Reason Roundup

Impeachment Overshadows Obamacare Ruling

Plus: States sue to stop Equal Rights Amendment, French sex workers take prostitution laws to E.U. court of human rights, and more...

|

The individual mandate is invalid, says court. While the chattering class was focused mostly on the pageantry in Washington yesterday, some more momentous news (in terms of practical impact) may have been happening further south. On Wednesday, a federal appeals court in New Orleans held that the controversial part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) known as the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

A signature part of Obamacare, the individual mandate requires every American to have health insurance or pay a fine. In a 2–1 ruling issued yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit held that this requirement is not a "constitutional exercise of congressional power."

"If Congress can compel the purchase of health insurance today, it can, for example, micromanage Americans' day-to-day nutrition choices tomorrow," the judges wrote.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said he would lead state prosecutors in asking the Supreme Court to overturn the appeals court ruling.

For now, the panel of appellate judges remanded the case to the U.S. district court in Texas where it originated, so a judge there could "conduct a more searching inquiry" into the viability of other parts of the law. (Volokh Conspiracy bloggers Josh Blackman and Ilya Somin offer more on what the judges wrote and what it means.)

Last year, that court held that the individual mandate was not only unconstitutional but also essential to the functioning of Obamacare overall. Without it, the court said in December 2018, the whole health care law must be invalidated.

Speaking of things getting canceled: The Democratic-led House of Representatives voted yesterday to impeach President Donald Trump, making him the third person in U.S. history to get this far in a congressional effort to deplatform someone from the presidency. But the matter now goes to the Republican-led Senate, where no one expects enough votes to remove Trump from office.


QUICK HITS

  • French sex workers are taking their country's prostitution laws to court, telling the European Court of Human Rights that "it is urgent that the sacrifice of sex workers on the altar of morality end!"
  • Attorneys general from Alabama, Louisiana, and South Dakota are suing to stop the Equal Rights Amendment from moving forward.
  • "To say Trump deserves impeachment is different from saying that impeachment is good for the country. It might, in fact, turn out quite badly," argues Shadi Hamid at The Atlantic.
  • Trump now says impeaching presidents is unconstitutional, full stop. However…

NEXT: The Weird Litigation Posture of the Doe v. Mckesson / Baton Rouge Black Lives Matter Protest Case

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

  1. The individual mandate is invalid, says court.

    Making Mike Pence the 46th president!

    1. Hello.

      Obama is still losing after office.

      1. “Trump now says impeaching presidents is unconstitutional, full stop”

        Except he didn’t and you’re lying.

    2. ╔════╗───────────────╔═══╦═══╦═══╦═══╗─╔╗╔╗╔╗
      ╚═╗╔═╝───────────────╚══╗║╔═╗╠══╗║╔═╗║─║║║║║║
      ──║║─╔══╦╗╔╦════╦══╗─╔══╝║║─║╠══╝║║─║║─║║║║║║
      ──║║─║╔═╣║║║╔╗╔╗║╔╗║─║╔══╣║─║║╔══╣║─║║─╚╝╚╝╚╝
      ──║║─║║─║╚╝║║║║║║╚╝║─║╚══╣╚═╝║╚══╣╚═╝║─╔╗╔╗╔╗
      ──╚╝─╚╝─╚══╩╝╚╝╚╣╔═╝─╚═══╩═══╩═══╩═══╝─╚╝╚╝╚╝
      ────────────────║║
      ────────────────╚╝
      ____________________________________________________

      Best President in US History!!!

      1. I hear “Orange Man Bad” thrown out there a lot as a way of being dismissive about any criticism of Trump, but, seriously, why is he orange? He changed the light bulbs in the White House and he’s still orange.

        1. That’s funny. I’ve also had that question. Why the hell is he he orange?

          1. Like last week, Trump claimed that it’s because of fluorescent lights or something like that, and reportedly had light bulbs changed in the White House. Hmm, going to google this…

            1. This article makes the conjecture that it is fake tanning (which is what I have always suspected):

              https://www.businessinsider.com/why-is-donald-trumps-skin-orange-2016-10

              1. God damn jeff, youre pretty pissed about all your losing.

                Stay “neutral” ahahaahhh liar ahahahaah

                1. Not pissed at all. Enjoying myself today.

                  There’s something about how completely ludicrous lc1789’s president worship is that amuses me.

                2. Poor Neutral mikey doesnt get when people are making fun of his Team’s worship.

                  1. So, you’re just acting out a parody, and you aren’t actually Trump’s #1 fan? That’s a huge relief.

                    I’m not sure what team I’d be on. Team Gary Johnson? I wasn’t that big a fan of that team, and he’s since been traded to an online marijuana selling company or something like that.

              2. I’d pretty much taken that as a given; He certainly looks like a red-head who takes tanning pills. Which IS considerable safer than getting a real tan, mind you.

        2. Probably bad tanning but I’ve always wondered if, like JFK, he has Addison’s or some related hormonal disorder that affects skin color. If so, then again like JFK, it’s none of our business.

      2. Re: loveconstitution1789, I never thought I would see this level of presidential fellating within the comments section of Reason.

        I’m loving all the pearl-clutching that Trump is causing, and I’ll be happy if he gets reelected. But this, geez…

        1. Poor freeradical.

          reason fellating Hillary’s dick is a-okay with this guy.

          I think it’s hilarious that Trump is more popular today than he was yesterday.

          1. Why would you think I’m ok with Reason fellating Hillary? This if-you’re-not-with-me-you’re-against-me kind of thinking is so juvenile.

            I also think it’s hilarious that Trump is more popular now. The best thing he has done is make people say fuck you to elite.

            But as long as the federal government is so grotesquely distended and beyond its Constitutional bounds, I’m an equal-opportunity president hater. Since Trump has done very little to actually make the government smaller, that hate will continue.

            1. I thought it was a hallmark of being a libertarian that we don’t go around worshiping Presidents.

              1. Right.

                There are two cults of personality around Trump, pro and anti.

                I’ve already wondered how people could be so self-unaware that they join these cults so willingly.

                1. i was a New Jersey Generals fan.

                2. There is also a large contingency of people who may not be exactly “pro” Trump, but for whom Trump was better than the alternative(s).

                  I held my nose and voted for Trump, but between Trump and Hillary–and living in a state that could have gone either way–I figured it was what I should do. Pretty much 100% of the decision was based on the vacancy on SCOTUS, and potential additional vacancies (but that RBG is a tough old bird, isn’t she?).

                  Of course, I wanted to vote straight Libertarian as I had for 30 years, but then Gary comes out and says he agrees with 73% of what Bernie was spewing…and with Bill Weld’s gun-grabbing history, I just couldn’t…

                  1. My sister-in-law was waffling, and was afraid Trump, if elected, would become a dictator. This is an email I sent at the time:

                    re: dictator…we have one now and GOP in Congress will do nothing simply because of the color of his skin. If HRC wins, they will do nothing because of her sex, and she will continue in the same vein as Obama, and by her own admission will appoint SC Justices who will gut 2nd Amendment.

                    Let’s say Trump wins. GOP Congress, who for the most part hate him, will have no qualms about cutting him off at the knees–he’s a rich white man. At least we can be pretty sure abut his SC appointments and secure in the knowledge that the rest of the government is not about to let him go off the deep end.

                    The point is that they GOP establishment hates him because they are the establishment (similar to Cruz only far more so). Dems hate him because they are Dems.

                    You know I’ve been a straight L voter for 30 years, but Johnson sounds more and more like Bernie, and Weld agrees with Hillary on gun control; and the L party plank on illegal immigrants is pissing me off.

                    Of course I won’t vote for Hillary or Stein. So I can vote L again, for two people I have strong misgivings about and whose party-line I *strongly* disagree with, or I can vote for Trump, someone I have strong misgivings about. Or I can stay home.

                    I’m struggling, I gotta tell you. I KNOW KNOW KNOW Hillary will be a disaster and will screw up SCOTUS for a generation. Under Hillary I fear a 2nd amemndment solution will be required. Compared to Trump…

              2. Sure, but Con isn’t libertarian.

            2. The thing you have to remember is that the person you are responding to is an idiot incapable of nuance or fine distinctions. There are two kinds of people in the world: lefties and people that agree with LC1789 on everything.

              1. I know. But it’s a good opportunity to lay out some ideas in writing and hone them based on replies and other ideas.

                1. You’re a better person than I. I just feel like teasing lc1789 today.

              2. Here comes Zeb. He is a known sock troll supporter.

                I cannot believe I have upset so many sock trolls and their supporters this quickly after Trump became the best President in US History.

                1. I was here years before you got here. I just haven’t commented much recently. I never was a prolific commenter, but I’ve never stopped lurking daily.

                  1. “I was here years before you got here. I just haven’t commented much recently.”

                    It’s so weird how this is literally EXACTLY what jeff said when he busted out his Mike Laursen sock too.

                    Jeff.

                    1. So now anyone who disagrees with y’all is a sock?

                      I’ve never been accused of that before. Regardless, I’m the same FreeRadical that I was back in the aughts.

                    2. No jeff, just you.

                      Jeff.

                    3. “y’all”

                      By the way jeff, the ham handed attempt at disguising yourself is HI larious!

                    4. “So now anyone who disagrees with y’all is a sock?”

                      Yeah, that’s how it works with the Trump mean girls. They don’t like something you say, they accuse you of being a sock puppet. It’s a pathetic attempt at being insulting.

                      After all, what does it matter if someone is a sock or not. What matters is what they are saying.

                2. Sure guy.

                  There is no way to know when you were here or when I was here.

                  Doesn’t matter anyway. Tony is a troll and has been for over a decade. You act like a troll. More power to you. reason needs the web traffic as it circles the drain.

                  1. Its just another old screen name turned into a sock. I do it all the time.

                  2. I always thought Tony was not a troll. He seemed to be a genuine progressive ate up with insane faith in everything collective and goverment-sponsored.

                    And yes, there have been plenty of trolls. Sometimes they are entertaining, sometimes just tiring.

                    But I was very sad after the glibbening. This forum has never been the same since.

                    1. reason does not have any Lefty commenters that discuss anything on here. Otherwise we would see long comments and opinions like John and Ken post but from a Lefty perspective.

                      reason needs web traffic, so they send in sock trolls to post short comments here and there to whip up interest.

                      There that are sock trolls that are paid to undermine Libertarian and Conservative viewpoints.

                    2. Sure obvious sockpuppet who isnt fooling anyone by digging up an old screen name.

                    3. “There that are sock trolls that are paid to undermine Libertarian and Conservative viewpoints.”

                      Heaven forbid that someone speak out in opposition to conservative viewpoints on a libertarian website.

                    4. Neutral Mikey trying to act concerned about no Lefty voice from his Team.

                  3. Is hihn a sock? I’ve never figured that one out either. It seems so fully off the rails and literally insane that I wonder if a sock could really pull that off.

                    1. Fuck off jeff.

            3. “The best thing he has done is make people say fuck you to elite.”
              About time too.

          2. Poor freeradical.

            He finds certain things that own him juvenile but his trolling is NOT juvenile.

            He even has neutral mikey back him up and he thanks mikey for it.

            I thought I had more time before Trump’s reelection to get all my tear barrels ready but clearly the tears already started.

            #NeverTiredOfWinning

        1. Even James Madison only had to deal with an external threat of the British. Its easy to rally Americans behind an external threat. Luckily more and more Americans are coming around to the current internal threat of Lefties to destroy this Constitutional Democratic Republic.

          The Founders fought their greatest battles before some of them became presidents. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe had super easy presidential terms compared to Trump. They never had to deal with surviving multiple coup attempts.

          1. >>only had to deal with an external threat of the British

            plus the disease and lack of electricity

            1. California is going all retro then.

              They have a lack of electricity and bums shitting disease on the streets as a protected right.

              1. L.A. life expectancy spirals back into the 30s lol

                1. 1730’s?

                  LOL

            1. Coolidge is probably in my top 10.

              Coolidge never had to survive multiple coup attempts and keep the Republic from teetering over the edge.

              This impeachment for no acceptable reason sets Trump above Coolidge and many other good Presidents.

      3. Would it be libertarianesqe to suggest that Trump’s greatest accomplishment may be that he kept the democrats so consumed by their hatred for him, so bent on impeachment from day one, that they were unable to do anything else?
        ‘Cause I love it when Congress gets very little ‘done’.

        1. Trump has quite a few accomplishments.

          Exposing Lefties for the psychos that they are is 1.
          Keeping Lefties from gaining national political power is 2.

          1. Don’t forget his judicial appointments!

            1. Those have been pretty good, especially Gorsuch.

              Exposing the clown show that is DC by being a clown yourself is pretty good too.

              1. Fuck off jeff.

            2. Judicial nominations are 3.

          2. Trump’s complete list of accomplishments:
            1. being born rich.
            2. convincing morons that 1. was evidence of intelligence and leadership

            Trump’s complete list of selfless and patriotic acts:
            None.

            1. One Trump failure. Using eminent domain to take away Vera Coking’s house:

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Coking

              Oh, yeah, and failing to keep a casino in business.

    3. Of all the things the state compels of you, the individual mandate goes too far!

  2. “If Congress can compel the purchase of health insurance today, it can, for example, micromanage Americans’ day-to-day nutrition choices tomorrow…”

    The food pyramid mandate.

    1. To be replaced with the vaping pyramid.

    2. Didn’t one of the Supremes ask pretty much that exact question, that if the feds could compel the purchase of insurance wouldn’t they be able to compel the purchase of broccoli? And didn’t the government’s lawyer hem and haw about a bit before answering that well, yes, technically I suppose they could but it’s ridiculous to suppose that they would ever actually do such a thing?

      1. Indeed. It was noted and ignored, setting an unbelievable precedent, so I don’t see how SCOTUS could touch it again, especially isolated like this, without major egg on the face. Not until there’s a new Capo anyway.

  3. …making him the third person in U.S. history to get this far in a congressional effort to deplatform someone from the presidency.

    Can we finally suspend his Twitter account now???

    1. Yes, but this was the biggest impeachment, the best!

      1. This impeachment will be Huge!

    2. Twatter is a national record treasure.

  4. “If Congress can compel the purchase of health insurance today, it can, for example, micromanage Americans’ day-to-day nutrition choices tomorrow,” the judges wrote.

    “Oh, boy, is this *great*!,” Congress than wrote.

    1. *then*

      *** gets coffee ***

    2. I thought this already was approved by the Nazgul as a penaltax? Roberts has spoken. Have the southerners seceded from the federal courts?

      1. Not yet; but apparently Virginia is working on it.

      2. Congress removed the monetary penalties; so, no tax, not done under the authority to set taxes.

        1. But Congress specifically kept everything else in place. And Congress didn’t actually repeal the tax. You still have file and tell the IRS if you’ve had health insurance. It’s just that they’re not collecting the penalty but the framework and tax reporting obligation is still there.

          1. I wouldn’t believe your ‘analysis’ of anything more than a tiddly-winks game.

            1. He actually regularly gets in arguments about rules while playing tiddlywinks.

          2. Uh oh, you used the word penalty. You broke the visage of a tax. John Roberts is gonna be mad at you.

  5. We spoke about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and he then offered his thoughts about impeachment.

    Yeah, there’s a Trump tweet for everything. Thanks for the scoop, CNN.

  6. Attorneys general from Alabama, Louisiana, and South Dakota are suing to stop the Equal Rights Amendment from moving forward.

    It’s wastes of time all the way down.

  7. …it is urgent that the sacrifice of sex workers on the altar of morality end!

    Je suis désolé but Sharia Law demands it.

    1. Let’s go back to sacrificing virgins.

      1. We can’t. Virgins are an endangered species.

        1. female virgins maybe. There’s plenty of male virgins, just go to any SJW meeting.

          1. Bullshit. I had sex once.

            1. Your hand doesn’t count. Your couch is iffy.

            2. Sex requires consent, Mike. I highly doubt the family dog gave it.

              1. Let’s just say Scooby really likes Scooby snacks.

              2. Haha. Nice one darkflame.

        2. Plenty of incels on the left. Just grab the guys taking women’s studies courses.

          1. The irony is they take those classes because they think they’ll get laid.

          2. The online incel community is distinctly and unarguably hard right. The neckbeard wehr-a-boo stereotype exists for a reason.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel

  8. “The American Civil Liberties Union fights for tampons in men’s restrooms.”

    THIS is what left-libertarianism is all about. I’d donate to the ACLU, but as always I’m short on cash because of the #DrumpfRecession.

    1. I know I feel cheated for not having feminine hygiene products in the men’s room.

      1. “feminine hygiene products”

        See, that language is problematic and transphobic. By linking tampons with femininity, you’re buying into the hateful and anti-science assumption that reproductive anatomy determines gender.

        #SomeMenHaveVaginas
        #SomeWomenHavePenises

        1. A man can feel feminine too!

          1. And then, feeling feminine, what does that man do with the tampon? In South LA, they are good first aid for gunshots.

    2. Why should a men have to go to the restroom to get xir tampon? Tampons, a human right, should be provided at the water fountain. And they better not be those *single-use* tampons, neither!

      1. What about recycled tampons?

    3. Man, this is horrifying! The ACLU is still using the term “men’s restrooms”? How dare they presume to define the gender of the restroom!

    1. Vote everyone out, every time.

    2. This is totally an impartial and somber impeachment. So much so we cant afford the stamp to send the articles to the Senate.

    3. Mitch: You know what the articles are? They’re a sitting duck. A road apple, Nancy. The articles are weak. They’re feeble. I think it’s time to put the hurt on the articles.

      1. We can finally use all these Ukraine references.

        Thanks Trump!

      2. Impeachment is game to you?!

    4. Hey! Littering is serious business!

    5. One hopes the electorate will call *everyone’s* bluff in November.

      Yes. We the People will sort this out at the ballot box. Can’t wait.

      Team D has brought national shame, disgrace and dishonor to us. There is nothing to discuss. There is nothing to debate. Now it is a contest for power. There are no rules.

    6. The SC plays referee to this clown show, right? I feel like this would last about 30 seconds in court before the House is told to stop wasting everyone’s time and pass over the stuff

  9. “If Congress can compel the purchase of health insurance today, it can, for example, micromanage Americans’ day-to-day nutrition choices tomorrow,” the judges wrote.”

    John Roberts and a majority on the Supreme Court already decided against that argument.

      1. By all means take health insurance away from cancer patients in an election year.

        1. Why would it matter if it was an election year?

        2. Not forcing cancer patients to buy health insurance is taking it away from them?

          1. Are y’all really this dumb?

            1. We know for certain you’re an idiot, so maybe investigate your own question before asking if it is others who are dumb.

            2. You’re the one making the argument that the government can force you to buy health insurance. If the government stops forcing you to buy it, how is that taking your health insurance away?

              Stop projecting your own stupidity on to others that are shooting your argument full of holes. You can’t even make the case that Trump committed “bribery and extortion,” like you claimed yesterday, because your own party declined to charge him with those offenses. And now you’re claiming that not forcing people to buy health insurance is actually taking it away from them.

              The only thing that was nuked from Obamacare was the penaltax. The pre-existing condition requirement wasn’t even touched. And you’re seriously going to claim that not forcing people to buy health insurance is threatening the requirement to not reject for pre-existing conditions? GTFO of here with that exceptional bullshit.

            3. “Are y’all really this dumb?”

              Are you really stoooooooooopid enough to miss the point?

            4. I think it’s obvious to anyone who’s not a Trump fellator that Pod is one of the smartest commenters here.

              1. Maybe not one of the smartest, but, yes, smarter than anyone who is an unqualified fan-boy of Trump. Or smarter than any President worshipper, for that matter.

          2. In this case, the argument wasn’t just that the mandate was unconstitutional, but that it was also essential, so that if it was unconstitutional, the rest of the law was also unconstitutional.

            If that argument wins, then unless congress acts, the exchanges, the medicare expansion, the subsidies, the pre-existing conditions ban, all of that goes away too.

            Which is why the case is happening, seeing as the mandate is already neutered. As a way to tear the whole thing down.

            So yes. If the SCOTUS gives this interpretation it’s blessing, that could kick a lot of people that are relying on the ACA’s expansions and provisions off of their insurance.

            1. Doesn’t matter. Pod’s arguing that the government can force you to buy insurance, and that if it can’t force you to do that, it’s taking insurance away from people. Sorry, but that’s just dumb.

              1. No man, the Republican judges are trying to destroy the entire law. It isn’t even about the requirement to buy insurance because there is no such requirement anymore.

                I think Robert’s and the Supreme Court will overturn the 5th Circuit on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the law because they’re not harmed by the law.

                1. You literally argued above that not being forced to buy insurance was taking it away.

                  1. It’s RIGHT THERE lololo

          3. No, but not giving it to them is apparently the same as taking it.

            Haha. Poor liberals. They’re always “losing” (health insurance) or “giving away” (tax cuts) things that were never theirs in the first place.

        3. Your lack of understanding o what health insurance is and does is 2nd to only AOC.

          1. People need 2 or 3 health insurance policies, right?

    1. Pod on the eve of Brown v Board of Ed: wasn’t this already decided under Plessis v Ferguson?

        1. Good luck with that, but your entire point is the same. If you don’t like it, don’t be so stupid.

          1. “…If you don’t like it, don’t be so stupid.”
            Not a chance.

    2. Almost sure if Roberts had a do-over he’d do over.

      1. The Republicans should have impeached him when they had control of the House.

      2. Biggest day of his life, and he choked.

    3. It’s been a while, but IIRC, removing the ‘penaltax’ from the mandate invalidates the argument that the enforcement of the mandate is a tax rather than a fine.

    1. Lolz. Incompetence piled on top of incompetence.

    2. But remember kids. According to Reason, Trump defending himself against obvious fabrications was his being a snowflake and crazy and so on.

      smh.

      1. Needs caps. Let me help. LOCAL NEWS STORY.

        1. thanks, I’m new to the shtick but it’s increasingly apt

    3. TOO LOCAL!

      1. reason is NOT a newspaper.

        1. That is correct. It is not.

          Even so, the Reason blog has been covering the FBI/FISA story quite a bit lately:

          https://reason.com/tag/fisa/

          1. So Reason is writing about the CIA and FBI fabricating evidence to convince the American people Russia committed crimes that it didn’t?

            Go die, laursen

            1. Not immediately posting links to breaking zerohedge stories is censorship. Got it.

            2. Here is neutral mikey bot to smooth things over.

        2. Poor neutral mikey.

    4. Wow. What would be the incentive to make this shit up? Dude can’t be making any money off of this.

      1. I’ve been daying this for years – the Russia thing (not just “collusion”) was a fucking hoax from the beginning.
        Why has Wikileaks Vault_7 been completely ignored?
        Why is the actual evidence never discussed?
        Why does Reason continue carrying water for war with Russia?

        Fuck everyone at Reason, and their funders, to death

  10. The American Civil Liberties Union fights for tampons in men’s restrooms.

    But they wouldn’t let that poor lady in Canada force spa workers to wax her testicles. Even as men women get preferential treatment!

    1. I’m surprised that pos Jonathan Yaniv (aka Jessica) lost to be honest.

      But it was a good ruling. Dude is a creep and a jerk off.

      1. Dude didn’t lose badly enough, he’s still filing lawsuits left and right.

  11. “If a govt can compel us to purchase of auto insurance they can stop us from taking dumps on the sidewalk.”

    It’s like these Republican judges have never heard of the drug war. The govt is locking people cages for ingesting plant matter. And if they can do that they can force your ass to eat broccoli, i.e. buy health insurance.

    1. A law that won’t be enforced is irrelevant.

      1. That’s not true. It’s still a law. You still have to tell the IRS if you were insured or uninsured.

        1. It’s not just a bad idea, it’s the law!

        2. Look up Worcester vs. Georgia and the aftermath, and get back to me on what happens when the enforcement arm for legislation refuses to enforce it.

    2. State vs federal. Go back to 4th grade.

    3. Low-watt-bulb winner (so far this morning):

      “…And if they can do that they can force your ass to eat broccoli, i.e. buy health insurance…”

      Well, we can send a man to the moon; why can’t we cure the common cold?
      Pod, you ARE a fucking ignoramus.

    4. I agree the Drug War and Obamacare are unconstitutional and immoral.

    5. There is also the distinction of compelling rather than prohibiting something.
      Por Ejemplo, you may not explicitly threaten violence vs. you must use someone’s preferred pronoun.
      You may not purchase human flesh vs. you must buy equal amounts of plus-sized/TG pornography.

      1. The only kind of porn I buy less of than transsize is plusgender…

    6. “If a govt can compel us to purchase of auto insurance they can stop us from taking dumps on the sidewalk.”

      False analogy. Governments cannot mandate auto insurance unless you register your car to drive it on a public road.

  12. Impeachment also overshadowed other significant statements yesterday. Horowitz finally admitted he believes there was political bias, but could not prove it caused a change in tactics or decisions since he had to rely on testimony. It is looking more and more like pelosi pushed impeachment through to drown out the FISA and FBI malfeasance. But reason decided to focus on impeachment instead if government abuse even after they admonished republicans for finally talking badly of the FISA courts. The irony.

    1. “Finally”? He was saying that immediately.

      1. Not as direct as he did yesterday. Linked the statement.

  13. Matt taibbi remains one of the few actual journalists.

    He points to many opposing statements from those under the IG investigation including Loretta lynch and capper.

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/horowitz-report-russia-investigation-questions-remaining-928081/

    1. He’s hit or miss but I always like how he calls the game pretty consistently from his point of view.

      1. Agreed, thats a decent analysis of his writing.

    2. Reason buries everything that threatens the status quo anteTrump.
      You’d think they’d be interested in unaccountable intel agencies doing their Iraq WMDs routine (see my link above) with Russia, but nope. Nothing to see there.
      Reason is as corrupt as Congress

      1. reason is worse. Congress doesnt act like they are Libertarian or pro-freedom.

        1. You’ll notice jeff doesnt link to their coverage of THAT story because it doesn’t exist.

        2. What the fuck does FISA have to do with the FBI and CIA fabricating evidence to implicate Russia in cyber espionage, while covering up for the DNC, and pushing the world to see war with Russia as justified?

          I’m curious, Laursen you fucking tool for the corrupt, what answer you have for that

          1. Did you click on the link. Reason actually cross-indexes it’s FBI and FISA stories.

  14. Many democrats thought it was a sign of somberness and regret last night, going to expensive D.C. venues, cheering and drinking, and applauding themselves for finally impeaching that mother fucker. This included unbiased journalists.

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/washington-post-reporters-merry-impeachmas

    They dont even give a fuck their fake melodrama is easily exposed, they know they have true believers like Pod and neutral mike.

    1. Let them have it. Won a battle, will lose the war.

    2. I cannot believe they carried on the way they did. I know Democrats were desperate but geesh… they took Trump as the best president in 80+ years to the best President in US History.

      Trump is the only President in US History to survive multiple coup attempts. Even James Madison only had to deal with the British and the War of 1812 not domestic traitors to the Constitution.

      1. Wow, speaking of true believers. Come let us adore Him.

        1. Cry more.

      2. Poor Neutral Mikey. He likes to adore politicians so he thinks other people should too.

        1. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
          ||O_|||H_|||_______|||T_|||H_|||E_|||_______|||I_|||R_|||O_|||N_|||Y_|||_______|||2_|||0_|||2_|||0_||
          ||__|||__|||_______|||__|||__|||__|||_______|||__|||__|||__|||__|||__|||_______|||__|||__|||__|||__||
          |/__\|/__\|/_______\|/__\|/__\|/__\|/_______\|/__\|/__\|/__\|/__\|/__\|/_______\|/__\|/__\|/__\|/__\|

          1. The bigger irony is you calling yourself neutral ever in a thread… yet you keep doing so.

            1. As I explained at least two or three weeks, to you, I realized I was misusing the word, neutral, and stopped describing myself that way. I am non-partisan, not neutral. Non-partisan is now the only term I use to describe myself.

              You cannot point to a single example of my calling myself “neutral” recently, because none exists. But, as is a regular pattern with your comments, you make claims that are simply not true.

              I am NOT neutral in that I think President Trump is incompetent, childish, a reprehensible person in his private life, and I think he probably did what exactly what the first article of impeachment alleges that he did.

              I am non-partisan, and not in the Democrat camp, however, in that I don’t agree with the second article of impeachment, I don’t care whether Trump is removed or office or not, I think Hunter Biden’s position at Burisma was shady (like the rest of the way he conducts his life), and I have been quite critical of Obama, Hillary, and other Democrats.

              1. So you either don’t know what neutral means or you’re a liar. Or both.

                I’m going with both Jeff.

                1. Nailed it.

              2. You were lying, not misusing. And when caught, you ditched it.

            2. Neutral Mikey has to do something to boost web traffic. That reason donation money just got used up for last night’s Cosmo Impeachment parties.

              That leaves little cash for reason’s Hillary’s coming out party following her 2nd defeat by Trump.

              1. Is this the one about my being a sock puppet for a Reason writer. If that’s true of anyone, the sock puppet is Fist. How else is he always the first poster, with a relevant comment all ready to go.

                1. Reason writers wish I was their alter ego.

                  1. You weren’t supposed to see me throwing you under the bus. I should have known that you see all.

            3. The bigger irony is you calling yourself neutral ever in a thread… yet you keep doing so.

              I have started to wonder if Mike Laursen isn’t a more sophisticated OBL.

              He makes arguments that are well written, while being shining examples of leftwing idiocy, leftwing disingenuousness, leftwing doublethink–basically the full panoply of leftwing tropes.

              He is too good to be real. An actual leftist, like Tony, shriek, Jeff or mtrueman would get to blithering a lot faster than Laursen does.

              1. Thank you?

                Actually, part of the answer is that I’m not a leftist. I’m a libertarian. It might look like I’m being leftist from the vantage point of someone who is conservative or conservative-libertarian, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

                I’m acting up a little today in that I just couldn’t resist poking some fun at lc1789. I’m usually more serious.

              2. Neutral mike is the newest tulpa version from romania.

                Its neither good or bad.

    1. “Was it your conclusion that political bias did not affect any part of the Page investigation, any part of Crossfire Hurricane?”
      “We did not reach that conclusion,” Horowitz responded. “We have been very careful in connection with the FISA for the reasons you mentioned to not reach that conclusion, in part, as we’ve talked about earlier: the alteration of the email, the text messages associated with the individual who did that, and then our inability to explain or understand or get good explanations so we could understand why this all happened.”

      Emphasis added. WTF?

      1. Basically he is bound by direct testimony. He believes there was bias but cant say so in the report because he has to believe the testimony as given. He is not a court of law.

        1. Gee, Was Mueller not bound by the same ethos in his report?

          1. Mueller didn’t even read his report

        2. JesseAZ, we know what these bastards did. So does Horowitz. The report makes it crystal clear. These fuckers are guilty of sedition. I won’t be satisfied until Comey, McCabe, Strozok and a few others from the FBI are sitting in a prison cell.

          US Attorney John Durham will have indictments rolling out by next summer.

  15. “If Congress can compel the purchase of health insurance today, it can, for example, micromanage Americans’ day-to-day nutrition choices tomorrow…”

    I love this. Absolutely. I’m almost certain we’re not too far off from bureaucrats and illiberal activists looking to mandate we eat broccoli.

    In Canada, earlier this year the ‘all knowing’ government pimped out their food guide and they basically cut out dairy because reasons.

    Have a look:
    https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/

    Looks like a dish designed by some hipster who went on a hiking trip to Bolivia to find themselves and all of a sudden discovered quinoa and thinks ‘seven ancient grains’ should be on the guide.

    Dairy is essential for growth in children. Period.

    My guess is they will revisit this in the future. In the meantime, people should ignore it – as I’ve always done. Yeh. Like the Canadian government is gonna tell me how to eat. Get bent.

    This is the same government that in the 90s tried to ban….PARMIGIANO-REGGIANO.

  16. To be fair, the impeachment story would over-shadow the news of India nuking Pakistan or an alien spacecraft landing in Trafalgar Square unless there were some simple way of bashing Trump for it. “Orange Man Bad” is not just the inclusive view of the news, it’s the exhaustive view of the news. If you have to explain why the Orange Man is bad, the story is too complicated to be worth telling.

  17. “The American Civil Liberties Union fights for tampons in men’s restrooms.”

    A boring dystopia

  18. The ObamaCare ruling is beautiful and perfect.

    The reason I think it’s great is because overturning the appellate court would seem to require Roberts to overturn his own “penaltax” decision–after he wrote the majority opinion himself, amirite?

    Congress can’t punish people for doing nothing, but they have the power to tax, so as along as it’s a “penaltax”, it’s still constitutional. If Roberts wants to keep the individual mandate alive, he needs to overrule his own logic about how this is only acceptable if it’s a tax.

    It’s one of those few times in life when the government official responsible for causing so much grief catches it in the face. You did this Roberts. No one else. Just you. And now it’s back in your lap, right where it belongs.

    1. This decision to strike down an unconstitutional law should have happened almost a decade ago but better late then never.

      1. Yeah, Roberts screwed the pooch, and now it’s blown back in his face.

        1. I know the GOP is too spineless to do it but after the GOP retakes the House from Election 2020 or Census 2020, they should impeach Roberts. The Chief Justice is not a super powerful position but Roberts gave Democrats political capital and clearly does not want to follow the restraints of the US Constitution.

          RBG is on borrowed time, so that would be two more Trump SCOTUS replacements on the Supreme Court.

          Breyer is trying to remain low profile in his 80’s. I also think Thomas should retire as he has served America well but he should not pull an RBG and think he is irreplaceable.

          1. Make room for Don Willett.

            1. President Donald J. Trump’s Supreme Court List

              There are some decent judges on this list.

    2. “…Congress can’t punish people for doing nothing, but they have the power to tax,..”

      I’m pretty sure this imbroglio was cooked up by the Senate, and taxes must originate in the House, no?

      1. The Origination Clause should have lead to ObamaCare being struck down too.

    3. Sadly these people (e.g.Rosemary Collyer) are immune to shame.

    4. this will lead to more screams for single payer

  19. More bad economic news.

    Charles Koch lost $42,700,000 yesterday.

    Really puts things in perspective, doesn’t it? Reason raised $380,000 from its entire nationwide readership over the course of one week. Meanwhile Reason’s billionaire benefactor loses more than 100 times that much in one day.

    #HowLongMustCharlesKochSuffer?

    1. Well if that’s true, I should give him investment advice. I kicked ass all year.

      1. It really HAS been a wonderful year. I have most of my savings in low cost index funds and they have done wonderfully this year. In August, and then again this month, I rebalanced more of my portfolio into bonds. I figure we are at a record high (yet again), and I wanted to skim off some profits.

        This year felt like the latter half of the 90’s all over again.

  20. Well, we all know that at Reason DC headquarters the Pink Pussies, the Billy Bunions, the butt-boys, and the Blocko Mofos (note that these are all the same people) were up all night long celebrating.

    It’s going to be a very short-lived celebration indeed though. Soon the senate will dispense with this absurd charade and they’ll all be back to the cold realities that their democratic candidates all suck, the markets are performing at record levels, and that has Trump has achieved a full economic recovery in three years, which their Obamessiah couldn’t do in eight.

    1. The markets literally went up after Trump made fun of the impeachment by the House.

    2. I wouldnt say soon. Nancy is trying a final gambit to not send the articles to the Senate until the Senate only swears they will uphold the impeachment.

      1. This shit is hilarious.

        The House gets to make up rules on how to conduct impeachments..AND so does the US Senate.

        The US Senate does not need to wait for Pelosi to do anything. McConnell can have the GOP make a Senate rule about proceeding with a trial/vote on Trump’s impeachment.

        Notice this talk is by the media not necessarily Pelosi. Wishful retard thinking is likely what this pipe dream of withholding the Articles of Impeachment.

        1. The best part is the senate and future GOP house are already discussing expungement of the impeachment.

          1. That would be hilarious!

            I didnt even think of an expungement. That is genius if the GOP can pull that off.

      2. If she continued down the path of those rumbling then history will prove exceptionally unkind to her and this whole episode.

        1. She is using her power to personally benefit her in getting more political dirt on Trump. By her own petards she should be impeached herself.

  21. “Trump now says impeaching presidents is unconstitutional, full stop.”

    I’m going to require an actual quote on that.

    1. That is not what he said. What he did say, however, was correct. Impeaching Presidents over policy differences, which is all this is, is unconstitutional. Indeed, the Democrats admitted this is all about policy when they claimed impeachment was a political decision to justify not following any rules of due process or impartiality during the inquiry.

    2. Paraphrasing and parody is fine. See Schiff.

    3. Second sentence of his letter to Congress. He literally wrote, “This impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by Democrat Lawmakers, unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative history.”

      What is the word, unconstitutional, doing in that sentence? He could have written: “This impeachment represents an unprecedented abuse of power…” but he threw the word, unconstitutional, in there.

      1. unconstitutional abuse of power

        The power of impeachment is being abused because no high crime or misdemeanor has been cited and evidence provided.

        1. What exactly does the adjective “unconstitutional” mean when modifying “abuse of power” in this sentence. It means that Trump considers the House’s exercising of its Constitutional power of impeachment is … unconstitutional.

          You can disagree with the House impeaching Trump in this particular case, but they were staying within their Constitutional powers. Trump is literally saying in that sentence that he thinks they somehow violated the Constitution.

      2. I’d agree that the word, “unconstitutional” doesn’t really belong.

        But he’s clearly not saying that impeaching Presidents is categorically unconstitutional, which is what Reason was claiming.

        He’s saying this particular impeachment is unconstitutional.

        Which is nonsense, but it’s different and lesser nonsense.

        So, why does Reason have to replace what he actually said with a different claim? Because what he actually said wasn’t nonsensical enough to suit them.

        1. It’s not Reason it’s ENB and she lies because
          shes fucking trash.

        2. And I’ll agree that it’s not what Trump meant to write, but it is literally what he wrote.

          It is a mischaracterization to say that Trump said “Trump now says impeaching presidents is unconstitutional, full stop” without acknowledging that he didn’t really mean what he literally said. However, it is fair game for humor to break his balls on his poor, rant-filled writing, especially when poor writing of this type often reflects poor thinking skills.

      3. Mike, READ–

        Second sentence of his letter to Congress. He literally wrote, “THIS impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by Democrat Lawmakers, unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative history.”

        THIS impeachment.

        THIS.

        He DIDN’T forget to use the word THIS you disingenuous piece of…

        They DID violate their Constitutionally granted powers. I just pray that Trump understand that if he has the balls to see this through he will wipe out the left.

  22. http://www.bookwormroom.com/2019/12/18/impeachment-and-the-democrats-deadly-malaise/

    Interesting blog post on impeachment and the general malaise of the Progressive left. This guy’s experience lines up with mine. I live surrounded by liberal Democrats who hate Trump. Yet, none of them seem enthusiastic about impeachment or even to be talking about it. I think three years of rage with no real results really has worn them out.

    On the same day Trump was impeached, the Senate confirmed 13 new judges. The economy continues to boom. Trump got about everything he wanted in the budget deal. He has a trade deal with Mexico and appears to have another one with China. He continues to reduce the administrative state and dismantle Obamacare piece by piece. And what are the Democrats doing to stop him? Passing impeachment articles everyone knows will be quickly dismissed by the Senate and that few people believe or care about. For three years the Demcoratic faithful have been told that the Democrats were going to get Trump. And all they have to show for it are literally hundreds of Republican judges with lifetime appointments, a diminished administrative state and meaningless impeachment articles.

    I said at the time that the Democrats taking the House and not the Senate was the worst thing that could have happened to them. Had they not taken either, they could motivate their base on promises of what they would do in 2020. Had they taken both, they could have stopped Trump from appointing judges and really hamstrung him. But just taking the House gave them little actual power at the price of raising their supporters’ expectations to unreal heights. The wages of that Pyrrhic victory are just how becoming known.

    1. “…I live surrounded by liberal Democrats who hate Trump. Yet, none of them seem enthusiastic about impeachment or even to be talking about it. I think three years of rage with no real results really has worn them out…”

      The Chron splashed a 80pt headline this morning, but, like you, I’m surrounded by proggies and the conversations tend toward ‘finished your Christmas shopping yet?’

      1. Our poker club has one dyed in the wool party democrat. Last night he had nothing to say about it.

        Of course, nobody else did either. This has become farce and nothing more.

    2. Plus, Lefties know that this will be used against Democrats, unless your a Lefty retard like Tony.

      Harry Reid did the nuclear option in the US Senate and it backfired for SCOTUS appointments.

      Nancy Pelosi impeached a President for no acceptable reason and it will lead to Trump being reelected, less national political power for Democrats, and when the GOP regains the House…impeachments of Democrats for no acceptable reason.

      1. That’s the thing about this impeachment. The process so corrupted and the reason so shallow they can’t squawk next time this happens….to THEM. Not only that, if this be a good reason, gee I guess you’ll need to retroactively (or at least rethink how Presidents are measured) impeach past Presidents for all sorts of possible impeachable offence.

        Quite shocking really in its short sightedness.

        Then again, a bunch of illiberal retards run amok in that idiotic party so….

        1. We don’t get enough Canadian opinions on what is going on in the USA.

          I am really curious at how many Canadians view this impeachment with Trump remaining in office and getting reelected in 2020.

        2. I am not so sure this is going to happen to the Democrats. First, the GOP sans Trump rarely has the guts to play by the Democrats’ rules. Beyond that, I think this is going to end in electoral disaster for the Democrats. If Trump gets re-elected and the Democrats lose the House, impeachment will stand as an example of what not to do in the minority not the new normal. The GOP is generally stupid but it isn’t generally suicidal. I think the fears that every President is going to be impeached now are overblown. Politicians will not do things that they think will result in their losing office.

          1. That assumes Democrats can learn lessons from their own failures. That has certainly not been the case.

            “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.” Pres. Obama

            “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone” Pres. Obama

            “We will change the Senate rules to uphold the law, that the court will be nine members,” Sen. Tim Kaine

            “I was in the Senate when the Republicans’ stonewalling around appointments caused Senate Democratic majority to switch the vote threshold on appointments from 60 to 51. And we did it on everything but a Supreme Court justice,” Sen Tim Kaine said. “If these guys think they’re going to stonewall the filling of that vacancy or other vacancies, then a Democratic Senate majority will say, ‘We’re not going to let you thwart the law.’”

            How are the Democrats liking the simple majority for all nominations, including SCOTUS now that they’re not in the majority? Democrats run to court every single time Trump uses his pen, but, at the end of the day, elections have consequences, and he won.

    3. Trump is their daddy, so they threw a tantrum in the hopes that daddy would pay attention. It worked, and they now FEEL like they have power. It doesn’t change who their daddy is, or the power that he has, but they don’t care. It’s a feelings based endeavor.

      And now daddy goes back to work to pay for the things progressives want.

      1. Plus Daddy has more Hand now.

        I look forward to Trump spanking Lefties a lot more. He cannot spank whores like Stormy Daniels anymore, so why not Democrats.

      2. they now FEEL like they have power

        I have a suspicion that that feeling won’t last.

  23. I wish Reason would just make an editor’s note and establish that they hate the orange man or they hate democracy. I wouldn’t care either way, but you can’t have it both ways. Guy got elected, get over it… Or denounce the entire voting process, justifying their promotion of impeachment over nothing.

    1. Uh…. reason hates Trump AND democracy AND Libertarianism AND Rule of Law AND the US Constitution AND individual freedoms….

      1. I heard they eat kittens too, which is just awful.

        1. The kittens identify as bacon, so who cares.

      2. reason sock in action to defend reason^^

        1. You’re a Reason sock-puppet? Weird.

          1. Poor Zeb.

            All his jokes are flat today.

            Must be that Trump is the best President in US History and gives him a sad.

          2. Sense motherfucker, can you make some?

            1. His comment appears to have been misplaced, pointing to his own earlier comment. Relax, buddy.

            2. Zeb is part of the group that hates me not directly replying to sock trolls posts. It messes up their bot programming because the bot cannot detect a reply and immediately respond.

              1. I just thought it was a funny mistake. Didn’t realize it was part of your weird paranoid view that everyone who disagrees with you is dishonest or fake.

                1. Zeb is getting funnier.

                  He cant tell the difference between a sock troll and a serious discussion.

    2. I think they do have an unreasonable bias against Trump, but I don’t see how you get to hating democracy. They have been very critical of all presidents and congress. Disliking the results of an election doesn’t mean you don’t think that democracy (or a democratic republic) is the better available option.

      1. Supporting a baseless, partisan impeachment that is nothing but a tantrum about elections is fundamentally anti-democracy. It’s supporting election fraud.

        1. I don’t think that follows.

          Are we really going with “impeachment undoes the election”? That’s what idiot Democrats think.

  24. The UK’s NHS is a model for medical care the world over!

    “Northern Ireland has the worst hospital waiting lists in the UK, according to figures from the Department of Health. Some 300,000 people – a sixth of the population – are waiting for appointments. On average there is a four-year wait for knee and hip operations.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/18/northern-ireland-nurses-strike-over-pay-and-patient-safety

    That’s the AVERAGE waiting time.

    1. Four years. That is just horrifying. I wonder also what the malpractice rate is. The great thing about socialism is that government services not only have enormous wait times, they also are of generally low quality. In the worst cases, socialism ends in an orgy of murder. In the best case, it ends waiting ten years for a Trabant or four years for a botched knee replacement.

      1. “…The great thing about socialism is that government services not only have enormous wait times, they also are of generally low quality…”

        Quote from Mark Donohue when Penske took the money and tried to make an AMC run with the TransAm Fords and Chevs:
        ‘It doesn’t go very fast, but it breaks pretty quickly anyhow’

        1. The football coach John McKay had a similar quote about the expansion Tampa Bay Bucs he was then coaching. It went something like “well, we didn’t block but we made up for it by not tackling.” Another great line of his among many was when asked what he thought of the execution of the offense during the previous game he replied, “Well, I am all for it”.

      2. Are we not getting into sovereign immunity territory on malpractice under such a system,

    2. That is how they manage scarcity in a socialized system that gets rid of prices. If they put it off long enough the problem may go away on its own, like under a tombstone or the problem is now untreatable..

      1. remember the kid they wouldn’t operate on because they said he was going to die so they brought him to America and he is doing well now.

      2. The really amazing thing is how popular the NHS is and how proud they seem to be of it. There is pretty much no real opposition to it in UK politics. I really don’t know how to explain that given how awful it is in many ways.

  25. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/two-thirds-voters-say-democrats-want-to-impeach-trump-more-than-help-americans

    Two thirds of voters say Democrats want to impeach Trump more than help Americans. Yeah, it is only one poll and who knows how accurate it is, but that can’t be good.

    1. To be fair to Democrats, they know their end is near. They have been losing national political power and that will continue with Trump’s reelection and Census 2020.

      This desperation move might have been because even Pelosi knows that they will lose the House either from Election 2020 and/or Census 2020.

      I mean I see Black Americans in my area wearing red Keeping America Great hats. Hahaha.

    2. How many Democrat voters want to impeach Trump more than help Americans? Hard to say what it means for electoral prospects. But I have a feeling it won’t be good for Ds.

      1. I think a decent number of Democratic voters feel that way. Maybe I am naive but I think a large minority or at least small majority do not feel that way. Worse, the ones who do are generally concentrated in districts that the Democrats will win anyway. The ones who don’t are in districts that are more competitive where their votes are actually needed.

        The situation is a bit like 1996. The Republicans hated Clinton so much that all they had to run on was getting their revenge against him. Clinton was popular among Democrats. So that message didn’t get them any of those votes. And ultimately, even if Republicans didn’t like Clinton, a significant number of them didn’t hate him so much that they were willing to turn out and vote for the single reason of running him out of office.

        The difference between then and now is that in 1996, the Republicans in Congress had worked with Clinton and could take some credit for the good times and run on accomplishments rather than just on how much they hated Clinton. So the public in 1996 ended up voting for the status quo by re-electing both Clinton and the Republican Congress.

        Today, the Democrats in Congress don’t have that luxury. All they have done for two years is chase Trump like some kind of white whale and have nothing to offer the voters other than the now empty promise of revenge against Trump. I agree with you that it isn’t likely to end well for them.

  26. OT: Attention John. Now’s your chance: Christina Hendricks has filed for divorce from her actor husband.

    1. There you go. My God does she have a body.

      1. If you say that, she may hold it against you!

        1. I find her more as a testament to modern support undergarments than actual great body. I don’t need to trip on breasts.

  27. This is the list of Democrats who voted to impeach President Trump in an election year–and are running for reelection in districts that went for Trump in 2016.

    Rep. Tom O’Halleran (D-Ariz.)
    Rep. Lucy McBath’s (D-Ga.)
    Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.)
    Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.)
    Rep. Abby Finkenauer (D-Iowa)
    Rep. Dave Loebsack (D-Iowa)
    Rep. Cindy Axne’s (D-Iowa)
    Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine)
    Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.)
    Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.)
    Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.)
    Rep. Susie Lee’s (D-Nev.)
    Rep. Chris Pappas’s (D-N.H.)
    Rep. Andy Kim (D-N.J.)
    Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.)
    Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.)
    Rep. Xochitl Torres Small (D-N.M.)
    Rep. Max Rose (D-N.Y.)
    Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.)
    Rep. Antonio Delgado (D-N.Y.)
    Rep. Anthony Brindisi (D-N.Y.)
    Rep. Kendra Horn (D-Okla.)
    Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.)
    Rep. Conor Lamb (D-Pa.)
    Rep. Joe Cunningham (D-S.C.)
    Rep. Ben McAdams (D-Utah)
    Rep. Elaine Luria’s (D-Va.)
    Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.)
    Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.)

    Representative democracy is all about using our votes to punish those who show contempt for the desires of the voters–and these 29 scumbags not only tried to cancel the presidential votes of their own district’s voters but also did so in an election year. They all need to pay with their seats.

    Campaign contributions aren’t tax deductible, but if the Democrats get control of the White House and hold the House of Representatives, between the Green New Deal and Medicare for All, you’ll probably end up paying a lot more in taxes than whatever you donation you contribute to the campaign of the Republicans that are trying to unseat these Democrats.

    If you can’t afford to make a donation and you live in one of these districts, you may be able to volunteer for the Republican in your district–which can be a great way to meet people and make a difference. Here’s a great place to get started:

    https://www.gop.com/get-involved/volunteer/

    1. Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) was the one drowned out at her own townhall with her constituents calling her logic bullshit. She kept pretending it was a hard decision to make, to get to her vote. Then she was shown joking and laughing on her way to cast a vote. Democrats believe each and every one of their voters are idiots and they are largely correct.

      1. People often smile on the way to their execution.

      2. She’s a CIA lemming, which she never fails to mention

    2. I don’t see how any Democrat from even a Trump leaning district who voted for this is going to survive the next election. The Congress will have spent it’s entire term trying to throw Trump out office and failed even at that. What will these people run for re-election on other than “I tried to impeach the guy you voted for for President”? I can’t see that being a winning message in most cases or any cases.

      1. Plus, voters are going to correlate their lives being better with a stronger economy and Trump.

        These Congressmen are going to have to answer why they voted to impeach Trump, who was never removed from office, when he helped them and their family be more financially secure.

      2. They will all be laid handsomely by some think tank or with a book deal well above what the deal is actually worth.

        1. http://www.venable.com/professionals/s/the-honorable-bart-stupak

          Burt Stupak, the infamous “anti abortion moderate” who was the deciding vote for Obamacare in the House now has a no doubt very high paying job at a K street law firm.

          The Democrats have such extensive control over the legal and nonprofit fields, it is impossible to keep them from bribing their own representatives to become crash test dummies in the House. In both 08 and again in 18, they got a bunch of people elected in purple and red leaning districts claiming to be moderates only to vote with the party leadership when it counted knowing that it would end their political careers but that they would rewarded with high paying jobs for their trouble.

          The good news I guess is that in 08 they got Obamacare out of it. This time they got impeachment articles that will be forgotten by February.

          1. And it was Obama’s DoJ that was stipulating donations to these leftist groups as part of various settlements. Another impeachable offense by Obama since he is required to send all compensation from suits to the Treasury. Yet oddly, that one never rose up to impeachment, almost because only one side is attempting to make politics criminal.

            1. Then George Bush handed out billions of dollars in foreign aid to any country that would send even a token force to support the war in Iraq. The entire purpose of doing so was so that he could tell the public there was a broad international coalition supporting the war. It was no secret to anyone that Bush was using tax dollars and US aid as a way to benefit himself politically. Yet, no one, not even the Democrats who were claiming he was the new Hitler called for his impeachment over it. But now we are told anytime a President does anything that might benefit him politically at home it is an “abuse of power”.

      3. As others have noted, this is a rear guard action. Front line fodder is being sacrificed to protect higher ups who are implicated in the Obama administrations concerted efforts to spy on Trump, his campaign, and possible other campaigns. The three C’s of command, communication, and control must always be protected.

        The timing of this impeachment crescendo – coming right along with the Horowitz report – is not remotely a coincidence. The only people who ‘believe’ that are the same people telling you that all that FBI malfeasance was merely ‘errors.’

        1. I see that thinking but how is this helping? The bottom line with all of that is that either Durham is going to do an honest investigation and indict the people responsible or he is going to do a sham whitewash and indict no one or maybe one or two peons allowing the top people to walk. I have no idea which he is going to do. Whatever he does, I don’t see how impeachment changes it or helps the Democrats if he does in fact do an honest investigation.

        2. I keep thinking about the timing in terms of Christmas.

          Not a lot of swing voters are paying attention to the news right now, but people will be talking about this during Christmas. I’m not sure that’s better for the Democrats. I think it’s probably worse.

          1. I think the timing says that they know it isn’t popular and are doing this to please their base. If it were popular and something they wanted to command the public’s attention, they would have done it after the first of the year.

            Also, notice they got the vote done before the recess. This means the public hectoring that representatives from Trump districts will get will come after it is too late for them to change their minds.

          2. I was talking to some people who dont follow politics and said, “well, Trump became the third President to be impeached last night”.

            They said “what”? As in, they knew nothing about it. They thought it was hilarious how Democrats had no independent support for this so some Americans did not even know an impeachment was happening.

          3. The timing was to coincide with Slick Willie’s impeachment. It was a political payback. No more, and no less than that.

    3. Andy Kim is my representative. There are no circumstances whatsoever that he will ever get my vote.

      1. Not even if he rocked you gently? What about slowly?

        1. Andy Kim participated in this travesty, bring shame, disgrace and dishonor to my country. The son of a bitch will never get my vote. Can’t wait to vote him out of office, the useless piece of shit.

          1. Like Ken says, you really should try to get involved. You may have no idea how effective you can be. Since you are a local that means you have a better feel for the constituency. Door knocking and a simple flyer can be amazingly effective if the recipient views you as a peer and not just some fish out of water (overdressed or under dressed, different accent, etc) hired flunky.

            Preference cascades are real.

            1. Oh, I have 10 consecutive months to tell everyone I know around me that Andy Kim needs to be voted out. That is what they will hear – repeatedly: The son of a bitch Andy Kim needs to go.

          2. Okay, somebody’s clearly not familiar with 1970s one-hit wonders.

    4. Thanks Ken for your GOP list. Now i’ll Know where to target my donations. Best,

      1. Youre welfare checks will only help so much.

      2. Why not pay what you owe instead of demostrating your brain damage, scumbag?

        1. Headshot!

    5. Incidentally . . .

      “The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.”

      —-George Orwell

      Orwell wrote that after seeing the communists (backed by the Soviet Union) attack Anarchists–when they were supposed to be on the same side against the Fascists in Spain. Orwell was himself a socialist, but as the left became increasingly authoritarian and communist, he became increasingly anti-authoritarian and anti-communist to the point that Orwell is mostly remembered for Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, both of which were meant to excoriate authoritarian communism. Libertarian capitalists can find plenty to admire in both works because the differences between being anti-authoritarian communism and pro-libertarian capitalism could be subtle in the midst of the Cold War. The threat of the authoritarian communism wasn’t theoretical, and as it expanded from the Soviet Union to China and throughout the developing world, strange bedfellows turned up all over the place.

      I think we’re in a similar position now. As the Democratic Party becomes increasingly authoritarian and increasingly socialist, it is entirely appropriate for libertarian capitalists to become increasingly Republican. That doesn’t mean we need to abandon our principles–just like Orwell didn’t stop being a socialist just because he was anti-communist. The fact is, however, that as the Democrats increasingly embrace The Green New Deal, Medicare for All, student debt forgiveness, etc., etc. they’re becoming increasingly authoritarian and increasingly socialist, and we’re in a single member district system, where the power goes to one party or the other per Duverger’s Law. I’m not sure this is necessarily a bad development either.

      In the past, libertarian capitalists have bemoaned our elections being decided on questions like Terry Schiavo, Romeny’s dog, or other inconsequential culture war issues. If one of the two parties makes authoritarian socialism the center of their campaign strategy as the Democrats have, that means that sooner or later, libertarian capitalism will become the crux of the matter on the other side. A world in which politicians are picked on the basis of issues like taxes, spending, and regulation is probably a more libertarian capitalist world–if my fellow libertarian capitalists can see clearly enough to go where we can do the most good and do it.

      P.S.

      “The White House in a statement on the [Green New Deal] last month said that Trump “has vowed that America would never be socialist, and this administration will fight this central planning disaster,” and called the plan a “roadmap to destroy the American Economy.”

      https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/435263-trump-green-new-deal-is-the-most-preposterous-thing-and-easy-to-beat

      1. This is exactly why I’ve found Reason’s recent celebrations – not just acceptance, but outright celebration – of various episodes of increased government permission to be so disturbing.

        If getting your preferred outcome means endorsing government authority over the matter then you really don’t get the concept of liberty.

        1. >>Reason’s recent celebrations

          the Authors v. the Commenters mirrors the Elite v. the People

        2. For example? Not saying it didn’t happen, just curious what you are thinking of.

          1. Frankly Zeb, if you cannot think of any that’s indicative of your problem.

            1. Longer reply: I get that you intend to litigate the subjective use of the term ‘celebration’ and accept that no matter what links or citations I supply absent the appearance of direct language stating “this is a cause for celebration” you will deny they constitute any sort of celebration on the part of those authors.

              1. We can disagree. But I’d rather actually know what you think. I’m not here to win. I’m actually interested in what people think.

      2. Normally Democrats would have plenty of illegals to back fill those losses to the GOP plus the normal attrition from Democrat to Republican.

        Not so much anymore.

  28. The ERA blurb buries the lede that the activists looking to get the ERA passed strategy to do so involves ignoring the expired time limit on passage and the fact that three states have rescinded approval. Their approach is lawless.

    1. The amendment itself is lawless. I have never met a supporter of it who could explain what it means and what it is supposed to do that the 14th Amendment doesn’t already do. The whole thing was written at the height of liberal judicial activism and was written to be intentionally vague in order to allow judges to use it to accomplish virtually any desired end.

  29. Dear Leader continues to lose against an octogenarian apologist for the Soviet Union. My day has come. If all it takes is 4 years of having some laughably corrupt bullshitter in office so he can stoke his ego to bring about the dictatorship of the proletariat that’s a trade i’d Make any day. Thank you, Dear Leader.

    RCP Average 12/4 – 12/17 — — 47.6 45.2 Sanders +2.4

    1. Yeah, Sanders is going to win the Presidency. That will happen real soon. Even the bots posting talking points sound demoralized and are just going through the motions.

    2. If Sanders gets the nomination I will proudly vote for him in 2020.

      However he is still below my top tier of Democratic candidates. First of all, he’s a privileged old straight white cis-male, which I find boring. Additionally, I cannot totally forgive him for that comment about how “Open borders is a Koch Brothers plot to depress wages.”

      With Harris out, Warren is my first choice. And of course Hillary Clinton would immediately take over that position if she enters the race.

      1. +2.1 you mean.

        1. No -77. There is no national vote count. There are only estimates of a total that is utterly meaningless. The only vote total that matters is the electoral vote total and Hillary lost that by a significant margin.

        2. “+2.1 you mean.”

          No, we mean you are a fucking loser with no ethics whatsoever, scumbag.

    3. Tell us about the hag’s EC vote margin again; I love listening to pathetic losers.

  30. The link to the lawsuit challenging the ERA has a great picture.

    What is that woman smiling about? Who is she? You might think she likes what the speaker just said,but then look at the guy standing behind her. He is looking down at something. His expression looks like something other than the speech holds his attention. You can’t see his hands. You can assume her hands are doing nothing remarkable, as that would be visible to the audience — but not his.

  31. So I guess we now know what their next step is:

    “After Wednesday’s votes, Pelosi left open the possibility of delaying a procedural step that triggers a Senate trial, saying she might not name House impeachment managers and deliver the articles to the Senate unless Republicans there establish a “fair” process. In doing so, Pelosi was effectively attempting to gain leverage over the Senate’s process for weighing the charges against Trump.”

    I feel like that would get smacked down in a court real quick.

    1. It wouldn’t even go to court. If she refuses to name managers, the Senate can have the trial without them. It is like a lawyer refusing to show up for court. Beyond that, the Senate can just say fine and just not act. Let the articles sit there. It is difficult to see how that helps the Democrats. In that case they will have passed impeachment articles and then refused to prosecute them. No amount of “but we want to mandate the Senate rules” is going to convince anyone when McConnell is sitting there saying “we are ready for a trial whenever you send your people over to have one.”

      Such a situation would just further convince the public that the Democrats are not serious and the whole thing is just a clown show. Not only would that turn independents away it would also further demoralize their base. Their base has been told for three years that the Democrats have the goods on Trump and are going to run him out of office. To then have them pass impeachment articles that they refused to even try in the Senate would be totally demoralizing to their base.

      1. The House can make rules and so can the Senate.

        As you said John, the US Senate can hold the impeachment trial/vote tomorrow if they want. It does not matter what the House does now. The only constitutional power of impeachment the House has is in Article I, Section 2, Clause 5.

        It’s hilarious that Pelosi and Schumer think they can control the US Senate.

        1. I think they are so used to bullying the Republicans and always getting their way they can’t comprehend it being any other way. So, they keep doing these stupid things on the assumption the Republicans are going to roll over and surrender to them like they always do. Since the Republicans post Trump don’t do that, they end up looking insane.

          1. A lot of the Lefty plans to stop the rollback just fell off the radar.

            Piss dossier.
            Stormy Daniels.
            Michael Avenatti.
            Mueller.
            Comey.
            McCabe.
            ….

          2. I think that regardless of how Mcconnell feels about Trump, he likes that Trump has made the Republican party willing to fight over shit that they would have just bent over and taken 5 years ago.

    2. I read about that and thought it would be a terrible tactic for the Democrats, leading to even more popular perception that they are playing games with the impeachment process.

      But then when I read about it in more detail, what seems to have actually happened is that some Harvard professor raised the idea, Pelosi was asked about the idea repeatedly in press conferences, and she gave a very generic answer about coordinating with the Senate and the House impeachment managers to decide when to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

      1. “I read about that and thought it would be a terrible tactic for the Democrats, leading to even more popular perception that they are playing games with the impeachment process.”

        Uh, that ain’t perception, Mike.
        That’s REALITY.
        3 years of fishing expedition and they finally found an un-paid parking ticket; impressive!

        1. It’s both. Popular perception doesn’t always accord with reality. That doesn’t mean it can’t.

          1. Go away again Zeb, you add nothing.

            1. To be fair to Zeb, he backs up known sock trolls.

              He likes to know what they are thinking.

        2. 3 years of fishing expedition and they finally found an un-paid parking ticket; impressive!

          They have?

          Someone has yet to explain how asking for help in investigating a criminal act bragged about on video–and verified by normal political procedures means that TRUMP has done something criminal–or even mildly upsetting.

          There’s no unpaid parking ticket, no overdue library book.

          Nothing. At. All.

          1. “a criminal act”

            Sounds like an investigation isn’t necessary. It’s already known that there was a criminal act.

  32. From The Atlantic article that ENB linked above:

    “Most of the people whom I like or trust believe—and believe rather strongly—that what Trump has done rises to a crime. For them, the analysis of whether Trump should be impeached can’t help but be informed by their view that Trump represents an existential threat to the country. If he might damage American democracy at some fundamental level, without any obvious recourse, then pursuing his removal from office would seem to go without saying. That he is in a position to win again in 2020 and serve another four years makes impeachment all the more urgent.”

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/impeachment-warranted-also-bad-idea/603616/

    There are so many things wrong with that statement, it’s hard to know where to begin, but I think I’ll start with, “That he is in a position to win again in 2020 and serve another four years makes impeachment all the more urgent.”

    Because the American people want to reelect him, it’s important that he be impeached?!

    Elitism is contempt for the opinions of average people–regardless of whether their opinions should be considered within the proper purview of democracy. If anything belongs within the proper purview of democracy, surely it’s who should be the president. How far does he want to take this? The president is the Commander-in-chief. Is he so liberal that he doesn’t believe in civilian control of the military anymore?! It’s hard to tell whether these Democrats have perverse principles or whether they just don’t have any principles at all.

    P.S. Populism in all its forms is a reaction to elitism. So long as the left continues to be elitist, the push for more populism will continue.

    1. Ken,

      I really don’t think that Team D quite gets how people are going to react to this. Particularly if the Speaker starts playing games with sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Team D has knowingly brought shame, disgrace and dishonor to our country. From my perspective, there really aren’t rules anymore in DC.

      We the People will settle this in November 2020 at the ballot box. Can’t wait.

      1. I didn’t not vote for Trump in 2016.

        I want to vote for him now. Not sure I will, but now I’m having to resist the temptation to vote for Trump.

        I want to vote for Trump in 2020 like alcoholics in rehab want a nice cold beer.

        1. I did not vote for POTUS Trump in 2016 either; I voted for Johnson. My reasoning was that I was in the bluest of blue states. My vote didn’t really count, since Trump had no realistic chance to win NJ. And indeed, Crooked Hillary won NJ with 55% of the vote. Keep in mind, NJ is the same state that re-elected that crooked son of a bitch Menendez. NJ truly deserves the representation they elect.

          I’m looking forward to November 2020. Mostly, so I can vote that son of a bitch Andy Kim out of office. I’ll probably wind up voting for POTUS Trump, not because I like him, but just out of spite to give the civic version of the middle finger.

          1. If I didn’t like Trump and were not planning to vote for him but didn’t have TDS, I think I would end up looking at voting for him the same way I looked at the Kavanaugh confirmation.

            I really don’t think Kavanaugh was a good choice. I think he is an establishment shit weasel in the mold of John Roberts. I did not and do not trust him not to fold and vote with the liberals when the going gets tough. Guys like Kavanaugh and Roberts get where they are by having an almost feral sense of how to tell their bosses and professors exactly what they want to hear and always end up folding when it is politically advantageous.

            So, I would have been fine if the Senate had voted him down. That is until the stupid bitch Blessy Ford showed up. Thanks to her antics, had the Senate refused to confirm Kavanaugh, it would have forever given her lies credibility they didn’t deserve and forever slandered an innocent man as a rapist. And the need to avoid that outweigh any of my concerns about him as a judge. No matter what kind of a judge Kavanaugh turns out to be, that miserable bitch and her supporters could not have been allowed to win and set the precedent that anyone’s career can be ruined by even the most absurd slander.

            The situation with Trump has become similar. Whatever you think of him as a President, if Trump doesn’t win re-election, the Democrats and their tactics of absurd uses of impeachment and downright illegal use of the FBI and CIA will have been vindicated. And that cannot be allowed to happen. If you are on the fence and would rather have a protest vote for whomever the L candidate is, I would encourage you to consider the horrible precedent that Trump not winning re-election would set and how dangerous the FBI and the federal bureaucracy would become if they were allowed to take down a President. That seems like a much larger matter than anything Trump could do as a second term President.

            1. I think you are right. Certainly about Kavanaugh. And if Trump doesn’t get reelected, politics will get even dumber.

            2. John, I agree with what you are saying. It will take something like a sea level change to flip NJ into the Team R column. The print media around NJ is gleeful. These assholes actually think this is something to be happy and excited about…..they ‘got’ their man. They do not see impeachment as a national shame, a thing of disgrace and dishonor. This entire sorry episode sets my teeth on edge, and turns my stomach.

              Like I said, I fully intend to give Team D the civic version of the middle finger next November. Can’t wait.

              1. Trump might win New Jersey

                1. Nardz, don’t hold your breath. NJ elected Governor Phailing Phil Murphy, another Goldman Sachs reject who never met a tax he didn’t want to increase dramatically. The stupid son of a bitch has managed to alienate a Democrat state House, and a Democrat state Senate. And he has an honest to God socialist as his lietenant Governor (Sheila Oliver – an empty pantsuit if I ever saw one).

                  Re-electing that crooked bastard Menendez did it for me. NJ deserves every politician they elect.

            3. Very much describes my evolving attitude about Trump. I didn’t vote for him and had very low expectations. But the virulent hatred for him in the media, the ridiculous Russian collusion investigation, Kavanaugh, the FBI CIA FISA scandal and impeachment circus have convinced me to vote for him even though it won’t matter in my state.

      2. I plan on voting for Trump.

    2. Contrast how the Democrats treated George W. Bush after taking Congress in 2006 versus how they have treated Trump since taking the House in 2018. Bush was in his second term and had by 2006 become an unpopular President. And the Democrats could have trumped up a better impeachment case against Bush than they ever could against Trump. Yet, they didn’t even mention doing it. Why? Because they knew Bush was unpopular and the Republicans on the ropes and that 2008 was likely to put them back in power.

      Here we are in 2019 and the Democrats have spent two years trying to come up with any reason to impeach Trump and finally as time before the campaign was about to begin come up with this bullshit. The case for impeachment is so weak and so absurd they initially tried to conduct the hearings in secret. Yet, they are going ahead with it despite the election and their chance to run Trump out of office being less than a year away.

      Trump is popular, the Democrats have no answer for him and no realistic way to convince the public to turn on him as an incumbent. So, they are impeaching him in hopes it at least motivates their base and gives them talking points.

      1. They’re afraid he’s going to win in 2020, so they’re trying to impeach him. Somehow “Resist [the Trump administration]!” morphed into “Resist [the American people]!”

        1. I don’t think that is going to end well for them. They seem to be operating under the assumption that a purely partisan impeachment over conduct the public largely either doesn’t care about or approves of is some kind of scarlet letter that will cause independents and suburban Republicans to turn on Trump.

          I don’t see how that is the case. There is nothing magical about impeachment. If Trump’s actions in office alienate independents and suburban Republicans, impeaching him over it won’t make them more alienated. And if he doesn’t, impeaching Trump just makes them look ridiculous.

          I wonder if maybe this is another example of our ruling class believing in the magic power of words. They seem to think that attaching the magic word “impeachment” to conduct the public doesn’t find objectionable will somehow magically make it objectionable. I can’t help but think there is a little bit of that going on here.

          1. Crazy people dont know they are crazy.

            Democrats are clearly desperate to save themselves from no longer being a national political force. This is beyond desperation as its crazy.

            Its like a person does something out of line and you call them on it. They start screaming with their crazy face because they are all emotion at this point. Logic and rational thought are out of the window.

            Trump has defeated every Lefty attempt to stop him. I never thought Trump would be this dedicated to destroying the Democrat party.

            1. If Trump wins re-election my gut tells me that it will result in the complete demoralization of the Democrats and liberals in general. I look at all of the liberals I work with in government. They all hate Trump and all want him to go away. They are also nearly all at or beyond retirement age. I think if Trump wins a whole bunch of them are going to give up and retire or leave for the private sector if they can’t retire just yet. I think there will be an enormous turnover in the civil service. I also thing the Democratic party will fall into an enormous malaise at least until Trump leaves office.

              1. In addition to general Team D demoralization, I would like to see the seditious Team D assholes get prosecuted and sent to prison. Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe – they need to be put into cages and left there for a few years.

              2. I think that trend is accurate too John.

                The Lefties have pushed all in or only have a few chips left. Most Lefties don’t even understand how Census 2020 is going to alter the political landscape. They assumed that the House seats gained in 2018 would be the Democrat Party’s forever. Even some Lefty writers are admitting that California will likely lose 1-2 House seats for the first time in US History. Georgia and Texas are gaining House seats and based on the recent SCOTUS decision, these GOP controlled Legislatures can Gerrymander at their will.

                I really think average Democrats were hoping for some grand crime Trump had committed and it would be found. There isn’t one. Trump is the cleanest politician in the last 100 years+. This might explain the malaise you speak of since everything they throw at Trump goes nowhere. It has to be exhausting for them.

                I suspect many average Democrats know Trump will be reelected, so Election 2024 is where its at. Unfortunately for them, 5 years is a long time where more and more Democrats are leaving the Party of slavery and that Party is run by more and more radical SJWs. I think the Boomers that still barely run the DNC are just not able to see a light at the end of the tunnel.

            2. “Crazy people don’t know they are crazy.”

              Actually not true. Or, at least, it depends on what you consider crazy. People with serious mental illness – schizophrenia, bipolar with mania, etc. know they go off their rocker. People with personality disorders – severe narcissists, sociopaths, etc. – often do not know that they are assholes.

              1. Actually they dont know. They guess that they had an episode in the situation based on social cues from others that they learn in therapy.

                People without serious mental disorders tend to reign themselves in before some emotion manifests itself in an unhealthy or violent manner.

            3. “Crazy people don’t know they are crazy.”

              _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
              ||O_|||H_|||_______|||T_|||H_|||E_|||_______|||I_|||R_|||O_|||N_|||Y_|||_______|||2_|||0_|||2_|||0_||
              ||__|||__|||_______|||__|||__|||__|||_______|||__|||__|||__|||__|||__|||_______|||__|||__|||__|||__||
              |/__\|/__\|/_______\|/__\|/__\|/__\|/_______\|/__\|/__\|/__\|/__\|/__\|/_______\|/__\|/__\|/__\|/__\|

              1. Neutral mikey is a good example. He thinks hes multiple socks.

        2. >>morphed into

          was always. they hate who won’t worship them. just like high school.

        3. Don’t kid yourself, Ken. #resist was always directed at the American people

    3. Ken, see Brexit. Liberals can’t stand when they ever lose an election. Every election they lose is illegitimate. Corbyn was still claiming he won just last week!

      1. Gentry liberals cannot accept electoral defeat. They just can’t do it. Any lost election must be an illegitimate one.

  33. The individual mandate is invalid, says court.

    Huh? The Supreme Court says a penaltax is ok. WTF?

    1. It wasn’t ever ruled a penaltax. Only Roberts said that it was. The other 8 justices split 4 to 4 with one side saying it was an unconstitutional use of Congress’ power and the other side saying it was a proper exercise of Congress’ power. Roberts broke the tie by his bizarre claim that it was really a tax and not a penalty. This allowed him to claim it was a proper exercise of the taxing power and therefore Constitutional. So, the vote ends up being 5-4 upholding it but only Roberts said it was a tax. His opinion ensured that the mandate was upheld but Robert’s peneltax decision was a concurring opinion not a majority opinion. It is therefore not binding on lower courts.

      The fact remains 8 of the 9 justices agreed that it was a penalty not an exercise of the taxing power. And a plurality of the justices agree that it was an unconstitutional exercise Congressional power. So, the circuit courts are really free to rule however the hell they want to on this. The Obamacare decision didn’t command a majority for any particular view of the mandate.

      1. And if it was a tax, it originated in the wrong chamber. But Obo!

        1. Yes. But again, only Roberts ever said it was a tax. So legally it isn’t. Legally the only thing that can be said with certainty about the mandate is that it was found constitutional. There is no consensus whatsoever just what it is or why it is constitutional.

          1. >>only Roberts ever said it was a tax

            I would bully him every day for that if I was one of the others.

            1. He is such a status conscious nerd, he would be so easy to torture. Do shit like change the name plate outside his office to read “Chief Justice Penaltax”. Mention it during discussions on cases. “Well John, you know this restriction on abortion could possibly be a tax if you look at it in the right light”.

              1. every. opportunity. forever.

  34. >>Attorneys general from Alabama, Louisiana, and South Dakota are suing to stop the Equal Rights Amendment from moving forward.

    1978 called.

  35. That ACLU article linked about the tampons reads like satire.

  36. Trump now says impeaching presidents is unconstitutional, full stop.

    No, he did not.

    1. That is correct, POTUS Trump said no such thing. Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a lying journalistic harpy.

  37. Attorneys general from Alabama, Louisiana, and South Dakota are suing to stop the Equal Rights Amendment from moving forward.

    Didn’t this have a sunset provision if enough states hadn’t ratified it by a certain date?

  38. Will women’s bathrooms have mandatory urinals? Asking for a friend.

  39. I knew the “mandate” was uncoinstitutional the moment I first heard it mentioned, about the time Pugliugly infamously said “we’ve got to pass this bill to see what’s in it”. No, dimwit, try READING it first BEFORE you vote on it.. yes, ALL TWO THOUSAND PAGES of it (and yes, I am screaming at that pitiful wretch of a congresscritter. DOn’t forget, SHE is the one who swore under penalty of perjury that the kinyun is indeed fuly quailfied to legally serve as president. That’s felony perjury right there. WHEN will she see the inside of the GreyBar Hotel?

    Congress do NOT have the authority to demand any person present within the United States to buy anything. Most times, nor can they demand I NOT buy any particular thing.
    Its about time SOME court SOMEWHERE ruled properly on this.And it seems fitting, given the individual’s utterly corrupt nature, that the handpicked replacement for Camelnose, who advanced her career whilst serving in various positions under Willie Brown the Slick, would immediately throw down the gauntlet to fight this ruling. He knows less about the US Constituton, and California’s into the bargain, than my pet chicken does.

  40. Tampons in the men’s rooms? Whatever for? They aren’t heavy enough to throw very far, too small to plug much up, takes far too many to use as packing material….. so WHY would anyone demand WE get them in OUR special place? Its not like any of us might NEED one for an emergency, is it?

    I think its about time to mandate THREE classes of restroom… mark the doors with XX, XY, and X?. That way we who know, and accept the handiwork of the God who made us can be comfortable and secure in the appropriate facility. Anyone who is confused, pretending, deluded, rebellious, can use the X room. Maybe have the X room also set up as the ADA room as well, thus saving the huge cost of building TWO of those when really only one is needed. Make it small enough the confused, rebellious, etc, won’t be able to hang out in there if it is already in use by someone else.

  41. Nice Article ,keep it up ,It is very helpful.WhatsApp Dares

Please to post comments