Better yet, THUNDERDOME!
Two men (apes?) enter, one man leaves!
I see no way this isn’t a win for the people.
I just heard Barr on Morning Edition. What a fucking shit stain. Even though Trump was a delusional idiot and the election wasn’t stolen, Democrats are the ones who are trying to destroy America. How do we know, well Conservatives by definition are preserving things, it’s right there in the name.
Put Barr into a Chinese wrestler’s uniform and tell Trump it was really Xi.
PLUS, Barr is planning to vote for Trump in 2024!
Clearly Barr realized that a feud with a guy who is more than willing to point his deranged violent fans at him, is not conducive to a long life.
Poor Barr: ‘please buy my book even though I diss your beloved Trump in it because even though I’m going all around the nation saying your beloved Trump is a criminal piece of shit, I STILL plan to vote for him!!!1!!! So please, please buy my book and don’t shoot me!!!1!!!’
One could almost feel sorry for him. Almost.
Why? I figured judicial explanations were an imperative, regardless of any applications. (If the judges had decided, instead, to uphold the redistricting plans, I’d sure as hell would’ve liked to know why.)
Maybe because they didn’t actually hear the case, they just said that they weren’t going to hear the case.
IANAL but IIRC it is typical for “shadow docket” SCOTUS decisions on procedural grounds not to include judicial reasoning. We saw a high-profile instance of this recently in their allowing the Texas abortion restrictions to stand.
Thanks, despite not quite being sure if the ‘why’ was answered.
I wonder what lazy/sneaky bugger came up with that idea.
I’d guess they don’t want their reasoning to be used as some sort of precedent when none is intended (since they never gave the case a full hearing)
Unbelievable… except that it’s not. What a maroon.
Dropping this here too:
Because:
I seem to recall there being a quote somewhere about the general inadvisability of taking notes about a criminal conspiracy.
He was one of the hoodlums that Republicans like to claim was unarmed on Jan. 6.
“Hardie said he and Reffitt were both aware of the strict gun laws in D.C., and that they’d even researched reciprocity laws in the states that they traveled through to see whether their concealed carry permits were valid. But they ultimately made the decision that it was worth being armed on Jan. 6 even if it was against the law.”
Nothing about Vlogging it.
As I’ve been saying over and over for the last several years: when people tell you who they are, believe them.
This appears to be a quote from Maya Angelou, approximately.
Oh, I was not aware that it was Maya Angelou who originally said that. Didn’t mean to imply that it was original to me; I knew someone else had said it previously.
Maya must’ve gotten it from somewhere…
Did she tell you that? 