing their activism behind the virtue signal of “bad food”? In reality their food is so good that it’s not possible for any human being on the planet to not like it, and any attempt to claim otherwise is to belie a hidden motivation, is that right?

                    1. John is saying that we all see through bullshit SJW virtue signalling.

                      I am not a fan of Chick-Fil-A fries unless they are well-done. See how that is a criticism of Chick-Fila-A without smelling like SJW bullshit?

                    2. “John, you are the one being the pedantic idiot”

                      Stay classy.

                    3. People who claim that Chick Fila has bad food instead of just having food that doesn’t suit their tastes are being absurd. It is clearly not bad food. I don’t like Greek food. That doesn’t mean every Greek restaurant serves bad food. It means they often do serve good food just not food I like.

                      His statement speaks for itself. You are convincing no one here.

              4. >>>not eating at Chick Fil A because of the food?

                because lies.

              5. I don’t eat at chik-fil-a because of the lines, their fries, and their sandwiches. I do like the nuggets, but since u can’t get in there without battling traffic, I don’t bother.

          2. How about you stop talking to voices in your head and see about getting some anti-psychotic medication, jeff

        5. Your poor taste in virtue signaling is noted, eunuch

          1. See there you go. You can’t accept Chipper’s stated motivation of simply not liking the food at Chick Fil A. It MUST BE due to some ulterior motive. You all really are the mirror image of the SJW left. They won’t accept a reason to eat at Chick Fil A that isn’t anything other than endorsing bigotry. You’re just doing the same thing in reverse.

            1. Or maybe we just know Chipper. You fucking moron.

      3. No, its a mighty good chicken restaurant.

        1. I wasn’t that impressed. It wasn’t bad, but all the people talking about how great it is raised me expectations too high.

          1. As a comparison, what do you consider a good chicken sandwich?

          2. Hey look yet another “THAT guy”

      4. waffle. fries. and lemonade.

    6. Just read the comments. People have waaaayyyy too much time on their hands if this is a problem. They have strong opinions over th stupidest shit as a result.

      Live and let live. Keep your thoughts to yourself and quietly do what you gotta do. Have a problem with Chick? Then don’t go.

      1. Trump beat Hillary…goddam you!

        We cannot let Americans choose….anything!

    7. But the public now demands a sort of reckoning

      LOL. Bullshit. “The public” mostly wants to be left alone to eat where they feel like eating. It’s only manic lefties demanding “a final decision” (which we know is never final, because there’s always new mentally ill people to normalize out of fanatic underdog-ism).

      1. Just clicked on the link, and wasn’t surprised to see that it’s from one of Gawker’s post-chemo intellectual cancer cells.

      2. “The public” mostly wants to be left alone to eat where they feel like eating.


        It’s only manic lefties demanding “a final decision”

        That’s a negatory. Read the comments above. Not eating at Chick Fil A because you don’t like their sandwiches is, evidently, just code for allying with the leftist SJW’s wanting to destroy the company.

        1. I read the comments above and once again, you’re seeing shit that isn’t there. You should see a Psychiatrist. This pathetic persecution complex you have is a problem.

    8. Is the public demanding anything or is it merely certain busybodies demanding that infidels to their hedonistic creed be given internal exile for not publically worshipping at their diety’s altar?

    1. Trump’s libertarian-ish emergency military border wall?

      1. Border security and common defense are 100% Libertarian.

    1. Somalis have Changed Minneapolis
      Now, due to continuing refugee placements as well as chain migration there are an estimated 80,000 Somalis living in the Twin Cities metro area, or more like 79,000 if you subtract those who’ve left the country to join terrorist organizations like ISIS.

      1. I’ve learned from the left to judge ISIS members on an individual level. So just because 99 percent of a populous thinks it’s okay throw gays off rooftops, some of the are surely good people.

        1. Lefties will apologize for the onlookers and supporters who egged on the actual fag tossers.

        2. I’ve learned from the left to judge ISIS members on an individual level.

          That’s not “the left”. They are just as much collectivists as the nationalist right. That’s individualists like me who insist that individuals be judged on their own individual merits.

          1. Poor Chemjeff does not understand that Collectivism uses force.

            Volunteer community lacks that force.

          2. Jeffy will talk about individuals when it is convenient to deflect criticism of his obvious ignorance of any actual history. He is a Collectivist right down to the slippers they make him wear inside the group home.

    2. LOL

      California, with its powerhouse economy, is exactly what Koch / Reason libertarians should want the entire country to look like.

      1. Care to recalculate after subtracting the parts of the CA economy that issue from the federal government/defense/military?
        Take out the military bases, take out the federal parks and the federal bureaucrats, take away the Defense contractors, and take away the business that care for those people.
        Now what is the economy? Hollywood and state agencies. With a bit of Silicon valley.

    3. Why are so many people moving out of California?
      According to a recent report from the California Legislative Analyst’s Office, between 2007 and 2016, more than a million people left California rather than moving here from other states.

      This means that the 2020 Census will have Commifornia giving up House seats to Red states like Georgia and Texas.

      1. Even funnier is that its up to Taxifornia to decide how to reconfigure their fewer Congressional districts and they have NO say in how to reconfigure the added House Districts in states like Georgia.

        Lefties were right. Demographics are the key to controlling the USA. Thanks for the lesson Lefties.

    4. Import a Third World population with Third World ideologies, and you get a Third World society with Third World diseases.

      On the bright side, maybe an outbreak of bubonic plague will help clear out some of California’s exceptional residents.

      1. +100

      2. You mean the third world is the way it is because of the people who live there and not the magic dirt? Wow.

        1. Do you think the Third World is the way it is ONLY BECAUSE of the population who lives there?

          Do you think that there might in fact be other factors involved, and that to reduce everyone to a singular variable like “culture” is absurdly reductionist?

          1. He didn’t say “culture” so why are you using quotation marks as though he did?

          2. Again, the ignorance shines forth like a beacon. The 3rd world is the way it is because in most places the culture rewards young men who are willing to torture and murder their countrymen based only on their bosses orders. Bosses like, say, Che Guevara, confirmed child killer and darling of the far left. Nobody gives a shit in a place where you can be killed without repercussions at any time.

            Jeffy is fine with importing those people en mass because, hey, there are always going to be a few war criminals and child rapists in any group. And its not like immigrants have a history of bringing organized crime to America with them from the ‘old county’.

    1. “Tiffany Falls” was also a Bond girl.

      1. Close, it was Tiffany Case.

  7. “Minutes later, police officers barged through the front door, and saw the young woman, naked holding a blanket wrapped around her body, and the man she had just been in bed with was walking toward them.
    He was an undercover police officer”

    -1 for not going with: previously under the covers was a previously undercover police officer

  8. Migrant children between the ages of 5 and 12 years old were left on a bus overnight (after what was supposed to be just a 30-minute ride) in a botched family reunification attempt.

    Damn them when they don’t reunite them. Damn them when they try to reunite them. MAKE UP YOUR MINDS.

  9. Tulsi Gabbard is hot. And not just hot for a politician hot. She is legitimately hot.

    1. Her appearance doesn’t matter, especially when she’s Russia’s favorite Democrat.

      Tulsi Gabbard’s Campaign Is Being Boosted by Putin Apologists


      1. Russia loves a pretty girl just like all normal people.

        1. Not surprising from a country that perfected the honey trap.

          1. In Mother Russia, the honey trap perfect you.

    2. Nope. She looks like a dude.

      1. No she doesn’t.

        1. Stunning and Brave.

      2. Maybe if your standard for masculinity is Robby Soave

        1. And her mouth is weird. Like it was put on upside down. Tiny chiclet teeth too. And those elbows…

        2. +1000 Lap. That was awesome.

          1. Try harder John, jfc…

            1. If you can’t appreciate that comeback, you are just butt hurt. Come on, that was funny. I so wish I had thought of it.

              1. Your taste in jokes parallels your taste in mannish looking women.

                You appreciate that comeback because it supports your “I like mannsih women” post. The rest of us laughed because of how stupid it was.

                1. Again, your idea of musculinity must really be Robby Soave. NTTAWWT. Her comeback is even funnier knowing it is true.

                  1. The thing is, Robby actually looks like a dude. A foofy one, but he has a man’s features. So “her” comeback doesn’t even make any sense.

                    I’m sorry I upset you by pointing out your terrible tasts in what constitutes “hot” but pretending her post (was it even a “comeback”? When did you decide this was an insult war?) wasn’t dumb won’t make it less dumb.

                    1. Her comeback made perfect sense. Soave is a very effiminate guy. There is nothing worng with that. It is not his fault. Her comeback was perfect and funny as hell. The more you try to deny it the worse you look. Lighten up and give people credit for saying something witty or smart sometimes, even if it is at your expense.

                    2. “Her comeback made perfect sense”

                      It wasn’t even a comeback, and it doesn’t make sense.

                      “Soave is a very effiminate guy”

                      With obviously male features. Which is why her post is so stupid. She is actually agreeing with me.

                      “The more you try to deny it the worse you look”

                      Wait, I look bad for not sharing your taste? Wtf?

                      “Lighten up and give people credit for saying something witty or smart sometimes, even if it is at your expense.”

                      At my expense? So you’re saying it would be a mark against me if my taste was Robby Soave? That’s pretty fucking gross.

                      Jfc John we can all see her stupid post, and you going full homophobe+”+1infinty!!! ” gushing fangirl over it is sad.

                      Someone pointed out that a chick you think is hot looks like a man. Get over it.

                  2. Also, what kind of fucking idiot response is “haha you like dudes!!!” when I said the chick you think is hot looks like a man.

                    It’s like you keep trying for a gotcha because I disagreed with you and you don’t care how stupid and nonsensical it is.

    1. Religion of peace.

    2. That’s terrible.

      But what about all the Catholic terrorists attacking reproductive health centers? I’m sure you wouldn’t use those stories to smear an entire religion.


      1. That is funny. You haven’t had a good one in a while. But this one made me laugh.

      2. Okay, I laughed out loud on that one. Well done.

      3. Welcome back

    3. Come on John. Christians are just as bad and there’s no massacres of Christians.

      Can we please stop demonizing Ihlan’s religion?

  10. Liberals are gunning for your 401(k)
    These shareholder activists are taking it a step farther, by sponsoring legislation (H.R. 2364) that would turn the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) into a political policing operation by forcing financial institutions to disclose significant investments with gun and ammunition manufacturers. The goal is to embarrass those investors while harming the manufacturers’ bottom line.

    The reckless game played by shareholder activists makes it dangerous for shareholders who invest money that they will need to carry them through retirement.

    1. The takeover and use of corporations to further government authority and to squash dissent. That is what is known as fascism or at least a key component of it.

      The Democrats have gone full fascist. They don’t even try to hide it anymore.

      1. Its one of the greatest things about Trump being elected President. The Lefties have so lost their minds that they came out of the woodwork with their Socialist ways all desperate.

        1. I can’t quite decide if that’s one of the greatest things or one of the worst. I don’t see a lot of good coming from the Democrats’ hard left turn. Unless it really gets them clobbered in elections. But I’m not sure that’s what is going to happen.

          1. Trump hasn’t forced the Democrats to do anything. Their turn to the moonbat left started in 2004 with Howard Dean. The difference Trump has made is that he has caused them to feel empowered to be more honest about it.

            I agree with you that the Democrats going batshit insane is a bad thing. Without a viable alternative, you can’t hold Republicans accountable for anything. At this point, the Republicans effectively have the country held hostage because voting them out of power means giving power to the “Too Crazy, Stupid, and Evil to Vote For Under Any Circumstances Party”. The Democrats don’t have to be good. They just don’t have to be crazy and not be catstrophically bad. Sadly, even that bar seems too high for them.

            1. I don’t mean to say that Trump or Republicans bear responsibility. I’m talking about the whole situation.

              1. It is a bad thing. It would be nice if the Demcorats could nominate an acceptable candidte so that every election isn’t a Flight 96 life or death struggle.

                1. Its the death throws of a major political party.

                  People are scared because its all they know or excited because they want the Democrat Party to go full blown Socialist. Then as you say, the GOP runs crazy with no check to some of their wacky plans.

                  One could argue that propping up the Democrat Party over the last decades just to challenge the GOP, when the GOP was fairly moderate, made this political climate scarier.

            2. With the Democrat Party gone, a Party of Libertarians can step in a check the GOP’s spending spree trend.

              Then the GOP will be the party of social conservatism and the Libertarians can platform on tiny and limited government, end to endless wars, social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, and free market.

          2. Its good because it signal the end of the Democratic Party…finally.

            America leans conservative. Democrats hiding the fact that they are Socialists, worked. Once they openly demand Socialist policy, Americans react negatively to that.

            Add in that quite a few Democrats (especially Black Democrats) are leaving the Democrat Party forever. Its bad news for the Party of slavery.

  11. Here’s a very good National Review piece on “the huge albatross to the conservative movement that few want to talk about.”

    The link is to a NYT column by lefty Will Wilkinson.

    1. When you’re a half retarded cunt, everything to the right of Mother Jones all looks the same.

  12. Mexico Cracks Down on Migrants, After Pressure From Trump to Act

    Can you believe that Trump is actually demanding that Mexico abide by its agreements under international treaty?

    Mexico tariffs worked to get Mexico to act. We will have to wait for another shitty article by Boehm to muddy the waters.

    1. Two strongman policies resulting in a Trump puppet government with weaker civil liberties to the South. How could we lose?

  13. …the Department of Health and Human Services had not properly followed the notice-and-comment rulemaking process.

    That thing that doesn’t matter matters.

  14. wrong link for the NR piece on right-wing PAC hustles

    Nice to see that Roger Stone made a pile on Donnie, even if he does end up in prison.

  15. With its May 28 ruling, the court “made it more difficult for people who say they were arrested for exercising their free speech rights to bring lawsuits against the officers who arrested them…”

    The court is good on free speech until it affects agents of the state.

    1. SMH at Gorsuch here.

    2. Nobody, including the guy arrested, contested that he was part of a fight.

      That is probable cause to arrest someone for battery or disturbing the peace.

      Remember that it only takes 4 justices to accept a case on certiorari. This was not a good case to resolve issues of police arresting someone as retaliation.

  16. Are you special enough for women like Wendy?
    How curious that the left is all about equality, and yet when it comes to selecting their future spouse apparently God purposely made a great number indeed of very average men who are entirely beneath consideration just so that women like Wendy could test their faith by rejecting them. How is it even remotely statistically possible for God to supposedly want all of us to wait for His very best?

    Implicit in this delusion is that Griffiths herself is one of these very best from God. Why else would she be holding out for the very best if she were not also one of the highly anointed? It’s a club, you see, and one with a most definite hierarchy. At the top are the people that God values the most, and to break into that special club you have to love and value yourself above all others.

    1. Taking things too far.
      That was a year ago, making them 54 and 59 now!* Contrast that with the secular feminist warning to young women not to ride the carousel too long, and to settle in their thirties, when the settling is good. Also keep in mind that Griffith isn’t claiming God had a fairly unique life script in mind for her by having her delay marriage until (it would appear) her late 50s. Griffith is selling “God hates it when you settle” to Christian women across the board.

      Christian women have also adopted the same empowerment message that goes along with the feminist life script. The more empowered a Christian woman is in her “season of singleness”, the better her Christian marriage will ultimately be! See never married Wendy Griffith (now 54) and never married Mandy Hale (now 40) discussing how to be successful in marriage at the 700 Club

      1. At least judging from her Amazon profile pick, she is pretty hot. So her claiming to want special treatment is a bit less galling than the usual ugly broad claiming to deserve it. That said, she is at 54 well past her sell by date. So, she better get pretty funky in the bedroom or her husband will be trading her in on a newer model before too long.

        1. “At least judging from her Amazon profile pick, she is pretty hot”

          Judging from the people you call hot, you’re 100 years old and have a thing for average looking assistant principal types.

          1. You don’t seem to find very many women attractive. NTTAWWT

            1. Attractive isn’t “pretty hot.”

              If you said “Tulsi Gabbard is attractive” you’d get no pushback from me. The same with this lady.


    The sacred homosexual Presidential candidate claims to have brought home two antique rifles from Afghanistan. That is a felony. War trophies are a huge no no in the American military. Is lying here or just that stupid?

    1. Both?

      He is a Dem, no law applies to him. We need him in power to Do Good. It’s for the best.

    2. Is lying here or just that stupid?

      I don’t know, but you identified him as homosexual, and that’s what clearly matters the most.

      1. It is what matters most to him. That is how he identifies himself. If you don’t like people identifying themselves and being identified as homosexual, you probably need to work out whatever issues you have with homosexuals and learn to be more comfortable with it.

      2. I think what matters the most is that we all know it’s you Shreek.

      3. If you use a political selling point that you are a homosexual, I think its fair game.

        Same with politicians that try to sell themselves as loving family members and then it turns out the spouses hate each other.

        1. All’s fair in love and politics.

  18. The widespread belief that cranberry juice helps treat urinary tract infections (UTIs) prompted Prof. Tufenkji and team to study cranberries.

    Well, OK, I suppose. But does cranberry juice *in fact* treat UTIs?

  19. “How ‘Limbic Capitalism’ Preys on Our Addicted Brains”
    “…These realities are well understood in the addiction-research and public health communities. Less well understood is how we got into this fix and why it keeps getting worse, despite the best efforts of those communities. I propose that the main source of the problem has been what I call limbic capitalism. This refers to a technologically advanced but socially regressive business system in which global industries, often with the help of complicit governments and criminal organizations, encourage excessive consumption and addiction. They do so by targeting the limbic system, the part of the brain responsible for feeling and for quick reaction, as distinct from dispassionate thinking….”

    Horseshit on stilts.

    1. Some interesting comments afterwards, though.

      1. Agreed. The comments are filled with libertarian ideas on personal responsibility and the nanny state. Pretty cool

      2. “Some interesting comments afterwards, though.”

        Given the intended audience, many were pleasantly surprising.

    2. What exactly do you disagree with?

      1. “What exactly do you disagree with?”

        How about this bit of tin-foil hat bullshit?
        “…This refers to a technologically advanced but socially regressive business system in which global industries, often with the help of complicit governments and criminal organizations, encourage excessive consumption and addiction…”

        1. The way it is stated has a slant to it. But I think that the thing it is describing actually exists.

          1. You think the Illuminati exists? Seriously?

          2. “The way it is stated has a slant to it. But I think that the thing it is describing actually exists.”
            “They” are all after you, are they?

        2. That part does seem like a stretch. I was curious if you were questioning the science on addiction

          1. You mean that science you made a fool of yourself misunderstanding the other day?

            Fuck. You didn’t even know that a reaponse can be conditioned on the mere suggestion of a stimulus. Your stupid ass thought people can only get a dopamine hit when they actually successfully sell something. That is so laughably wrong that one wonders why you bring subiect up again.

        3. It’s an assault on free will, which is fundamentally anti-libertarian in every important way.

          You libertarians think you should be free to make choices for yourselves, but your free choice is an illusion.

          I agree. We can get as specific as they want, but basically what they’re talking about is unadulterated horseshit.

          1. Not only is it an illusion, you are under the control of “capitalism”!!!
            Pretty sure this idiot began with that assumption and worked backwards to fill in the ‘evidence’.
            Or, this is Sokal under a nom de plume.

  20. Two basic questions we should always ask ourselves about any antitrust case:

    1) What is the problem we’re trying to fix with an antitrust case?

    2) What is the proposed solution?

    If the answer to those questions are insufficiently libertarian and capitalist, then so is the case.

    If the problem we’re trying to fix is Google using its dominant market share to drive up prices for consumers, then we need to acknowledge the fact that Google doesn’t charge consumers any money to use their search engine, for using Gmail, or for watching videos on YouTube.

    If we’re arguing that Google’s practices stifle competition or that they openly collude with competitors to blackball de-platformed individuals–and can violate their contractual obligations to content creators with impunity because of their unassailable market dominance–then we’re on stronger ground. Even so, what is the proposed solution? Is it libertarian and capitalist?

    There are also questions about whether the solution will really address the problem at all.

    One of the main problems with Facebook may be its corporate structure. Long story short, Zuckerberg only owns about 30% of Facebook’s stock, but, because of the way the company is structured, his 30% ownership gives him 60% of the voting rights.

    Last week, there was a shareholder driven proposal to split the roles of the CEO and the Chairman of the Board of Directors. Many people consider that kind of split essential to responsible corporate governance. An independent chairman is supposed to oversee the activities of the CEO, but when the board members are chosen by the CEO because he owns 60% of the voting rights AND the CEO, himself, is the Chairman of the Board, then the CEO is overseeing himself. The vote over whether to split the CEO and Chairman roles, last week, was predictably defeated when Zuckerberg voted against the proposal.

    If the FTC were to split Instagram off of Facebook and leave Zuckerberg in charge of 60% of the voting shares in both companies, I’m not sure whatever problem they’re trying to fix at Facebook is about to be solved because Zuckerberg at Facebook is now competing with Zuckerberg at Instagram. I am sure that the federal government is specifically prohibited from stripping Zuckerberg of his shares or their voting rights without due process of law.

    1. Has there ever been a communally beneficial anti-trust case? It seems more probable to me that The Man just doesn’t like competition.

    2. If the CEO and CotB owns 60%, everybody else can fvck off, for good or for ill. It’s his company

  21. Migrant children between the ages of 5 and 12 years old were left on a bus overnight (after what was supposed to be just a 30-minute ride) in a botched family reunification attempt.

    Come on, Free-Range Kids! You don’t want to call Child Protective Services on the Border Patrol, do you?

  22. Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented on the outcome of the case.

    I’m extremely disappointed in Gorsuch here.

    1. Read Gorsuch’s opinion with the majority. He concurs in part and dissents in part. The media just wants to push the Narrative that Gorsuch “agrees with the Liberals”. There are no such thing as Liberals. They are not supporters of Liberty.

      Nieves v. Bartlett

      Both sides accept that an officer violates the First Amendment when he arrests an individual in retaliation for his protected speech. They seem to agree, too, that the presence of probable cause does not undo that violation or erase its significance. And for good reason

      1. […]Maybe it would be good policy to graft a no-probable-cause requirement onto the statute, as the officers insist; or maybe not. Either way, that’s an appeal better directed to Congress than to this Court. Our job isn’t to write or revise legislative policy but to apply it faithfully.

        1. Our job isn’t to write or revise legislative policy but to apply it faithfully.

          Your job is to apply the constitution faithfully and strike down laws that violate it.

          1. Sure it is. But “bad” isn’t the same thing as “unconstitutional”.

          2. Which law should the SCOTUS strike down in this case?

            It only takes 4 justices to force review of a case. Then all the justices have to review the case and Gorsuch concurred in part and dissented in part.

            But yes, generally, the courts main jobs are to strike down unconstitutional laws and settle disputes.

  23. If it wasn’t for Snowden, the American people would never have learned the NSA was collecting phone records and spying on Americans.

    This is incorrect. We found out about it a couple of years before Snowden released the details. The news got a relatively ho hum response at first.

    1. Thanks to Snowden we knew James Clapper was outright lying to Congress and the American people regard domestic spying.

  24. Four states which have retained a bit of sanity:
    “Georgia Still Has No Hate Crimes Law Despite Many Tries
    Georgia is one of only four states _ along with South Carolina, Wyoming and Arkansas _ without an official hate crimes law and efforts to change that continue to fail.”

    1. Which begs the question: Why would any rational libertarian choose make his home in the San Fran-sicko Bay area?

      1. Love-Hate Crime relationship?

  25. “Facebook Inc. FB -0.80% shareholders voted down a proposal backed by seven state treasurers that sought to split the chairman and chief-executive roles that Mark Zuckerberg holds and establish an independent board leader.

    Shareholders voted Thursday against the proposal filed by Trillium Asset Management LLC, which owns about $7 million in shares and argued the combined CEO and chairman positions “contributed to Facebook missing, or mishandling, a number of severe controversies.”

    “At its core, this shareholder proposal is about the risk of concentrating too much power in one person—any person,” said Jonas Kron, senior vice president at Trillium, at Facebook’s annual meeting.

    The proposal was likely to fail given Mr. Zuckerberg’s overwhelming voting power at the social-media company, which recommended shareholders reject the plan. Mr. Zuckerberg’s supervoting shares grant 10 times the votes of average shareholders. He held 57.7% of the voting power this year, down from 59.9% in 2018, according to Facebook’s proxy filing.

    —-WSJ, May 30, 2019

    1. Here’s the way a rational argument for government intervention on capitalist and libertarian might look.

      The decisions of large fund managers that are available to average consumers are driven by comparisons to the index for a number of reasons. One of them is that if a fund manager significantly underperforms an index in any given year, the shareholders quickly question why they should management fees to a fund when they could just buy the S&P 500 index, get the same or better performance and not have to pay the fees to the manager.

      There’s another reason that’s fundamental to the argument against central planning. Even when active fund managers try to goose their returns higher than the dumb index, they usually fail. Anyone who understands their Adam Smith should understand why: 500 CEO’s pursuing their own interests collectively outperform someone who’s trying to pick which companies are likely to outperfrom the others in any given quarter because those CEOs can operate from 500 different, sometimes competing perspectives.

      Any blue chip fund that decided not to buy Facebook underperformed the S&P 500 index over the last decade. They can’t reasonably decide to not buy something in the S&P 500 and not expect to underperform the S&P 500 over time because of it–regardless of its corporate structure. S&P 500 index buyers are even more compelled to own Facebook–regardless of its corporate structure. Pension funds controlled by state employees are compelled to own Facebook stock for this reason–despite its corporate structure.

      All of these investors are effectively compelled to hold Facebook’s stock–and yet be underrepresented and a permanent minority within the company because of Zuckerberg’s super-majority voting rights. If the FTC were to come after that problem and tell Zuckerberg that either he “willingly” distributed his voting rights among other shareholders on a proportional basis going forward–or he face prosecution by the FTC–I’m not sure that would be completely unlibertarian or completely anticapitalist. And if Zuckerberg wants to risk it in court, he still can.

  26. This is like the most boring pajama party ever.

    1. Please don’t post any more child porn to spice things up like you did when you got banned Shreek.


    A Utah man was arrested Friday morning after hitting an 11-year-old girl with his car before telling her ‘we all die sometime,’ according to a police.

    Authorities said Steven Ray Becky, 19, later confessed to police and a witness that he intentionally hit the child, ‘because she was white.’

    Interesting question; can a white person be charged with a rase based hate crime against another white person? If this dirtbag were black, it would be a textbook example of a hate crime. But he is white.

    I don’t see how people can see things like this and not conclude that the constant demonization of white people by the left has something to do with it. Maybe this guy would have run someone else down. We will never know. But, he decided the girl deserved to die for being white for some reason. I think it is a pretty good guess the constant left’s barrage of hatred towards white people is what put that into his mind.

    1. The main issue is that this guy appears to be a hardcore drug addict. Maybe he is some self-loathing, slack-jawed hicklib like Kirkland, but I doubt it.

      1. I can’t believe anyone who isn’t such a self loathing slack jaw would say confess to running over a child because they were white.

  28. >>>plaintiff Frederick Allen—who copyrighted photos and videos he took of the Queen Anne’s Revenge shipwreck

    did he build the ship?

    1. No. Obama did. With help from Michelle and Hillary.
      And some village somewhere – – – – – –

  29. Maduro’s circling of the drain appears to be accelerating in velocity.

    “Russian state defense contractor Rostec, which has trained Venezuelan troops and advised on securing arms contracts, has cut its staff in Venezuela to just a few dozen, from about 1,000 at the height of cooperation between Moscow and Caracas several years ago, said a person close to the Russian defense ministry. The gradual pullout, which has escalated over the last several months, according to people familiar with the situation, is due to a lack of new contracts and the acceptance that Maduro’s regime no longer has the cash to continue to pay for other Rostec services associated with past contracts . . . . Rostec’s withdrawal of permanent and temporary employees is a major setback for Maduro,


    One of the things Rostec was doing was building a Kalashnikov factory. When things get so bad that Putin’s cronies are forced to pull out because you can’t afford to pay them anymore, you know things are getting bad.

    Isn’t this usually the way emperors go? First they can’t afford to equip their Praetorian Guard, then it gets so bad that they can’t afford to keep the Praetorian Guard paid. That’s when the Praetorian Guard starts negotiating with whomever might want to replace you on the price of your head.

    P.S. I believe one of the other reasons Rostec can’t afford to protect Maduro anymore is because of the sanctions Trump initiated against Rostec (and Putin). However, that doesn’t jibe with the media narrative about Trump being on Putin’s payroll since before 2016, so don’t expect to hear much about this in the popular press.

    1. One of the things Rostec was doing was building a Kalashnikov factory. When things get so bad that Putin’s cronies are forced to pull out because you can’t afford to pay them anymore, you know things are getting bad.

      Damn, this is getting good. The Soviets scared the shit out of me because, like the Chinese, you knew that they would be willing to make the big move if the right opportunity presented itself and we would all be sitting behind the iron curtain or in a crater. This new ‘mercenary Russia’ plays a game more like post-Napoleonic Europe. The spy movies write themselves.

      1. That is actually why I think we have been in a position for a couple years to cooperate with the Russians, rather than consistently demonizing them. They aren’t ideological anymore. So play to their self-interest. Emphasize those areas where our interests coincide.

  30. So I was behind a car on the way to work today with the usual assortment of Prog bumper stickers; Bernie, COEXIST, RESIST and the like. One of the stickers had a picture of the Capital Building with the phrase “This is not a church” written below it.

    The irony was almost too much to bear without crashing.

    1. +10

  31. The Dow’s up 400 points.

    The yield on the 10 year treasury is inching higher.

    Trump is doubling down on his offer for a trade deal with the UK.

    The first two things are interrelated.

    All three are related in that that they all represent reality flying in the face of the prevailing media narrative.

    1. The idiots pointing to every decline in the Dow as evidence of how Trump’s TRADE WAR!! is destroying the economy remind me of the global warming cultist who point to every warmer than normal day as evidence of global warming.

      1. Facebook and Google lost $93 billion in value yesterday because the government is initiating Liz Warren’s call from weeks ago to go after them for antitrust.

        “Some $41 billion evaporated from Facebook on Monday as a person familiar with the matter said the U.S. Federal Trade Commission will oversee antitrust scrutiny into whether the firm’s practices harm competition in the digital market under an agreement with the Justice Department. That added to early-morning losses as the group was hammered by a report the Justice Department was preparing an antitrust investigation into Google. Some $52 billion was erased from Google’s market value”

        So, she must be stupid and crazy, amirite?

        We can’t even get a story about this from Reason, though. If SpaceX in conjunction with Bernie Sanders and North Korea launched a nuclear missile at us from a moon base next week, all the stories around here might still be about why prostitution should be legal.

        1. reason staff are just trying to inform us that those Chinese man-made islands are just new spots for factories to produce cheap shit that Americans must buy.

          1. those Chinese man-made islands are just new spots for factories to produce cheap shit

            All the UFO sightings on the West Coast make me suspicious I may have to learn Chinese sooner than later. The East Coast will miss California, but are willing to sacrifice it to get rid of everything else west of the Rockies. Then they just need to ask Mexico to build that wall on the northern border of Texas, and Mexico will happily pay for it.


    2. tv says price of burritos to skyrocket.

      1. So the commentator shorted Chipotle and did it on margin, amirite?

        1. hey you’re good @this. literal Chipotle banner in the background

      2. Anybody else remember when the media narrative was that Trump was hurting American farmers with his trade war the most?

        Trump initiates trade friction with Mexico, and, suddenly, that’s not the narrative anymore. Gee, I hope Trump wasn’t reacting to the media narrative in an election year!

        If so, libertarians who pushed that narrative ought to be ashamed of themselves. It’s like pushing president to get out of Iraq because it isn’t worth the sacrifice–and then going after him for pulling out and letting ISIS take over.

        Sarcasmic would tell its all principals over principles.

        1. The arguments about American farmers did nothing but show the complete hypocrisy of Trump’s critics. When the subject involves imports it is all about the interests of the consumer. The consumer rules all. So, it doesn’t matter how much local producers are hurt by foreign compeition or how unfair that competition is because only the interests of the consumer matter.

          Okay, but then China stops buying American soybeans causing the price to fall and suddenly the producer is all that matters. Really. Somehow cheaper food is now a bad thing because TRADE WAR!!

    3. But the market has been exceptionally volatile over the last two years and it would be difficult to make the case that owners are being rewarded for this extra risk.


    Mexican government admits cartels are in control of 80% of its territory. Maybe we should be making trade deals with the cartels.

    1. Why do you think we are not making deals with the cartels?

  33. U.S. soy exporters struggle with huge China export commitments in midst of trade war

    Wait… I was assured by Boehm that American soy farmers were twiddling their thumbs as they had nobody to sell to.

    They are selling to China? Wow!

  34. Walmart is wooing high school students as retail’s war for talent rages on

    You meant to tell me that a free market solution for less ‘Mescians is High School kids? Earn money AND get a free ride through college.

    1. Endless supplies of cheap labor depriving all but the top American workers of any job security or bargaining power with their employers is the only path to prosperity. Didn’t you know that?

      1. Hey John, do you think there is a big correlation with the crack down on illegal immigration and Lefties getting upset with having less illegals do their cleaning, nanny services, pools, landscaping, and janitor services?

        I initially thought this pushback was just because of needing demographics on the side of Lefties to stay in the politics game. Now I have been seeing a few articles directly addressing Lefties having to pay free market prices for labor to do these services.

        1. I don’t think they are that deep. I think they just emote

  35. “Granting states some authority to mint visas to meet their specific labor market needs would help dry up demand for undocumented workers, stave off depopulation, keep businesses in place, and fill in fiscal gaps,” writes Will Wilkinson in The New York Times.

    This will never happen. And even if it did:

    would help dry up demand for undocumented workers

    No it wouldn’t.

    stave off depopulation

    No it wouldn’t.

    keep businesses in place, and fill in fiscal gaps

    No it wouldn’t and no it wouldn’t.

    Unless of course these state-issued visas came with a whole shit-ton of caveats like, “Ok, Hyunjung, we’ll grant you this visa but you have to stay in North Dakota and work here at the following businesses and live in the following towns.”

    1. Sort of like the way contract programmers from India have their passports held by the firm that bought their H-1B visa?

  36. “Pirates, Pot, and Police:”

    Fuck that.
    I’m holding out for the SCOTUS’ decisions on lions, tigers and bears, oh my!

    1. Lions, yes
      Tigers, no
      Bears, deferred

      1. stare decisis on Tigers is cement.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.