It’s Almost As If There’s A Theme

Attorney General Ellison compares Justice Thomas to a “house slave”:

Ellison – whose entire career is was financed by Alita Messinger and George Soros – accuses conservatives on the SCOTUS of being beholden to plutocrats.

And about 1:00 in, he says:

“Anyone who’s watched Django – Clarence Thomas is like Steven.

Ellison is being both a little more artful than Ryan Winkler’s ape-like response that Thomas is “Uncle Tom”. “Stephen” is a dog whistle reference from a Spike Lee movie – a coded reference to “someone all real black people should hold in contempt”.

Last year, with the aid of a 14:1 spending advantage, Ellison won by about a point.

He can be beaten.

That’s Gonna Leave A Mark – On Legal History

Never thought I”d see the day.

In one of the highlights of last week, all nine justices of the SCOTUS united across ideological lines to beat Hennepin County like a pimp beating one of his girls.

Geraldine Tyler owed a $15,000 tax debt on a one-bedroom Minneapolis condo; to pay the debt, Hennepin County sold her home for $40,000 — and kept the extra $25,000 beyond what was owed. Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the opinion of the Court that the taxpayer must “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but no more,” effectively ending the practice of home equity theft.

How clear-cut was Henco’s abuse? This clear-cut (emphasis added):

Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, which Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined, adding that the county’s action also violates the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause.

“Economic penalties imposed to deter willful noncompliance with the law are fines by any other name,” he wrote. “And the Constitution has something to say about them: They cannot be excessive.”

Any day that Henco gets clobbered is a wonderful one.

Our Dim, Cretinous Overlords

To: Senator Smith
From: Mitch Berg, Unaborted Human
Re: From the Deep Thoughts of Tina Smith Files

Senator,

I have long since learned that your ignorance is a barrel with no bottom. Nothing surprises me.

This? Not even close:

No.

My God. No.

The SCOTUS is not “beholden to the people”. That’s the House. The Senate was intended to be beholden to the States (one of our nation’s greatest mistakes was changing that).

The SCOTUS responds only to the Constitution. When it doesn’t, awful things happen.

The thought that you are in the “deliberative” chamber is frankly an abomination.

That is all.

When I Fight Authority, Authority Always Wins

SCENE: Mitch BERG has just ordered at a food truck, and is waiting for his order to come up. Avery LIBRELLE steps around the corner. BERG visibly ponders abandoning his food and slipping away – but LIBRELLE sees him first.

LIBRELLE: Merg!

BERG: Oh, godododoooood golly, Avery, it’s great to see…

LIBRELLE: Shut up. The Supreme Court just took us down the road to authoritarianism.

BERG: Let me guess. The Dobbs case…

LIBRELLE: …was a blow for tyranny.

BERG: Quick question for you, Avery. Six unelected justices, fifty years ago, making up law out of whole cloth…

LIBRELLE: Democracy!

BERG: Thousands of legislators, and 435 Congresspeople, directly representing millions of voters?

LIBRELLE: (Hisses) Tyranny!

BERG: You do realize these series of satirical sketches barely qualifies as parody, anymore, right?

(And SCENE)

Hysteria

Joe Doakes from Como park emails:

I’m seeing hysteria on the Left. “Roe was overturned. Do you know what this means? It means gay marriage, contraception, inter-racial marriage, affirmative action – all of them are at risk!” Thus far, Conservatives have been trolling Liberals using the same line Liberals always use on us: “Oh, no, we aren’t going after those, this decision was strictly limited to one issue.” Time to take the gloves off.

The Supreme Court’s legal basis for Roe v. Wade was the notion that somewhere in the emanations of the penumbra of rights protected by the Constitution is a right to privacy. The Supreme Court abandoned privacy as the legal basis for abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, substituting the notion that abortion is a liberty protected by the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, the “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” The Supreme Court went further in the gay marriage case, Obergefell v. Hodges, which caused Justice Scalia to write: “If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”

Once the Supreme Court decided it could invent new rights based on vague notions of privacy, the meaning of the universe, and personal expression of identity rather than historical analysis or constitutional precedent, state laws which had stood for 200 years were tossed out. But now that the Supreme Court has regained its senses, Liberals are correct that all the fake ‘rights’ which were grounded on fanciful bases are at risk. As they should be. The Supreme Court is not a place to impose through litigation the policies which you could not have achieved through legislation. If gay marriage, contraception, inter-racial marriage, affirmative action, and partial-birth abortion are rights which the nation wants protected by the Constitution instead of being protected by state legislatures, there’s a perfectly good amendment process which has been used more than two dozen times already. Go to it. Knock yourselves out.

Yes, we’re coming for your made-up ‘rights.’ We’re coming after all the abominations imposed on us over the last 50 years, taking back the power usurped by the Supreme Court and returning it to the people in the states, where it belongs. Power to the people! Why should we apologize for that?

Joe Doakes

Joe has anticipated one of my “Avery Librelle” plays in one act.

The Most Berg’s Seventh Law Op Ed In History

Berg’s Seventh Law – “When a progressive issues a group defamation or assault on conservatives ethics, character, humanity or respect for liberty or the truth, they are at best projecting, and at worst drawing attention away from their own misdeeds” – has been getting a workout lately.

But this next bit – an LATimes response to last week’s Bruen decision at the Supreme Court – may be heading to the Berg’s Seventh Law Hall of Fame. [1]

I’ll let the Times own words do the talking:

Is “California” “ready”? Well, the state’s government clearly isn’t:

California Democrats are scrambling to craft and enact new legislation this week that would somehow salvage the requirement — assuming local law enforcement continues to enforce it — that residents get a permit before carrying a concealed weapon. Current law forces gun owners to show “good cause” for needing such a permit, and that is now unconstitutional.

And they can’t talk about the issue without a certain amount of gaslighting:

Nathan W. Jones leads the Bay Area chapter of the Black Gun Owners Assn. But until a few years ago, he wasn’t even into guns…on Thursday, while many were apoplectic over the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the rights of gun owners to carry a loaded weapon in public — throwing gun control laws in California and New York into limbo at a time when shootings are increasing — Jones was thoughtful.

On the one hand, he wants it to be easy for law-abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves “if and when the time arises.” But on the other hand, he’s a 50-year-old realist who knows that fear and hatred of Black people run deep in the United States, especially when we’re armed.

And this is based on…?

“There’s no overt racism when we go to the gun range, but we know how people are looking at us,” Jones said of the dozens of Black members who meet up to go shooting. “We know the things that people think.”

So, gaslighting it is. “We know what you’re really thinking?” Every signficant pro-2nd-Amendment group, at the national and federal levels, have welcomed the surge in black gun owners – whatever their reasons for joining the tribe.

The writer, Erika D. Smith, is certainly impressively ignorant on the substance of the issue:

And the other, truly weird thing is that race is now actually being used as an argument in support of loosening gun laws

Justice Clarence Thomas, in his opinion for the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. vs. Bruen case, waxed philosophical about how the right to bear arms was crucial for the self-protection of Black people in the South during Reconstruction.

And how in 1868, Congress “reaffirmed that freedmen were entitled to the ‘full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty [and] personal security … including the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.’”

Meanwhile, a coalition of progressive organizations, including the Black Attorneys of Legal Aid, the Bronx Defenders and Brooklyn Defender Services, filed an amicus brief in the case, urging the Supreme Court to rule exactly as it did.

Their argument? That gun control laws in New York, like California, disproportionately harm Black and Latino people who carry guns for self-defense. They complained of clients who have been “stopped, questioned, and frisked,” and deprived of their livelihoods because they “exercised a constitutional right.”

“We represent hundreds of indigent people whom New York criminally charges for exercising their right to keep and bear arms,” they wrote. “For our clients, New York’s licensing requirement renders the Second Amendment a legal fiction.”

Smith – and the white LA progressives who edit and publish the LATimes who greenlit Smith’s piece – seem almost amazed to notice the one real thing that the gaslighting just can not deflect from:

But the governor and lawmakers could fail in their efforts, and the Supreme Court’s ruling could stand. And then, California could be forced to confront a reality that has long made many self-proclaimed liberals uncomfortable: Black people — potentially a lot of us — legally carrying guns in public.

Dig beneath the ongoing, lazy slander of all white America, and the McCarthyistic “white supremacists under every rock” rhetoric that’s become background noise in most “progressive’ writing; that’s the real fear. The only thing a white progressive fears, and needs to control, more than a black person is an armed black person.

And when they become armed, and realize that the honky at the range isn’t the problem…

[1] Note to Self: Create a Berg’s Seventh Law Hall of Fame.

A Less Imperfect Union

“ACK-shu-ally, we’re not fifty states. We’re one country“.

Show of hands if you’ve heard at least one progressive, lodged far on the left side of civic education’s Dunning-Kruger curve, say something like that.

Among the many failures – or acts of sabotage – of modern American education, perhaps among the biggest, most dangerous shortcomings is the complete collapse of civics education.

Modern students seem to learn nothing aboujt:

  1. Why the Constitution existed – to provide a framework for self-government
  2. What the Constitution does – limit the powers of government, and enumerate the checks and balances on power
  3. Why our nation is called the “United States” – and why the constituent parts are called “states” rather than “Provinces”, “Counties”, “Ridings” or “Administrative Districts”. They are, or were intended to be, individual nation-ettes
  4. What Federalism is – in the US’s case (like post-war Germany), a balance of powers and rights between the federal and state governments.
  5. Gridlock was built into the system, because gridlock is a virtue. The government that governs least, governs best – and gridlock ensures minimal government. (This particularly galls “progressives”).
  6. And perhaps most importantly? The Constitution, its enumeration of powers, and Federalism itself, was designed to help a nation that was from it’s founding not a whole lot more divided or less fractious than it is today, coexist.

With that in mind? Perhaps the Dobbs decision, and the court’s new-found originalism, are a big step in the right direction for a nation more divided in many ways than before the Civil War.

Because the alternative to a renewed federalism is a national divorce at best, and civil war at worst.

Dobbs

Dobbs finally arrived:

“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito for the majority. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

He was joined in the majority opinion by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Roberts filed a separate opinion concurring with the majority.

“With sorrow—for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent,” wrote Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan in a joint dissent.

The issue of abortion will now be returned to the individual states to regulate as each sees fit. Dark blue states are expected to impose the most radical pro-abortion policies while dark red states may ban all abortion. Many states may choose to allow abortion only under certain circumstances.

A few thoughts:

  • I am Catholic. We walk by faith and reason. Both faith and reason point to why Catholics have always opposed abortion. In that sense, today is a great day.
  • Now the battle really begins, and I do not mean the inevitable attacks and violence that will unfold over the coming days. The real battle is to win hearts and minds where possible. As long as Roe existed, all potential discussions about the morality and efficacy of abortion laws were always more theoretical than real, because 7 dudes said so. Now, for good and bad, the people and their elected representatives get to decide the matter.
  • The Court’s decision is, at bottom, an admission of humility. Roe was always an exercise in raw judicial power, as Byron White said in his dissent nearly 50 years ago. And as is often the case, the best use of power is sometimes to refrain from wielding such power.
  • Between this decision and the court’s earlier decision this week in the Bruen case, the court has at least started a necessary process of returning to first principles. And if the Court were to continue this process, I’d certainly like them to look at earlier abusive rulings. I’d start with Wickard v. Filburn.

Shall Not Be Infringed

The Supremes have struck down New York’s “Show Cause to Carry” law:

The state law at the heart of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen required anyone who wants to carry a concealed handgun outside the home to show “proper cause” for the license. New York courts interpreted that phrase to require applicants to show more than a general desire to protect themselves or their property. Instead, applicants must demonstrate a special need for self-defense – for example, a pattern of physical threats. Several other states, including California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, impose similar restrictions, as do many cities.

Clarence Thomas, God bless him, wrote the majority opinion (joined by the entire conservatie majority – Roberts, Coney Barrett, Kavanaugh, Alito and Gorsuch:

“The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees,’” Thomas wrote in the opinion. The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.”

I’m no lawyer, but this part – from the text of the ruling – appears to be important:

Says Rob Doar from the MN Gun Owners Caucus:

It’s a great day in America.

Updating this post as events warrant.

UPDATE:

The Progressive world as of 6/22: “Anyone who distrusted the Constitutional process in any way – say, on 1/6 – is a TRAITORRRRRRR!

The Progressive world on 6/23:

Why is it that “political commentators” whose sole background in life is yapping about grown men chasing balls around fields – Ed Schultz, Mike McFeely, Keith Olbermann – always so invincibly stupid?

UPDATE 2:

Democrats say things like this, thinking they’re making a great point:

Also in 1789, there was no internet, television, linotype, radio or morse code…

…but the smart people already know this. They’re not the people that the likes of Hochul are talking to.

UPDATE 3:

Inside baseball from Charles CW Cooke.

Limits

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Should that cover demonstrating outside the homes of judges to demand a particular result?

The purpose of speech directed at the government is to change government policy, which is properly made by the Legislative Branch (albeit sometimes the details of how to carry out policy are delegated to the Executive Branch). But the Judicial Branch does not make policy, it decides cases according to the policies set by the Legislative Branch, as we all learned in high school civics class. That’s how the checks-and-balances system of the Constitution was set up.

Stop laughing. I know that’s not how it was done in the past – abortion, gay marriage – but that’s what Alito’s draft opinion means. It means the Judicial Branch is restoring Constitutional government to the land.

Justice Thomas was absolutely correct when he said, “We are becoming addicted to wanting particular outcomes, not living with the outcomes we don’t like. We can’t be an institution that can be bullied into giving you just the outcomes you want. The events from earlier this week are a symptom of that.”

The people protesting outside judges’ homes demanding a particular result are using the same intimidation tactics as cross burners and ‘protection’ racketeers. They should be arrested and prosecuted for domestic terrorism.

Joe Doakes

Justice Thomas was right. He was also raised in a generation that had some concept of “living with consequences “.

We haven’t had one of those generations, least of all among our “cultural elites“, in quite some time.

Wrong Solution, Wrong Problem

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Senator Elizabeth Warren supports court-packing.  That’s really embarrassing for a Harvard law professor.  Even a night-school wonder like me, knows better. 

The problem with the Supreme Court is not that it’s too small. The court is too large now, to get things done expeditiously and correctly: too many egos to sooth, too many agendas to accommodate, too many compromises requiring hair-splitting decisions.

The problem is not that the court is full of justices eager to overturn precedent.  If a case was wrongly decided, it should be overturned in the interest of justice.    

The problem is not that the court veers away from widely held public opinion.  Pandering to public opinion is Congress’ job.  And it’s mostly on volatile social issues where the Court has caused the worst problems.

The problem is Marbury v. Madison, a case decided fewer than 20 years after the Constitution was adopted.  That’s the case in which the Supreme Court gave itself the power to throw out legislation the Court felt was incompatible with the Constitution.  The court’s power-grab flatly contradicts the entire premise of a “enumerated powers” Constitution.  That decision set up the Court to make historically and horrifically bad law:  Dred Scott (struck down the Missouri Compromise which allowed slavery to spread to more states), Plessy v. Fergussn (upheld racial segregation); Korematsu (upheld concentration camps for American citizens); Roe v. Wade (upheld abortion on demand); Obergefell v. Hodges (struck down gay marriage laws nationwide).   

Adding more justices to a run-away court won’t rein it in from ruling on social issues.  A constitutional amendment is required.  And if that doesn’t curb their enthusiasm, perhaps removal from office?  A Harvard law professor should understand that.  

Joe Doakes

Bring on the mid-terms.

RIP, Property Rights?

A Massachusetts case on its way to the SCOTUS – and hoping to be the roughly 1% of cases granted a review – will have an immense impact on private property rights.

At issue in Desrosiers v. Baker is the legality of several COVID-19 lockdown orders issued throughout 2020 by Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker. The lockdown orders, which were some of the most draconian in the nation, generally banned all private assemblies that did not have a political or religious purpose after 9:30 p.m., no matter the size or location.

The orders imposed significantly stricter restrictions on assembly in “private residences” than on assembly in public settings. The orders encouraged “the public’s unselfish compliance,” and were enforceable variously by misdemeanor criminal penalties, civil fines, and court injunction. These penalties also applied to hosts who failed to cooperate with government requests for “lists of attendees at social gatherings.”

The Massachusetts lockdown orders even included a quasi-adultery ban, in effect at all hours, on assembly involving close physical contact by the un-cohabiting, instead of by the unmarried. Under the orders, “participants who [were] not members of the same household” had to keep six feet of distance from each other at all times. The orders warned that a “gathering shall violate this provision where, no matter the number of participants present, conditions or activities at the gathering are such that it is not reasonably possible for all participants to maintain this degree of separation.”

I’m not sure what I’m more worried about – a Roberts-led majority deciding there’s a prudential reason to allow government extraordinary powers in a state of emergency, or the near-violent reaction of Big Karen to having their power, and their reason for existence, struck down.

OK, definitely more worried about “a”.

I accept “B” as a foregone conclusion.

Smack

Justices Alito and Gorsuch pimp-slaps the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) with a rolled-up copy of the First Amendment.

FIllmore County, with the MPCA at their backs, wanted to force a group of Amish families in Fillmore County to either put in septic tanks or be evicted from their homes:

Fillmore County in 2013 started requiring homes to have modern septic systems to dispose of “gray water” from dishwashing, laundry and such. The Amish sought an exemption, saying their religion prohibits that technology. They offered instead to use earthen basins filled with wood chips to filter water as it drains, which are allowed in some states including Montana and Wyoming. But the county went as far as seeking a court order to force 23 families from their homes if they refused to comply, Gorsuch wrote.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the Minnesota courts “plainly misinterpreted and misapplied” the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which was also at issue in the Philadelphia case.

The act “prohibits governments from infringing sincerely held religious beliefs and practices except as a last resort,” Gorsuch wrote, urging the Minnesota court and local authorities to swiftly resolve the dispute.

“In this country, neither the Amish nor anyone else should have to choose between their farms and their faith,” he said.

Trump’s judicial legacy is looking more and more to far outweigh all stress he caused.

Wrongly Decided

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Roe v. Wade, 1973 the Supreme Court case which legalized abortion, was wrongly decided.  The Court failed to include a necessary party in the case – the unborn child – and that failure renders the decision unconstitutional and unjust.

The Fourth Amendment say no person shall be deprived of liberty or property without due process.  Due process consists of notice of the intended action and an opportunity to be heard by a neutral decider.  Originally binding only on the federal government, due process rights were incorporated against the states by the 14th Amendment.

In Roe, the court was asked to declare that the right of the mother to end her unborn child’s life was superior to the right of the government to save that child’s life.  The Supreme Court agreed.  No lawyer appeared to argue for the rights of the unborn child.  No Guardian Ad Litem was heard.  The Court did not decide where on that spectrum the rights of the unborn child would fall. The Court held the mother could deprive the child of life, at whim.

Without explicitly saying so, the Court decided the unborn child was not a necessary party to the case because the unborn child was not a ‘person’ in the eyes of the law; therefore, the unborn child had no rights which could have been affected by the outcome of the case.  Well, but what else could the Court have done?  Either a person has rights, or they don’t.

Not so.  A person convicted of a crime loses the right to liberty when confined in prison, but not the right to life which the Warden.  A person suffering from mental disability may lose the right to control her own money because the Conservator manages it for her, but she might retain the right to vote or get married.  A minor child lacks the legal capacity to enter into contracts but is entitled to life, liberty, support, protection, and education. The Court could have determined an unborn child was a ‘person’ with diminished rights like any of those other ‘persons.’

Instead, the Court determined an unborn child has the same legal status as a Negro slave in The Old South.  The slave’s owner can kill the slave at whim.  The mother of the unborn child can, too.

We abolished slavery because it was unjust.  We should abolish abortion-on-demand on the same basis.

Joe Doakes

It’ll bve interesting to see what cases come to the SCOTUS on the subject in the next decade or so.

For Your Own Good

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Canigilia v. Strom is an extreme case, but if traditional Fourth Amendment precedent holds, Red Flag laws will also be held unconstitutional.

Joe Doakes

Forty years ago, the Second Amendment was on the brink of oblivion. A grassroots movement and a whole bunch of good lawyering and litigating fixed that, hopefully for good.

Hopefully we can do the same thing for the Fourth.

And if we’re going to save this Republic, the Tenth.

Just When I’d About Given Up On The Fourth Amendent

A friend of the blog beat me to writing me about Caniglia v. Strom:

Monday May 17th the SCOTUS handed down a unanimous decision in Caniglia v. Strom, see:https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-157_8mjp.pdf

Several things stand out about this decision; 

* first and most gratifying even the liberal judges on the SCOTUS would not support the extreme Biden administration and the gun grabbing Democrats, 

* second the opinions by Thomas, with Roberts, Breyer, Alito, and Kavenaugh concurring all provide ammunition to address and refute the Red Flag laws that are currently being considered by State legislatures and the US House, 

* and finally viewing the case timeline* before the court it is notable that The Gun Owners of America did the heavy lifting in amicus curiae briefs while the NRA was effectively MIA.

SCOTUSBlog has the timeline for the case.

I’d hoped this might be a preview of New York State Rifle And Pistol Association Vs. Corlett – and to some extent they might be, although I suspect Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer will defect from the majority on those.

The Case We’ve Been Waiting For?

News came out yesterday.

WIth a win for the NYSRPA would – presumably if incorporated – require “strict scrutiny” of gun laws compliance with the Second Amendment. Literally, they could not infringe the right of the people to keep and carry firearms, provided they aren’t otherwise disqualified from doing so.

The left is getting the vapors.

And while Roberts conservative credentials have proven to be less than stellar, it’s worth remembering he voted with the majority on Heller and MacDonald.

Expect Big Left to mount the mother of all full-court presses.

Citizens United big?

I’d wager a shiny new quarter on it.

Much more on this on Monday’s episode of the “MN Gun Report” podcast (which, as noted about ten words ago, comes out on Monday).

Demand For Justice!

The hue and cry grows:

But if that black woman isn’t transgender, then this movement is no better than Hitler.

By the way – remember when the advice was “never read the comments?” It’s even more true w/r/t comment sections of lefty pressure groups tweets.

Amy’s Got A/Many Gun/s

Wouldn’t it be funny to hear her say, “No, I do not own A gun. Not one single, solitary gun. I own a Mighty Shitload of guns, and have ammo for all of them! So There!”

Joe Doakes

As long as she drags the SCOTUS into giving strict scrutiny to gun rights cases, I don’t care if she’s got her grandpa’s .25 automatic diassembled in different parts of her house.

But Joe’s right – ACB having a collection that rivals Ted Nugent’s would be pretty cool.

Strategery

I/m farirly convinced – amost to the point of making up a new Berg’s Law – that the Democrat messaging strategy is as follows:

  • Assume that Democrat voters (as opposed to participants in their political class) are low-information voters who don’t really think all that critically
  • Message accordingly.

Exhibit NZA-212949993-6:

Well, no – doing the job one is elected to do, after winning the election, while not fundamentally changing the institution, is not “packing the court”.

But Democrats – up to and including Biden and Harris at the debats – seem to be counting on Democrat voters not knowing this.

HowPoll tests got a bad name – deservedly so – during the Jim Crow era. And it’s kind of a shame, because more and more, I think some sort of test indicating at least a minimal knowledge of the parts of our government, to say nothing of knowing what they do and why they check and balance each other, would be a very good thing.

Subservient

These tweets have made the rounds of conservative social, cable and broadcast media.

Which doesn’t mean they don’t need to be splattered far and wide.

Berg’s Seventh Law is omnipresent:

“Irony” – Judge Coney Barrett is already one of the nation’s most powerful jurists, even if she never gets on the SCOTUS (and here’s hoping she does, and soon). She’s accomplished more in her life, so far, than any of the people yapping on Twitter about “The Handmaids Tale” “parallels” in her faith life.

Just saying – if “People of Praise” preaches “subservience for women”, they’re doing a terrible job of it.

Oh, yeah – Berg’s Seventh Law”

If the left didn’t have double standards…

…well, you know where we go from here.