Supreme Court

So Who Is Neil Gorsuch-- Aside From Someone Nominated By The National Buffoon?

Señor Trumpanzee nominated Neil Grouch to the seat stolen by the Republicans from Merrick Garland. I doubt they will, but the Democrats should filibuster him and not allow him to serve on the Court. Why. Here's where I turn to my friends at People for the American Way, who know a great deal about this extremist Trump wants to put on the Court:

So who will fill Merrick Garland's Supreme Court seat?

by KenThere's a good chance, as we knew all through the 2016 presidential derby, that the Supreme Court we now think of as the "Roberts Court" is going to be transformed over the next few years into the "Trump Court."For now, President Trump has one vacancy to fill, the one that remains because Republicans took one of their more outrageous dumps on the Constitution by refusing to consider former President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, to fill the

Trump's Constant Lying Is a Power Game Called "Fuckery," and He's Winning At It

Amy Winehouse, live, 2010by Gaius PubliusYes, Virginia, that man said "fuckery." It's a lovely word with a lovely place in hip-hop culture. And it's exactly the word we need to understand Trump's (and really, all Republicans') outrageous lies and shenanigans, and also how to deal with them effectively. Bottom line: Donald Trump isn't just lying, he's "fucking with us" and challenging us to call him on it. This is exactly the "Who do you believe, me or your lying eyes?" problem.

The Tweet President

If the emperor wants to communicate with the people, he issues an edict, elegantly worded, drawn up by aides. Trump in contrast tweets even as he processes information. He shares his thoughts with his audience as they enter his mind. First to his Twitter following. Then, seconds later, on CNN and everywhere else. Anyone studying the timeline of tweets can get a good sense of Trump’s daily schedule and speculate on when he grabs pussy or makes time for his daily intelligence briefings.

Towards a Rational Legal Philosophy of Individual Rights

Summary: I briefly describe the anthropological origin and recent statutory embodiments of human rights of individuals. I show that the modern “democratic” state moderates the rights of individuals by both: (1) violating the said rights in order to maintain and enforce the societal dominance hierarchy, and (2) preventing disproportionate violations, to avoid inciting rebellion. The courts are charged with these tasks but must not appear to represent an oppressive state.