David Bloviator, the Spy's ace pundit, serves up the latest conventional wisdom on the 2024 Presidential race

Editors' Note: Since we last checked in with the Spy's master political prognosticator David Bloviator in February, lots has changed in the 2024 Presidential race, other than the identities of the two men who will receive their party's nomination.  After months of deep reporting from his vantage point at the center of all political intelligence, the National Press Club bar, David [That's Mr. Bloviator to you – DB] is ready to share his peerless insights with you, the reader in search of enlightenment.  

TMS:    Good afternoon, Mr. Bloviator.  Thank you for making time in your busy schedule for giving us an update on the status of the Presidential campaigns.

DB: Here's my update.  My glass is empty.  Why don't you do something about it?  

TMS: Gladly.  Double Chivas-rocks for Mr. Bloviator.

The great man updates the Republican field.

DB: [inhales his drink]  Ah, now I can share with you my brilliant insights on what's been happening in the race for the 2024 Republican Presidential nomination.

TMS: Which is?

DB:  The big news is the collapse of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, whose awkward style and lack of charisma have raised questions about whether he is really the Republican who can take on the heavy favorite, Donald Trump.

TMS: That's interesting.  Is this the same Ron DeSantis you told us earlier this year whose political savvy and ability to raise money posed a formidable challenge to Trump?  The same guy you said whose attacks on Walt Disney, college education, and gay schoolchildren would “supercharge” his campaign?

DB:  Actually I didn't say that.  That was Patricia Mazzei in The New York Times, one of the many wannabe pundits nipping at my heels.  I would never say anything like that.

TMS: Didn't you write numerous columns predicting that DeSantis, backed by torrents of cash from rich donors, would sweep all before him with his crowd-pleasing advocacy of forced birth and the Russian conquest for Ukraine? 

DB:  Well, what of it?  Billy Kristol lied us into eleven years of war in Iraq and he still has a job.

TMS: No he doesn't.  And didn't you also predict that any indictment of Donald Trump would destroy his campaign because Republican voters are so deeply committed to law and order?

DB: They are committed to law and order.  Look at all the demands to lock up Hunter Biden.

TMS: Didn't it turn out that the more times Donald Trump is arraigned for serious felonies, the more the Republican base loves him?

DB:  They believe that he is being persecuted by a weaponized out of control Biden prosecution force.

TMS: They may believe that, but it doesn't happen to be true, does it?  There's no evidence that Biden has interfered in any way with Department of Justice decisions to prosecute or not, is there?

DB: It doesn't matter.  It's what the voters believe to be true.

TMS: Doesn't the press have a responsibility to separate truth from fiction, and stop serving as transmission belts for dangerous lies?

DB: Our job is deep reporting and your job is to fill this glass.

TMS: Another double-Chivas rocks for our thirsty pundit.  But seriously what accounts for the devotion the Trump base has shown to their candidate despite the 37 criminal charges preferred against him, with more imminent?

DB: The Trump base believes that coastal elites are out to destroy their champion.  And don't forget economic anxiety. 

TMS: What economic anxiety?  Growth is good and unemployment is at a 40 year low.

DB:  But what about crushing inflation?  Eggs are eight dollars a dozen.

TMS: No they aren't.

DB: How much are they then?

TMS: We'll get an intern to check.    [Louise, find out how much a f***ing dozen eggs cost, stat. – Ed.][I found this – L.M.]

 

DB:  Dammit, if liberals tried to reach out more to Trump supporters, maybe they wouldn't be so upset about the soaring price of eggs.

TMS: Can Ron DeSantis turn his campaign around?

DB: He needs to draw a sharp contrast to Trump, while appealing to the Republican base that loves Trump more than life itself.

TMS: That seems like a tall order.

DB: Which is why I'm hearing a lot of whispers about Tim Scott, who appeals to the Republican base with his embrace of Christian doctrine like being against abortion.

TMS: Where in Christian Scripture did Jesus say he was against abortion? 

DB: Dammit man, how should I know?  Go ask a priest.  Or Jerry Falwell.

TMS: Let's move to other developments in the Presidential election.  Could there be a third party candidate who could draw votes away from Joe Biden?

Ron DeSantis, firing up Republicans at an Iowa rally

DB: Yes, I'm hearing a lot about a candidate who can unify Americans turned off by the extreme views of the two leading candidates. 

TMS: What are Biden's extreme views that voters don't like?

DB: He has been captured by the progressive left.  Many are saying that he is a puppet of Kamala Harris. 

TMS: Who's saying that besides Republican spin doctors trying to demonize Biden and Harris?

DB: They are many in number, and I can assure you they are acute observers of the passing scene.  For example, they always notice when my glass is empty.

TMS: Another Chivas-rocks for the great man.  Doesn't the polling show that a third party candidate would siphon votes from Biden and ensure Trump's election?

DB: The Harvard poll I received from Mark Penn says that 58% of voters would consider a third party candidate who agreed with them on every issue.

TMS: Shouldn't we be skeptical of a poll run by a guy whose wife runs the No Labels third party effort? 

DB: Are you accusing a graduate of Harvard College from making s*** up? 

TMS: Speaking of Harvard grads making s*** up, what effect do you believe that heroin-crazed anti-vax hatemonger Bobby Kennedy will have on the Presidential race? 

DB: Kennedy speaks to the alienation many Democrats feel from their party's leaders like Joe Biden. 

TMS: What accounts for that supposed alienation? 

DB: Don't forget: Biden is old.  He's 80.

TMS: And Bobby Kennedy is a sprightly 69. 

DB: He articulates the suspicions many have about the way government handled COVID. 

TMS: That makes sense.  Hundreds of thousands died unnecessarily because the Trump Administration denied the seriousness of the pandemic and didn't take strong enough measures to stop COVID's spread. 

DB: No, that's not what he means.  He's referring to the vaccine and lockdowns. 

What's wrong with legacy admissions?

TMS: So the stuff that worked?  What a moron! 

DB: How dare you call him a moron.  He graduated from Harvard College. 

TMS: So did Mark Penn.  And he's nothing but a greedy opportunistic grifter funded by hard right dark money.  Anyway why do you care about where he went to college? 

DB: Many of the greatest minds of my generation went to college in the Boston area, if I may say.

TMS: Wait – did you go to Harvard? 

DB: I was the eighth generation of Bloviators to attend the college. 

TMS: So you got in because you're a legacy?  Isn't that just a perpetuation of white privilege? 

DB: Of course not.

TMS: Why not? 

DB: You wouldn't understand. 

TMS: Why not? 

DB: Let's just say that in the Yard there was a saying: It wouldn't be Harvard without Bloviators.

TMS: Let's close out my tab.  Thank you, Mr. Bloviator. 

Learn your kids the Florida way!

By Jenny Herk
Florida Correspondent

Striding boldly forward in his white platform go-go boots, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced revised standards for teaching American history in any remaining Florida public schools.  Among other gems, the standards require teaching that slavery was not all bad because it taught the slaves useful skills, like evading bloodhounds, crossing frozen rivers, and submitting meekly to white overseers to avoid being shot.  The standards also point out that such skills explain why Black people have been so successful as running backs in the NFL.

As usual, the liberal thought police has once again employed its most feared tactic – cancelling free speech:

The new pro-slavery lessons are just one aspect of Gov. DeSantis's attempt to rewrite American history into something that is at once less downbeat and supportive of the general Republican view that after 404 years, it's time for Black people to stop whining already.

The Spy has learned that DeSantis's Ministry of Truth has gone beyond setting standards for what can be taught the bright young minds of Florida in addition to how to outrun a charging alligator (run to the side because the beast tends to attack in a straight line).

We have in fact obtained partial galley proofs of the new American History textbook that all Florida schools must use beginning this September.  As you can see from the following excerpts, it's all good news.  Literally – in this textbook, nothing bad ever happened in the American past.

Chapter 1 – The Discovery of America 

America was discovered in 1620 by white Christians who landed by mistake [This part is true actually – Ed.] in “woke” Massachusetts where they were cold and persecuted. Before they arrived, America was an empty continent except for a few savages running around in feathers. They did not read or write. They did not pray to God like good Christians. They did not live in proper houses or drive pickup trucks. They survived without any of the comforts of civilization. They had no air-conditioning or flush toilets. There were no large well-stocked supermarkets where they could buy Doritos or Coca-cola. They did not use deodorant, skin lotion, or Botox. They ate everything with their fingers and not just the pudding.

The primitive Indians didn't even go to the beach

The first settlers gave Christianity and small-pox to these primitive savages. The Indians benefited greatly: Christianity saved their souls from eternal damnation, while small-pox allowed them to enter the Kingdom of Heaven much earlier than they might have anticipated. Some Indians showed gratitude and were allowed to have dinner with the Pilgrims once a year.  Others, stirred up by “woke” ideas like America belonged them, resorted to violence.  They were taught a sharp lesson by white Americans exercising their God-given Second Amendment rights even before there was a Second Amendment, proving that it was indeed God-given.

Later, Americans showed Christian charity and forgave the remaining Indians for the attacks by naming their sports teams, universities and deluxe ski resorts after Indians, Redskins, Seminoles, Braves, and Squaws.  

Let's skip ahead to 1776, shall we?

Chapter 2 – The Invention of Liberty

In 1776 America had decided they had had enough of British woke tyranny.  The great white men of America met in Philadelphia (which was not then the crime-ridden hellhole it is today under urban Democratic mayors) and wrote the Declaration of Independence.  This was a perfect document that said everything that needed to be said about liberty.  It made America a true Christian republic that guaranteed freedom to just about everybody as long as they realized they were living in a Christian republic.  It also outlawed abortion by guaranteeing the right to life.

Today woke liberals claim that the Founding Fathers' vision was flawed because they were all white men and many of them were slaveholders.  This is wrong.  They say this because they hate America and want to cut off your children's genitals. That is all you need to know about this topic.  You can go to the beach now.

But that's not the end of the story:

Chapter 4 – The Democrats' War

By 1861 the Democrats were so angry about the election of great Republican Abraham Lincoln that they seceded and started a war.  The ensuing war pitted Blue against Gray, brother against brother, North against South, and white men against other white men.  Both sides fought valiantly for their cause, whatever it was.  The South, under the leadership of Robert E. Lee, who looked splendid riding a horse, fought bravely against Northern invaders.  The Southern plantation owners joined by their loyal slaves worked hard to keep the South supplied with turnips and curtains until Sherman's marauders burned Atlanta.  

The war ended only after a hero who sneezed attacked the rebels and turned defeat into victory.  Despite winning every battle the South lost the war.

Then Lincoln freed the slaves (with the support of Robert E. Lee), which ended the problem of slavery in America for all time and therefore there is nothing further to be said about slavery that you need to know.

And now for the happy ending:

Chapter 12 – America Saves the World

Woke bus companies learned a sharp lesson

In 1941, America was attacked by Japan and Germany.  Although Hitler had many good ideas, declaring war on the greatest country that ever was or will ever be was not one of his best ones.  Thanks to brave white American men, we won the Second World War at D-Day and saved the world.  We also invented the atomic bomb with the assistance of clever Jews.  

After the war, America reached new heights. Millions of new homes were built for fine American families like the Cleavers.  They owned two cars and lived a comfortable life thanks to hardworking men.  Their wives stayed home in shirtwaist dresses, raised children, and cooked delicious meals, many of which involved Jello molds.  On Sunday they went to church in the morning and in the afternoon the men played golf with President Eisenhower.

Work is so boring, dear

The next President was John F. Kennedy.  He was a handsome war hero.  He beat the Russians in Cuba.  However, as part of the price we pay for our precious Second Amendment freedoms, he was shot and killed in 1963.  His Vice President, Lyndon B. Johnson, became President.  Although he was from Texas and wore a cowboy hat, he was a Socialist.  He imposed tyrannical measures like Medicare and food stamps on America.

While he was President, some black people were stirred up by agitators like Martin Luther King, Jr.  He said that men should not be judged by the color of their skin and therefore would have supported Justice Clarence Thomas.  Many of his followers ignored his message and demanded special privileges like going to white schools and swimming in white pools.

Fortunately the Civil Rights Act was enacted which banned discrimination by race and ended race as a problem in America for all time.  Since that time, any discussion of race has meant discrimination against white people because of the color of their skin.  Martin Luther King, Jr. also gave his life in defense of our sacred Second Amendment rights.

Suggestions for Further Reading

None.  We have told you all you need to know about American history.  Do not go to Disney World. Go to the beach instead and make white babies.

 

There's more but you get the drift: after a few years of reading stuff like this, Florida students will no longer have to worry about feeling sad because of things they learned.  Like Eve before she ate the apple.  

The Supreme Court: they're not judges, so why waste a courthouse on them?

By Bill Zeckendorf
Real Estate Correspondent

Last week we recounted how the United States Supreme Court had decided it no longer had to act like a court, and instead had reinvented itself as a kind of House of Lords on, like Bobby Kennedy, Jr., steroids.  Like the British version, many of them are known to drink excessively.  Unlike those lords though, ours have the power to chuck out any law or regulation enacted by the democratically elected branches that they find not amusing.

Their unceasing assault on democracy and law itself have led to a number of possible fixes, such as unpacking the Court with new justices, enforcing term limits, and even limiting their legal to decide cases.  All of these ideas are reasonable, but all have failed because basically Democrats are too timid to pursue them.

We propose a much more modest solution.  Currently the Supreme Court does its dirty business from an imposing marble palace on Capitol Hill built in the depths of the Depression.  It was intended to embody in stone the majesty of justice under law.

Now that they have chucked out that justice under law ragtime, why do they need a courthouse?  A little known fact is that their Courthouse belongs not to them, but to us.  They are tenants.  Like poor powerless tenants, they can be chucked out into the street at any time at the whim of their landlord; in this case, us.

For the first 150 years of the Republic, though, these clowns got by without their own courthouse.  They heard argument in the Capitol.  Otherwise, the boys worked at home, where in many cases their Black slaves were able to provide spirituous refreshment and other services while they composed classics like Dred Scott.  

We propose repurposing their unneeded courthouse and transforming it into something useful, if not inspiring. Our idea would be to turn the palace into a conveniently-located day care center for the thousands of underpaid drones buzzing around the Capitol complex. There would likely be enough space left over to house the Marshall-Ginsburg Center for the Study of Civil Rights, returning at long last something resembling justice to a building that hasn't seen any for years now.

However, mostly out of sympathy for long-suffering spouses like Mesdames Roberts and Kavanaugh, we would not leave the Court without a home.

Fortunately, the Government's real estate arm, the General Services Administration, maintains a vast portfolio of real estate much of which could be repurposed to serve the needs of a Supreme Court of Revision.  What do they need except some offices and a big room to hear arguments?  Basically any office space will do.

Like the super-helpful problem solvers we are, we've found a number of attractive options, any of which would be more than suitable for the Supreme Court, and many of which would allow them to focus on their work without the distractions of a bustling downtown crawling with plutocrats and collectors of Hitler memorabilia.

Let's check out some of GSA's choice office inventory.

Bolling AFB, Southeast DC

See how close it is to the Capitol!

If you think that there is some symbolic reason to provide a DC address for the Court, there's a lot of Federal property on the far side of the Anacostia River that is located in the District.  For example, there's an Air Force base down there that has everything an Air Force base requires, except for planes and runways.

Surely there's space at Bolling AFB that could be repurposed to house the Supreme Court.  And the site boasts riverfront views and plenty of free parking.  Arguably it's less convenient to the ritzy clubs and restaurants of K Street, but we're sure the Justices would be welcomed in the Officers' Club.

Talk about location: it's right on the water, so the younger Justices can enjoy kayaking and paddleboarding on the Potomac, while the older ones can bask in the sun and dream about leaving their public hairs on the soda cans of particularly comely clerks and staff.  It's a short hop to National Airport, where the Justices' private empty-seat air force of Gulfstream jets stands ready to whisk them away to the vacation of their dreams with their dear friends, all of whom are remarkably enough rich reactionary white men eager to push their plutocratic Christian dominionist agenda.

Haynesworth Courthouse, Greenville SC

We were so moved by Clarence Thomas's story of how he rose from poverty and obscurity in rural South Carolina to the Supreme Court solely by virtue of his brilliance, hard work, and rigorous self-control without benefiting in any way from that nasty unconstitutional affirmative action stuff Clarence chucked out last month that we thought it would be a nice gesture to let him return home to South Carolina in triumph.

Perfect for Brett!

It would also let him spend more time with his mother in the house that Hitler tchachke collector Harlan Crow bought for her.

According to the GSA, there's plenty of empty space in this courthouse, and it already has a courtroom.  And Greenville (unofficial motto: “The town that's not too busy to hate”) has many attractions that should appeal at least to the six Republican hacks who run the Court.  Actually the official motto is “America's Friendliest City,” which should appeal to outgoing party guys like Brett “He just wanted to say hello” Kavanaugh.

By the way, who was that Clement Haynsworth fella whose name graces the future home of the Supreme Court?

Funny story:

Nearly a century after a former Confederate took the bench, Republican candidate Richard Nixon ran for president using a “Southern strategy,” as well as an emphasis on law-and-order politics, to woo white southern Democrats who were upset with Lyndon B. Johnson’s support for civil rights legislation. After winning the presidency in 1968, Nixon nominated two men for the Supreme Court who each had a history of supporting segregation.... The first one, Clement Haynsworth Jr., had supported a decision by Prince Edward County, Virginia—the county in which one of the five class-action suits incorporated into Brown v. Board of Education was filed—to close schools rather than integrate them.

Sounds like a man after John Roberts's stone cold no-racism-here heart.  And a perfect home for this bent Supreme Court.

Kodiak Island, Alaska

The liberal minority on the Court might complain that this former Naval facility on Kodiak Island, Alaska is a little distant from their favorite soy-latte haunts in Washington, but really, who cares what they think?  Not their six corrupt Republican colleagues.

The great advantage to this facility, located on ruggedly handsome Kodiak Island, Alaska, is its proximity to the vacation haunts favored by Sullen Sam Alito and his like-minded brethren.  You'll recall it was Alito who selflessly occupied an otherwise-empty seat on some plutocrat's private jet for a week long fishing getaway in Alaska, accompanied by gourmet meals and wine that certainly did not cost $1,500 a bottle, according to distinguished oenophile Sam Alito.

If the Court were moved to this simple yet adequate outpost, Sam wouldn't have to be embarrassed by private jet travel. Instead, he could be conveyed to the fishing lodge on Harlan Crow's hundred-foot yacht accompanied by his good friend Leonard “Moneybags” Leo and his constellation of goons who installed the last three bent white justices on the court. 

Further Kodiak Island would approximate John Roberts's ideal of an America that never has to grapple with the issues of race, because there are only about 140 Black people on the island. 

As this brief survey of available federal property has demonstrated, there is a range of desirable sites for the new home of the Supreme Court from which they could pursue their destruction of the rule of law in peace and quiet.  

Although these sites may be less luxurious than their current abode, keep in mind that having a roof over their heads puts them ahead of hundreds of thousands of desperate Americans who lack that simple comfort due to the continued efforts of the soulmates and owners of the six Republican Justices.

Of course, if they would prefer to remain in their marble courthouse on Capitol Hill, all they would have to do is behave like judges and limit themselves to deciding actual controversies by applying the law rather than their personal political preferences, which is what judges are supposed to do. 

The Most Dangerous Branch

By Legal Correspondent Saori Shiroseki

The latest delayed revelation from a former Tiny Toadstool flunky this week reminded us again of how deeply we fell into tyranny in the previous administration.

This week, craven Trump enabler John Kelly finally admitted under oath that the criminal he served had tried to use the IRS to attack FBI officials who were conducting a lawful inquiry into his misconduct.  The news generated crickets among the Washington press corps, otherwise engaged in wondering who had dropped a bag of Bolivian marching powder in the West Wing lobby.  (It was most likely hard-tweaking Fox “News” rabble-rouser Pete Doocy, who needed to give his stupid empty baiting of Biden Administration briefers that certain “lift.”  If not him, then some other hack who needed an extra something for their 6:32 a.m. hit.)

She's got a North Lawn hit in 10 and needs that bump bad!

Siccing the IRS on one's political enemies or law enforcement officials doing their jobs is of course tyranny.  Just like extorting political dirt by withholding authorized weapons from a vital ally (that was impeachment #1).  Just like mobilizing friendly states and then an armed mob to overturn a fair and free election (that was impeachment #2).  Just like stealing classified documents and lying about it (that was indictment #2).

We've been so focused on the very real specter of authoritarian tyranny (about two to three points away in recent non-nobbled polls) that we've overlooked an equally grim prospect: what if the threat comes not from a corrupt Russian-owned stooge ruling from the patio of his crapcan club, but from the black-robed subverters of democracy doing business as the United States Supreme Court?

The question was starkly posed at the end of its current disastrous term, by decisions that were not only wrong on the facts and the law, but were issued by a bent court without authority to do so.

We're not talking about horrendously wrong decisions like taking away a woman's right to control her own body.  Those have to be resolved in the political process (more on that below).

We're talking about decisions that the Court was explicitly without the authority to make.   The distinction tends to get lost these days, but the Supreme Court and the lower courts do not in fact have the authority to decide whatever the f*** they want, the way Congress can.

They have an extremely limited grant of power contained in Article III, sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution, which says

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, ...In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

There's a lot to unpack here, but for today's purpose note that the judicial power is limited to “cases” and “controversies.”

Those limitations are important.  We know this because Brett Kavanaugh this term whipped this out:

Brett Kavanaugh has long had trouble with standing

Article III of the Constitution confines the federal judicial power to “Cases” and “Controversies.” Under Article III, a case or controversy can exist only if a plaintiff has standing to sue—a bedrock constitutional requirement that this Court has applied to all manner of important disputes

.... As this Court’s precedents amply demonstrate, Article III standing is “not merely a troublesome hurdle to be overcome if possible so as to reach the ‘merits’ of a lawsuit which a party desires to have adjudicated; it is a part of the basic charter promulgated by the Framers of the Constitution at Philadelphia in 1787.”... The principle of Article III standing is “built on a single basic idea—the idea of separation of powers.” ..... Standing doctrine helps safeguard the Judiciary’s proper—and properly limited—role in our constitutional system. By ensuring that a plaintiff has standing to sue, federal courts “prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches.”

U.S. v. Texas, 599 U. S. ____ (2023).

And if Brett “Look What Popped Up” Kavanaugh says it, it must be true.  Like when he said he never tried to rape a 16-year-old girl in a drunken frenzy.   In Texas, the Supreme Court properly said that a bent Republican state had no standing to keep the Executive Branch from exercising its plenary authority over immigration as it saw fit.

The next week, though, they forget all about their bedrock principle and usurped the powers of the political branches in at least two cases (and possibly three, if you count the Harvard case).  In fairness, they were busy packing their bags for their summer boondoggles in Alaska and Bali.

In Nebraska v. Biden, 599 U. S. ____ (2023), the Supreme Court said that despite explicit language to the contrary the Biden Administration could not waive student loan debt.  It found that a loan servicer chartered by the State of Missouri somehow conferred standing on the state itself, although the servicer neither suffered nor complained of any injury.

The three non-bent non-Republican Justices wrote in dissent: 

In every respect, the Court today exceeds its proper, limited role in our Nation’s governance....The plaintiffs in this case are six States that have no personal stake in the Secretary’s loan forgiveness plan. They are classic ideological plaintiffs: They think the plan a very bad idea, but they are no worse off because the Secretary differs. In giving those States a forum—in adjudicating their complaint— the Court forgets its proper role. The Court acts as though it is an arbiter of political and policy disputes, rather than of cases and controversies.

The majority didn't like forgiving student loan indebtedness so they killed it.  But that wasn't a judicial act.  It was an attempted arrogation of political power that they didn't have.

And they didn't stop there.  They went on to create a religion-based right to discriminate against a protected class seeking public accommodation in 303 Creative LLC v. Ennis, 599 U. S. ____ (2023), even though the plaintiff had not been asked to create a website for people she found abhorrent (a same-sex couple).  In fact she had suffered no injury at all, nor was there any present opportunity for her to do so.  The plaintiff had never sold a wedding website to anyone, gay or otherwise.  303 Creative, 599 U.S., slip op. at 31 n.11 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).

We remember there used to be a guy who taught at Harvard named Larry Tribe who was thought to know something about Constitutional Law.  What'd he have to say?

the entire case was based on entirely hypothetical 'worries' that the web designer claimed to have about how the state's officers might come after her under the state anti-discrimination laws if a same-sex couple were to ask her to design a wedding site for them and if she were to refuse," Tribe said. "In my view, the disgraceful fact...is the very fact that the Supreme Court's majority was willing to render what amounted to an advisory opinion that it would never have done but for its eagerness to denigrate same-sex marriage and LGBTQ rights generally and that, under Article III, it had no business doing."

Got it.

By the way, the requirement that services be publicly offered is why the drivel about whether Steven Spielberg could be forced into directing a movie whose ideology he disagreed with fails the laugh test.  If, as, and when Spielberg opens up a Movies 'r Us on Rodeo Drive, the apologists for judicial discrimination against LGBTQ couples can try the argument again.

There's also a third case that's still churning in the lower courts concerning an effort by anti-abortion doctors to prohibit the use of medication abortion.  We've held forth on this already, but suffice it to say that the forced-birth ideologues pushing the case do not in fact have an injury other than the political desire to torment women seeking abortions.

What is to be done?

You might be expecting the usual lecture about voting for Biden and real Democrats (a group that does not include heroin-deranged anti-vaxxer Bobby Kennedy, Jr.).

But that covers all bent Supreme Court decisions, including in cases where they had unquestioned authority to make their decision (including alas the abortion ruling itself).

For the subset of lawless decisions issued by a court without authority to do so, we suggest an additional tool once used by an old country lawyer named Abraham Lincoln.  In 1861, with Maryland teetering on the brink of insurrection (which if successful would have left Washington surrounded and the Union cause lost), Lincoln ordered the arrest of among other subversives one John Merryman by the military authorities.

When Chief Justice Taney (who had decided four years earlier that Black people weren't people after all) ordered Merryman's release, “Lincoln refused to obey it....Whatever the respective merits of Taney's and Lincoln's position, Taney commanded no troops and could not enforce his opinion, while Lincoln did and could.” J. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom 288-89.

The Supreme Court has been wrong before

If a figure as devoted to the preservation of the nation and the Constitution as Abe Lincoln could justify ignoring Supreme Court decisions, maybe we should stop and think.

At least when the Court is plainly acting outside its Article III powers and simply imposing its political will, we'd argue that we have a responsibility to reject the tyranny of the judiciary.

Imagine what would happen.  In the case of student loans, Biden would simply state that no one has to pay $10,000 in loans.  Who would enforce nonpayment?  Who has a right to object?  The supposed website designer case is more difficult, because lower federal courts would like feel bound to enforce 303 Creative, but other states could argue that the precedent is worthless because it was issued without the power to do so.  

To the objection that ignoring or defying any Supreme Court decision threatens the rule of law, we would ask who is threatening the rule of law?  Is it those who insist that the Court obey the Article III limits on its power, or is it six bent Republicans ignoring the law to impose their political judgments on the rest of us?

A Court that feels empowered to act as an unelected and permanently Republican legislature seems like the greatest threat to law and order we face (outside the potential re-election of a Russian-owned corrupt disloyal sex criminal).

Many years ago, Prof. Alexander Bickel wrote a famous defense of the Supreme Court called The Least Dangerous Branch.  

What do we do when it becomes the most dangerous?

Liz Cheney's Priorities: They're Not Ours

By Political Editor David Bloviator and
Legal Correspondent Saori Shiroseki

As we pick through the wreckage of our constitutional order this morning and wake up to a world in which a tyrannical bent Republican court has in essence carried out a coup against the political branches by issuing decisions without the power to do so under the Constitution, our thoughts naturally turn to – our supposed BFF, Liz Cheney.

Cheney, who has reinvented herself as the Savior of the Republic for being among the few Republicans willing to state the obvious truth that Trump is a subversive corrupt danger to our country, has some shocking thoughts on the next Presidential election:

“I really believe, and I’ve never believed something as strongly as I know this, that the single most important thing for the country is Donald Trump can’t be anywhere near the Oval Office again,” she said.

Oooh, so close.

As shown by the path of destruction wrought in just the last week by a Court six of whose Justices were appointed by Republicans, the most important thing for the country is that Joe Biden must be re-elected next year.

See the difference?

If you think that Trump is the problem, not Republicans, then you must think that one of the other clowns challenging the Tangerine-Faced Defendant for the nomination would less less of a threat.  Would they?

Let's take the man who is nominally in second place, although fading faster than David Brooks' elevation of Lobsterman Jordan Peterson, Ron “Go-Go Boots” DeSantis.

DeSantis apparently agrees with every one of Trump's democracy-busting positions.  His claim is that he could do a better job of creating an extremist right wing dictatorship. 

His position about the violent conspiracy to overthrow the U.S. Government on January 6, 2021 can be described as nothing to see here people, move along:

We warned you about your friend Liz Cheney

DeSantis has sought to downplay the events of that day and hasn’t ruled out pardoning the rioters or even Trump himself. 

Pardoning the Traitor-in-Chief is of course an act in furtherance of sedition.  Embracing such a possibility demonstrates to even the meanest intelligence (other than Liz Cheney) that DeSantis is also a clear and present threat to democracy. 

If that position is not disqualifying, DeSantis has spent the last five years turning Florida into a dictatorship, by disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of ex-prisoners, punishing corporations for disagreeing with him, wiping out academic freedom in state colleges, and terrorizing school boards into banning books that hurt the feelings of white supremacist morons.

None of that appears to bother Liz Cheney.

We could go down the list of Republican hacks and wannabes but really what difference would it make?  None of them are willing to condemn the January 6 insurrection or state that they will not vote for Trump if he is the nominee.  

Crucially, would you expect any of them to nominate for the Supreme Court anyone other than an extremist whack job wrapped up for them by America's Lord Chancellor,  Leonard Leo?

And has Liz Cheney ruled out supporting any of these cats and dogs?

Instead of forthrightly condemning them, she had more general criticism of the current state of American politics:

“And what we’ve done in our politics is create a situation where we’re electing idiots,” she added, prompting applause from the audience. She added later “I think electing serious people can't be partisan.”

Before you get too choked up with longing for the days when our politics were dominated by Republicans who supposedly weren't idiots, let's remind you of a little history:

You don't know who this guy is, do you?  Neither does Liz Cheney!

Would you believe that he was a Republican Vice President of the United States?  Until he had to resign in disgrace because he had accepted envelopes full of cash representing kickbacks from state contractors?

Does anyone think that Spiro T. Agnew was not an idiot?

But he was just the first in a long line of Republican idiots that Liz overlooks.  What about St. Ronald of Bitburg, who didn't understand why those Hebrews threw a fit just because he saw fit to place a wreath at a German cemetery containing graves of Hitler's SS war criminals?

Or St. Ronald's successor, George H.W. Bush, who bequeathed Clarence Thomas to us by saying not at all idiotically:

The “best man” for the job? Even today, you have to appreciate the breathtaking insouciance of the lie, coming from a Yale aristocrat who wouldn't have let Thomas chauffeur his mother around Prout's Neck.

By the way, whatever happened to Thomas's extreme views on affirmative action?  Any updates?

Republicans, before they were idiots

And closer to Liz herself, what about the idiots who failed to take the al-Qaeda terrorist threat seriously before 9/11 and then used it as a pretext to invade a country that had nothing to do with it, with disastrous results?  

The point, other than rubbishing Liz Cheney just for the fun of it (kind of like her position about torturing detainees), is that our Wonderful Republican Allies have been trying for years now to claim that there is a huge and inexplicable gap separating the leader of the Republican Party, ex-Pres. Tiny Toadstool, from all other serious non-idiotic non-subversive non-white supremacist Republicans past and present.

But even a cursory review of history demonstrates that there's isn't a dime's worth of difference between racist Republican idiots of yesterday and today.  

And anyone who maintains the fallacy that the Tangerine-Faced Defendant can be chopped off the otherwise-healthy Republican oak is not our friend.  Worse, she's not a friend of what's left of our constitutional order.