330 Comments

To hear "Margorie Three Names" indicate that the House needs to be shut down because it is full of "people in here cannot control themselves" is the most blatant use of projection I've seen in quite a while. You be right, Madam Three Names, but you are looking in a mirror, and at people like Ms. Boebert, Mr. Gaetz, and Mr. Gosar. Out of control yes, stripped of committee assignments or censured, yes, under investigation for child sex crimes, yes, or a gun fetishist, yes. It is not the "other side of the aisle", ma'am.

Expand full comment

This is an oldie but a goody from Randy Rainbow if you need a chuckle this morning.

https://mobile.twitter.com/randyrainbow/status/1356974994748809216?lang=en

Expand full comment

I love Randy Rainbow. This really hits the nail on the head.

Expand full comment

I went to You Tube and found many more. This one was made only TWO Days after Jan 6 "Sedition": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wT5kafhG3Qw

Expand full comment

He got us through the Trump years with grace and humor. Try Rocket Man, it’s really funny. https://mobile.twitter.com/randyrainbow/status/912397209269886979

Expand full comment

Brilliant. Randy is amazing. And he has some mad technical skills to put these videos together!

Expand full comment

This is excellent (among the excellent). Some great comments. I, too, often sought Randy as an analgesic.

Expand full comment

I just watched... very funny.. but yet there she is. One of our so called law makers. Smh

Expand full comment

Love, love, love Randy Rainbow. So clever and talented.

Expand full comment

I absolutely LOVE Randy Rainbow!! Thanks for this and introducing him to those who might not know about him.

Expand full comment

I adore him! My personal favorite is Desperate Cheeto although there are so many great ones. He’s a genius.

Expand full comment

Kathy, my favorite is Betsy Cruella DeVos. 😅

Expand full comment

I love that one!

Expand full comment

Randy is dandy! He has more delectable skewers than a 4th of July picnic.

Expand full comment

So good. If only his work didn’t hold up… but they just get crazier.

Expand full comment

Too bad that the "media" doesnt do this to DJT's voice. Can you imagine if every time he makes some "pronouncement" they sped up the recording & he sounded just like that? How much whining would that produce?

Expand full comment

If Randy Rainbow did a skit of a speeded-up Trump rant, he might entitle it Whiny the Poo.

Expand full comment

Absolutely! Randy does a great job - I guess it would be disrespectful (???) for the MSM to do that now that hes no longer in office! On the other hand, when has he EVER deserved respect for ANYTHING?

Expand full comment

Delightful. I watched it twice.

Expand full comment

I hadn't seen this one and made my morning. Thanks.

Expand full comment

Absolutely terrific! Thank you!

Expand full comment

Love this, Ally. Especially "three names" and the totally accurate description of the reps who really "cannot control themselves."

Expand full comment

I cannot take credit. Another student here at LFAA U had it first!

Expand full comment

I'll say it again: All projection and confession.

Expand full comment

Near as I can tell, maga maggie, like most other Republiklans, is performing for the rubes. The others, particularly lolo bobo, appear to actually be that stoopid.

Expand full comment

Will the rubes re-elect these idjts?

Expand full comment

Probably. They like those rabble rousers. And, whoever the poor schmuck is who dares to run against them will be lied about and have the lives of their family members threatened. It's sickening.

Expand full comment

Probably. Sad but true.

Expand full comment

🤣🤣🤣

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Laughed loud and long at this but in defense of my brilliant younger brother, who obtained a GED at age 50 and went on to graduate college and get a masters, I must stand up a little for those with GED’s. But still laughing….

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Yes, indeed, GEDs are a Godsend and not obtained without effort. Just as it frosts my shorts when I hear “trailer trash” talk — as if trailer park culture encapsulates the lowest of the low. Just saying.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Hey guys. Although I love the parodies (Randy Rainbow fangurl here!), the humor, and yes, the nicknames, this article yesterday from Tom Nichols really made me stop and think. I realize that much of the way we speak of these folks is effective for stress relief, but Nichols argues how counterproductive this discourse is as the danger to democracy mounts.

https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/peacefield/61a69df40b037b002073ccd5/fight-like-adults/

Expand full comment

Thanks for bringing this point, which I think is an important one. Words matter.

Expand full comment

While I agree with you and Tom about "fighting like adults," that assumes the politicians are adults. They aren't, so logic and sense make no inroads with them or their fans. If I can't vote against Margie because I don't live in her district, at least I can mock her.

Expand full comment

Well then, let us laugh and mock while the sun shines. If nothing changes, our current trajectory is dark indeed.

Expand full comment

I say let's do both--mock the goobers in politics while simultaneously getting rid of them in favor of people who want to do the job right.

And at the same time, stop the name calling of everyday Americans simply because they don't share the same view.

Expand full comment

I like this! So can we get the self called Patriots to stop calling me a commie/nazi/socialist/marxist/fascist all at the same time?? Lol. But let's definitely get the goobers out of office at all levels!

Expand full comment

Absolutely they should stop, considering most of them don't even know what the terms mean :-) Respect and civility should go both ways. I, too, am tired of being called a "libtard."

Expand full comment

The writer makes an EXCELLENT point -- I'm going to clean up my speech even more. Name-calling is very juvenile and trivializes the seriousness of our situation. We aren't being the adult when we do that. Thanks, Mr. Nichols!

Expand full comment

I thought the very same thought when I read this statement by Greene. I cannot help but shake my head to the levels of projection the Retrumplicans use in attacking Democrats. The behaviors being falsely applied to Democrats are the very same ones being practiced by this aberrant group.

Expand full comment

I had that exact thought when I read that!

Expand full comment

Yes, Gangrene is a hypocrite of the highest order. And yes, there's Gunslinger Barbie, Hair, and Mr. Madness.

Expand full comment

Gangrene! Clever.

Expand full comment

There are seriously mentally ill people among the GOPig ranks; they have frightened away stable leaders from both sides of the aisle.

Expand full comment

The R's name of the game is Projection.

Expand full comment

So, MJT is desirous of punishing all government employees plus all Americans who depend on said employees for a myriad of services because of her hatred. Plus the huge national & local economic damages like we saw with Trump's shutdown tantrum several years ago.

Expand full comment

More names than brains. I wonder what her constituents are like?

Expand full comment

Waaay back in the late 80s, early 90s, I worked with a woman who was really into intense strength training and was friends with what back then was termed the muscleheads at the gym she frequented. Anabolic steroids were the rage back then; while she never confirmed it, a number of us noted that her voice deepened significantly, her body structure changed more than what would be typical of other women who strength trained, her behavior became a bit erratic, some very poor judgements made and there was suspicion and worry that this might be involved. I have no answer to why people are so crazy nowadays, but I remember this woman and wonder if perhaps this is the could be a cause of some of the behaviors I see in the world these days.

Expand full comment

It's a steady diet of faux news and being anti abortion. I can't tell you how many times I've talked to these people about the economic ramifications of voting repuke, but they will go to their graves yelling about how the government doesn't do anything for them while about 1/2 or more are receiving some kind of government assistance. Irony has been dead for these people for a long time.

Expand full comment

"Keep your government hands off my Medicare!" will never be topped as an example of what you said: "Irony has been dead . . ."

Expand full comment

You and I think alike! That's exactly what occurred to me when I read those words. That's probably the ONLY thing she has said that is accurate.

Expand full comment

Can you hear the drums in the distance? I sure do! They are a little faint but very soon we will hear them loud and clear. Biden pressed for a covid mandate and he got it. A shutdown was diverted and Biden won again. Now we must get rid of the filibuster so that we can pass the John Lewis Act and get people fed and housed. Marjorie Three Names can go take a flying hike to the deep depths of the earth because she is tge one who can’t control herself.

Expand full comment

I love your “Marjorie Three Names” and would also suggest “Amy Three Names” for someone else we all know!

Expand full comment

The effort to whitewash her into someone worthy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat, including copying her style, makes me so angry.

Expand full comment

Indeed! She’s the female kavanaugh. Neither is bright, or competent as a jurist.

Expand full comment

I think she’s bright. And well spoken. And scary.

Expand full comment

Her argument/position on Roe v. Wade laid blame on safe haven laws, and therefore her position is that women should put their baby up for adoption. That’s not bright. No woman should be forced to carry a child full term.

Her three years of experience prior to her current position doesn't qualify her to sit on SCOTUS; her previous stance and involvement with anti-abortion groups did, however. She’s scary because she’s not bright.

Expand full comment

Three years experience prior to the serving on the country’s highest court seemed like a scam that would never pass. What an outrage it has been from the start!

Expand full comment

She also conveniently ignores that many minority infants, drug positive infants, and infants with medical needs are never adopted.

As far as the safe haven law, it was passed long ago when I was nursing in NICU. We were thrilled with this. There was prolific public messaging about it. Decades later, few people of childbearing age know that it even exists. In my community last year, a 15yo girl had a pregnancy. Her mother was terrified they would be shunned from their religious community. She helped her daughter hide the pregnancy, delivered the baby herself in the bathroom, drowned the baby and buried her in the back yard. They had never heard of the safe haven law. :((

Expand full comment

What’s worse than a smart ideologue?

Expand full comment

She has diminished legitimacy on that court, due to the circumstances that put her there. She needs to show some brilliance to earn the respect of that position, not play silly word games. I didn't hear it.

Expand full comment

IMHO the Supreme Court no longer has any legitimacy in our governance system. Just another body motivated by personal power and politics. Ooops! Took my cynical pill early today. Was going to wait until lunch.

Expand full comment

Amy Safe Haven B**ch? Sorry, not sorry.

Expand full comment

She floored me when she said that. Her presence on the court in and of itself lowers the institution's credibility in my eyes. I imagine she thought herself quite clever by deflecting the issue of forced birth to that of forced parenthood.

Expand full comment

“Her presence on the court in and of itself lowers the institution's credibility in my eyes.” You’re not alone! A stolen seat. Republican thievery. She doesn’t belong there.

Expand full comment

She is an entitled white lady who has benefitted from patriarchy.

Expand full comment

I need a good word to describe women like her who have always lived very comfortably within the patriarchy without any desire or need to question it. I’ve heard that she was groomed from a very young age specifically for this role, and that description fits like a perfect fitting glove.

Expand full comment

She has several children. I’d like to know which one she would choose to hand over at birth to be raised by someone else.

Expand full comment

Amy Of Jesse? Amy Adopt Don’t Shop? I can’t limit myself to three names.

Expand full comment

Amy Coney Barbie

Expand full comment

That made me laugh! Like calling Kellyanne Conway Propaganda Barbie 😂

Expand full comment

Or Alternative Barbie!

Expand full comment

Exactly! Created by others for a specific role, a shell of a being. 🥲

Expand full comment

Poor Barbie!

Expand full comment

😂

Expand full comment

Hmm. "Amy Three Names" sounds vaguely ... Puritan? Like "Goodie Blue Frock." Or "Donald Plows-With-Mouth."

Expand full comment

It’s later in the day and I’ve read all the comments about Justice Coney-Barrett. Here’s my question, on day of her confirmation and the Rose Garden ceremony, did any of you happen to watch her husband? Anything I need to know about her, I saw it in the way he looked at her several times. Almost daring her to make a mistake or somehow not be submissive I literally groaned. He’s another “keep the women barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen where they belong.” The fact that she’s not, clues me she’s a Stepford wife in disguise. And by the by, anyone catch a glimpse of Justice Kavanaugh’s wife during his griddle fry confirmation hearing? I groaned. And Justice Thomas’s wife? Racist, crazy, white plantation belle.

Yikes.

Expand full comment

A horror on so many levels

Expand full comment

Oh, Marlene. Hahahahahahaha. “Marjorie Three Names”. Priceless. Now we can add our own two words after her first name.

Expand full comment

And yes, I can hear the drums clearly. I’m keeping time, sister!

Expand full comment

I’m hopeful!

Expand full comment

Marjorie Flailer Queen?

Expand full comment

Marjorie Bad Girl?

Expand full comment

I also like Empty Greene.

Expand full comment

Clever!

Expand full comment

I go with one: Gangrene.

Expand full comment

Humming along with those drums, Marlene!

Expand full comment

Amen!!

Expand full comment

Absolutely #1 priority Voting Rights!

Expand full comment

It's December. Republicans voted to shut down the government and give us the gift of chaos for the holidays. Mark Meadows tells us that tfg-orange-humanoid had COVID symptoms at the debate with Biden and came late so there was no time to take a test. His crew refused to wear masks so all were stinking Petri dishes at that event and others. Democrats-- make your New Year's Resolution now and stop being bullied. There was a rule that a test had to be taken before the debate. If opponents don't follow the rules, stop the proceedings until the rules are followed. What is the sense of having rules if the bullies ignore them? Greene and the others are proudly collecting fines for their behavior. No committee assignments ? How about a pay cut? Assert yourselves and end the filibuster, pass voting rights bills and earn your vacation. We are 10 months away from an election that will surely end Joe Biden's legacy and the progress made toward normalcy this year. 212 in congress are salivating at the thought.

Expand full comment

I poo poo poo :) on your statement of “surely end …. progress” Let’s work like hell against that. Let’s make sure the People go to the polls in 2022 and deliver a Democratic majority in Congress. Le Haim to that!

Expand full comment

In September or October I never would have written that kind of negativity. But I’m bummed out about the November election results, Virginia, Texas, the thousands that didn’t vote, and how close the margins are to overturn everything. I’m hopeful about Stacey and Beto and seeing Charlie Baker go and working for Fair Fight. But I would be so happy to see the Dems get it together. “I’m not a member of any organized political party. I’m a Democrat.” Not so funny anymore.

Expand full comment

I do agree to the rest of your thoughts!

Expand full comment

We should all keep in mind that Trump is still a Russian agent, acting for the benefit of his sponsor in the Kremlin, and manipulated by his handlers in Moscow. That the former president is likely an unwitting provocateur makes him that much more effective and thus more valuable. He's pulled 99% of the Republican Party along with him as either passive or active participants in the strategic weakening of the US and NATO vis-a-vis Russia, thus enabling Putin to destabilize the American political process almost at will. That must put a Cheshire Cat smile on the face of the former KGB agent. "So who really won the Cold War?" he purrs.

Expand full comment

The photos from Helsinki tell the tale

Expand full comment

Ralph, yes indeed. But I also believe that Putin is about to get a "Go ahead, make my day" message. That's why Biden agreed to meet with him. And I don't think it will be a military action (aside from all the saber-rattling). Economic sanctions and financial engineering are/will be more effective. Russia's economy is teetering. The last time that happened the USSR went 'poof'!

Expand full comment

I had more or less that same thought in mind while I wrote my post. I think Putin's last, best hope is to do what he can to usher in a Republican majority in Congress in 2022, which would greatly increase Trump's chances to get back in the White House in 2024. The question is can Putin keep his own shaky political/economic house of cards from collapsing in the meantime. Biden knows that further economic sanctions could very well bring that house of cards tumbling down,

Thanks for commenting on my post.

Expand full comment

Yes. Putin is looking for attention in the world as it elevates him at home. To some degree, while agreeing with Blinken that the buildup at the Ukraine border is worrisome, it is a distraction.

Expand full comment

I don’t believe for a second he’s unwitting. It’s always been intentional.

Expand full comment

Do you think a psychopathic megalomaniac can think coherently on so many different levels? I don't.

Expand full comment

People are known to have intellectual gifts in specific areas. I believe Trump is gifted in exacting revenge and he studies how to do this and excels at it. I also see him as being gifted in the art of the con and manipulation. While it’s true his birth station, mafia connections, Putin idolation, and GOP greed all contributed to his success, his success at being the most dangerous man of the 21st century is mostly of his own making. Evil intent.

Expand full comment

The more I read, the more I come back to the concern that avoiding the Freedom to Vote Act is the tipping point issue. Without the Freedom to Vote Act secured, all else is play acting. How do you provide lasting, positive change for the American people, if we keep having to land at Omaha Beach? In the elections of ‘18 & ‘20, Dems worked to take the high ground. And now we hear crickets and see molasses in winter about real effort to secure voting rights. What’s the game-plan without voting rights secured?

Expand full comment

Penelope Simpson Adams3 min ago

Absolutely. The most important thing in America at this moment in time. Nothing else will matter if we slide fully into autocracy. Nothing.

Expand full comment

The game plan is that this is one way the Democrats keep their base engaged. If the Voting Rights aAct was simply passed then the electorate would be pacified. It's all about power and control and what's good for the party

Expand full comment

Then you think the voting rights act isn’t actually about letting citizens exercise their right to vote? Does it do away with the secret ballot or something? Does it determine which way people vote? No, of course not. Power and control are what the majority of citizens are supposed to have through those they elect.

Expand full comment

Hmmmmmm

Expand full comment

One has to wonder whether Greene was referring to herself, not to mention Lauren Boebert. Talk about elected officials who can't control themselves! Well, that's not exactly true. Today was just another performance for the cameras. Imagine if the government did shut down, and their constituents suffered financially and in other ways. They would change their tune. Actually, though, It's like they're playing poker, everyone knows their bluffing, and they have no chips in the pot. In other words, it's an act, a game, and most definitely not governing.

Expand full comment

It's called "Wingnut projections" - every accusation they make is something they do.

Expand full comment

Straight out of Goebbels playbook. Been a Repub tactic since Texas 1994, as I recall…

Expand full comment

They've learned at the feet of Trump.

Expand full comment

With their knees between his feet while they conduct a "mushroom hunt."

Expand full comment

How charming!

Expand full comment

I just vomited in my mouth a little bit, TCinLA 🤢🤢🤢

Funny as all get out, but also gross as hell! 🤣🤣🤣

Expand full comment

From what I’ve heard, hunt with a magnifying scope to find much.

Expand full comment

Eewwwww!!!

Expand full comment

Well, that was a visual I didn't need after only one cup of coffee......

Expand full comment

Who learned at the feet of Hitler/Goebbels, according to his ex

Expand full comment

Roy Cohn, Joe McCarthy too

Expand full comment

And the orange asscactus is the premier wingnut at projection. Like daddy like child is an example of how "3 names" has learned.

Expand full comment

So true!

Expand full comment

I thought after 2016 that the base would be angry over how little tfg did for them and how much worse he actually made their lives. I WAS WRONG!!!!! They did not get angry with that life long criminal; they fawned over him even more.

I do like the idea of a pay cut for little 3 names and others who have no committee assignments. Just a business move, right?

Expand full comment

Do you really think either of them really CARE about their constituents? It's all performance.

Expand full comment

I find the level of financial penalties to the lawyers laughable, if not obscene. Lawyers can recover those financial "losses" by increasing their billable hours causing pain on a plaintiff with lesser means, which they do already as a strategy to defund plaintiffs. Why do we think most women end up in poverty after a divorce, as an example. They should have penalized they where it hurts: practicing law.

Expand full comment

Agreed … though it seems unlikely that anyone will want these attorneys to serve as their counsel, thereby limiting their ability to earn a living as lawyers.

Expand full comment

True, but there are still junk lawsuits they can keep on filing, though they seem busier eating their own right now. And yes, the penalties should be daunting.

Expand full comment

Disbarment seems appropriate to me.

Expand full comment

When a majority of lawmakers in our Nation handled the "out of jail" card to the former President, not only once but 2, 3 times, it sent an unfortunate clear message of a decaying moral compass, disregard to our Constitution, a license to reinvent reality. The media is not helping the Biden Adminstration, and I hold The New York Times ommissive on the fight against fascism at home and abroad.

Expand full comment

Very well said.

Expand full comment

We can only hope! More billboard ideas!!! Or possibly put their faces on milk cartons! 😉

Expand full comment

One would think or hope, but the truth is they are doing well, very well, there is nothing stopping them. They are proof that our Justice System is failing Justice itself.

Expand full comment

Clearly active and impactful “professional ethics”committees are vigorously needed in ALL professions these days.

Expand full comment

Mark Meadows, abject pathetic piece of something one scrapes off their shoe, so abjectly pathetic he's willing to say he lied to please The Liar. This sort of stuff only used to happen in Stalinist totalitarian systems like North Korea.

Expand full comment

The GOP is a cesspool, and Mark "muffins" Meadows is just scum.

Expand full comment

Did you hear him call his own book “fake news?” What a pathetic toady. One can only hope that he’s waived any call for executive privilege by publishing it.

Expand full comment

Btw, who is publishing it?

Expand full comment

So true, TC. So....are we really to believe what he tells the Jan 6 committee?

Expand full comment

Do we know yet if he will be under oath? I’m sure they have enough info/documents at this point to know when he’s lying

Expand full comment

Don't know for sure if he'll be called, but the squirming of his acolytes will certainly be amusing.

Expand full comment

“This government should be shut down,” Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) said. “You want to know why it should be shut down? Because the people in here. The people in here cannot control themselves.”

... uhm yes ..., and that would be ... uhm - er, herself ... Boebert ... and their fellows in league ...?

Expand full comment

My thought was much less reasoned. "Pot calls kettle black". It is the projection that the Republiqan party is so, so good at.

Expand full comment

No doubt whatsoever, charges coming I hope and pray. Add Louie, Matt, and Miss Sinema

Expand full comment

Thank you Heather.

As a child, I was taught that right is might rather than the other way around. As a seasoned adult I see that lovely axiom is under serious threat - certainly not for the first time. I hope enough players with good moral character, influence and chutzpah will prevail over the foolish and the greedy. 🙏🏻🤞🏻

Expand full comment

Well said!

IMO The heart of the Republican worldview is that fear and force are the real drivers of law and order, and social and economic progress.

Then racial resentment, misogynist behavior, etc is natural and based on necessary and honorable impulses...just need to be kept to a minimum in polite society...

It all falls apart in practice, but they cannot believe that they were the naive ones. So they double down.

Rational debate gets stripped away and they can only mock and rage...

All because they don't trust what you know...right makes might in the long run.

Expand full comment

Waiting…

Expand full comment

Why. Oh why does congress repeatedly refuse to just raise the debt ceiling and be done with it? This repeated excercise toys with the credibility of our government and as Heather writes, toys with our national safety and puts our strongest NATIONALDEFENSE AT RISK!!

It is seeming like treason, a high crime and misdemeanor, to diddle around with our economic credibility becase “ they feel like it”. And what about Trump knowing he had covid marching into the first debate???? He knew for 3 ddays and kept it secret! Does that fall under the heading of criminal intent? He KNEW. I just don’t get it. How has he gotten away with this and how are all these members of congrss toying with our economic status and strength in the world like its nothing but a decision up for grabs every 30-60 days!

Expand full comment

It helps the Repubs act like they are trying to keep expenditures down (so noble!) and they're counting on their kool aid drinkers to not be aware that they (GOP) were the ones who added the expenditures to the bill.

Expand full comment

When the government shuts down paychecks should shut down for congress critters

Expand full comment

Yes. Congress should be the first, and use the funds not spent on them to keep essential government services running. I’m not suggesting that they go home and not work. They should work without pay, like all the other essential workers have had to do whenever Congress pulls this crap.

Expand full comment

I like that.

Expand full comment

Hi Joan, I must admit that there are plenty of things I don't understand in our own politics (U.K.). But this refusing to raise the debt ceiling on a regular basis, thereby putting your worldwide economic status on the line seems crazy....

Expand full comment

The power trip that republicans are embracing puts the whole world at risk, which is their intent. The cult rules, we know what happens when a cult takes over a country. You know better than we do.

Expand full comment

I don't know about cult Jeri...

but we certainly have a lot of idiots and freeloaders

Expand full comment

Talking about us now and Nazis in the 30’s.

Expand full comment

oh for a parliamentary system! ( a girl can dream!)

Expand full comment

Joan, When the MP's are acting like children across the floor in the House it's frustrating, but yes it does have advantages.....

Expand full comment

Obstruction is pinnacle of passive aggression. The very definition

Expand full comment

Power. Their continued threat of not raising it allows Repukelicans to feel in control

Expand full comment

Passive aggressive behavior. In case anyone wondered how that works, the Republicans are the definitive exemplars

Expand full comment

Not understanding the passiveness. It looks like pure aggression to me. Threatening collapse of our government and eventually the world’s financial system so that they can “feel” that power seems the ultimate of blatant bullying? I’m interested in learning of your perception of passiveness

Expand full comment

Passive AGGRESSION is pure obstructionism and DO NOTHING and allow no one else to solve the problem and in such a way the very world can come to an end ( climate change) This is McConnell's Modus Operendi

Expand full comment

OH WHY indeed

Expand full comment

Joan I believe that it a game of Russian Roulette that Republicans enjoy playing with our country’s economy and reputation. They should have learned from Newt Gingrich that it doesn’t work. Personally I would delight in putting s real bullet in their Russian Roulette gun [remember The Deer Hunter episode] and blow McConnell’s brains out or, in their absence, his turkey chin.

Expand full comment

I cheered yesterday when I heard that the Jan 6 committee would hold public, televised hearings. Get out the popcorn and pull up a chair folks. It's about to get very interesting. We might finally see some of those involved squirm in their seats as they come before the American people.

Expand full comment

Perfect timing on the rollout I think. We're going to get endless Behgahzi stuff all through the traditional 'silly season' lead up to the election. The MSM ('if it bleeds, it leads') won't be able to help themselves. Now add, the anticipated Supremes decision on abortion, and we have a perfect shit storm.

How big a box of popcorn can you get at Costco?

Expand full comment

I agree that these hearings need to be publically aired. But given the reach and effectiveness of right wing media and communication, the hearings will be used to enrage their base even further, prepping them to "fight" the commies (or whatever the current slur will be) at the ballot box in the midterms, possibly even lighting the matches they have been deliberately leaving all over everything.

I don't see any wins on this, but it still needs to be done.

Expand full comment

It's excellent news. The committee's public pronouncements are getting tougher and tougher. The public hearings will help prepare the public for eventual criminal charges against much bigger fish. And the committee, I've read may ask Garland to appoint a special counsel if it appears the Democrats will lose the House in November. That way the work will continue.

Expand full comment

FROM ‘SUPREME’ TO ‘STENCH’ COURT?

(The word ‘stench’ comes from Justice Sotomayor)

Chief Justice John Roberts us much less of a player on the “Roberts Court” since there now are five conservative (or extremely conservative—at least Thomas and Alioto) justices. I believe that the core principle of Roe v. Wade is in jeopardy, the prospect of SC approval of meaningful federal voting regulations is scant, and the Court will tend to favor state over federal rights in its interpretation of the Constitution’s 10th Amendment. President Biden may have to rely on aggressive Executive Orders (as did Trump).

Roberts must be pissed at Two-Card-Monte McConnell and Trump. Roberts has been concerned∂ about how the Roberts Court will be viewed in history. This was reflected in his convoluted reasoning in his 2012 Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare) opinion. After sharply criticizing the law, he threw in a Hail Mary by stating that the mandate could be construed as a tax and was therefore ruled to be valid under congressional authority to “levy and collect taxes.” [Chief Justice John Marshall had a similar Hail Mary in his historical 1803 Marburg v. Madison opinion.] At that time commentators found Roberts’ judicial argument ‘unusual’ and concluded that Roberts did not want to Roberts Court historically blamed for killing Obamacare.

Two years earlier, in my opinion, Roberts had muddied his copybook by being the swing vote in Citizens United, which ruled that prohibiting corporate (and union) political expenditures violated their First Amendment rights. In 2015 Roberts was also the swing vote in degutting the Voting Rights Act of 1965. As he expressed it “Our country has changed….While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.” [This has permitted Republicans, in the absence of Section 5, to impose a broad range of voting impediments in nearly two dozen states.}

The hope tat Roberts would be a swing vote has been dashed by the McConnell/Trump duo. When Antonin Scalia (a constitutional ‘originality’) died, in 2016 President Obama nominated Merrick Garland. Two-Card-Monte McConnell gave him a crooked shuffle, proclaiming that he wouldn’t consider his nomination until a new president was elected. In early 201y Trump slipped Neil Gorsuch into Scalia’s seat.

On July 9, 2018 Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy (a moderate). In a contentious Senate hearing, the McConnell/Trump duo were imperial in their staccato support, with Kavanaugh receiving a 50-48 Senate confirmation.

With the September 16, 2020 death of Ruth Badger Ginsburg, McConnell shamelessly reversed his ‘Garland dictum’ and Amy Coney Barrett was propelled on to the Court on October 27, 2020 (just before Trump was defeated and a 50/50 Senate). Justice Stephen Breyer, age 83, is being urged to resign before the 2022 Senate elections.

Very few people know or care about the Supreme Court’s history. Initially the Court was not viewed as a key element in the Constitution’s checks-and-balances, lacking both respect and distinction. Chief Justice John Marshall (1801-1835) created a strong federalist Supreme Court. Chief Justice Brooke Taney (1836-1964) was best remembered for Dred Scot v. Sanford (1857), when he rules that African Americans could not be considered citizens and that Congress could not prohibit slavery in the territories of the United States. Taney sympathized with secession, challenged Lincoln’s wartime use of habeas corpus, and was threatened with confinement by members of Lincoln’s administration.

FDR, after an overwhelming re-election in 1936, sought to clip the Supreme Court’s wings. He was angry that the SC had negated some of his early New Deal legislation. [In fact, many of these 100-Day bills were poorly crafted. The National Recovery Act was rejected 9-0 and another New Deal law was unanimously declared unconstitutional in an opinion written by liberal Justice Louis Brandeis.]

I consider it highly unlikely, with the possible exception of term limits, that Supreme Court ground rules will be altered.

Expand full comment

These justices are walking a thin line between integrity and looking political. (Breyer stepping down could look like that. I'm guessing that was Bader Ginsburg's reasoning too? Or she just loved the job?) I thought Sotomayor did a great job of spelling that out at the hearing. Saying that full deliberation was given to Roe, she then asked, what changed? And what changed is a different bunch of justices sitting. Not a good look for our SCOTUS if Roe goes.

Expand full comment

The integrity ship sailed long ago

Expand full comment

The partisan hack label became appropriate with Thomas. He and Ginni have worked overtime to make it so…

Expand full comment

That this taciturn ignoramus (at least regarding a woman's right to control her body) will be one of 9 votes to determine that constitutional legitimacy is absurd and autocratic. It has no place in a presumed democracy.

Expand full comment

And Coney Barrett's saying that adoption is a reasonable alternative to abortion??? What a pretty little bubble she lives in! Adoption is absolutely not always unicorns and roses for adoptees.

Expand full comment

Agreed! I tried to come up with an analogy--this isn't the best but: for all the seniors whose knee pain is so severe that they seek knee replacements to end the pain, well, why not just die instead? Pain over.

That is about as logical as Amy Three Name's argument. A Supreme justice--unreal. She gives women a bad name.

Expand full comment

Actually, she is an 'honorary man.' Incredibly sanctimonious. As if those children would be cared for by their states... Broken, she is.

Expand full comment

As well as lack of resources and support for a mother already in pain and being forced into impossible choices; not to mention contentious family issues and fights over “rights” to the unborn. The “safe surrender” she mentioned is not universally known or used, thus we are still finding newborns in dumpsters and motel bathrooms.

Expand full comment

Thank you, Kim…

Expand full comment

I read elsewhere that most women seeking abortions already have children. I wonder how you would explain to them that the new brother or sister would need to be given away—too many mouths to feed.

My friend had no money troubles but got pregnant too soon after her second baby. She was a physical wreck with mononucleosis. Doctor suggested abortion, husband agreed. Their religion took no position on abortion. Third child came when she was back to normal.

Expand full comment

Very good point Carol.

Expand full comment

Colbert brilliantly dissected the Supreme Court’s discussion at the beginning of his monologue last night:

https://youtu.be/S-g_Y0N6kxQ

Expand full comment

THOMAS WENT TO YALE AND HE AND GINNI SHOULD GO TO JAIL.

Expand full comment

Thank you for such a learned and educational post. You have provided an excellent assessment of the Roberts' Court. It risks continued opprobrium for its manifestly un-constitutional rulings.

Expand full comment

Rudy, since I don’t have a law practice, I enjoy practicing law. The story of The Federalist Society, McConnell, and Trump is appalling and will affect our entire federal judiciary system for generations. And we critique Hungary and Poland for bastardizing their judicial systems!

Expand full comment

Reading HCR's Letter guiding us through the workings of power within the country and follow current events from additional sources, the sounds of activity and advancement on the side of democracy seem faint to me in comparison to the achievements, propaganda and performances from far-right/authoritarian forces. It doesn't read or sound triumphant or even hopeful for democracy. Glints of possibility from the Letter based on Biden's moves and desperation on the part of the Republican Party do not much reassure me.

You turn our attention, Keith, to the Supreme Court, the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States of America, a determinative authority concerning the socio-political direction of our country. By stating that you 'consider it highly unlikely with the possible exception of TERM LIMITS (my all caps) that Supreme Court ground rules will be altered' can be spelled out in the following excerpts from a recent article in FiveThirtyEight.

'The court is already very conservative'

'Let’s get one thing out of the way: This is a very conservative Supreme Court. According to the Supreme Court Database, 60 percent of all decisions last term went in a conservative direction, as well as 59 percent of close decisions — which is to say, decisions in which the minority side had three or four votes. That makes the court’s previous term the most conservative term since 2008, just three years after John Roberts assumed his seat as chief justice.'

'The court is asked to hear thousands of cases each year, which makes it very difficult to know whether the kinds of questions the justices are asked to contemplate are changing — if, for example, conservative legal advocates have begun bringing more cases that directly attack liberal precedents. There also isn’t any data to help us look for patterns in the pool of cases the court can pick from — or in the cases it ends up taking.'

'But the court’s docket seems to be shifting, according to several legal experts we spoke with. Tom Clark, a political scientist at Emory University who studies the judiciary, pointed to the fact that the justices agreed to hear a gun rights case for the first time in over a decade as evidence. “That’s not a case [the conservatives] take unless they think they can win,” he said.'

'Some important decisions are happening outside the public eye

Increasingly, too, the justices are making big decisions without fully explaining their reasoning, through cases that have emerged through the court’s “shadow docket,” where the justices are asked to rule quickly, without the extensive legal briefing or oral arguments that happen in normal Supreme Court cases. Sometimes, these orders are only one sentence long. And the justices don’t have to say how they voted or why.'

'Normally, this swiftness and secrecy isn’t especially newsworthy because the rulings that come out of the shadow docket just aren’t that significant. But that has changed in recent years. Some of the court’s biggest rulings in the past year — including its decision to strike down COVID-19 restrictions on religious gatherings and its decision to allow a highly restrictive abortion law to go into effect in Texas — came out of the shadow docket.'

'The shadow docket is very difficult to track, for obvious reasons — it’s hard to know what the justices are even doing. But scholars like Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas-Austin, have found evidence that the Supreme Court’s use of the shadow docket has changed over the past few years. For instance, according to data collected by Vladeck, the number of cases in which the justices changed the legal status quo — for example, lifting an injunction imposed by a lower court — used to be very low, numbering in the single digits each year. That has changed recently, though. In the 2019 term, the court disrupted the status quo in 19 shadow-docket cases, and the same thing happened in 17 shadow docket cases in last year’s term.'

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-roberts-court-vs-the-trump-court/

A correction on the date for Roger Brooke Taney, the fifth chief justice of the United States. He held that office from 1836 until his death in 1864. Born: March 17, 1777, Calvert County, MD, Died: October 12, 1864, Washington, D.C. (Wikipedia)

For another view about the the Supreme court, see The Stanford Daily, an the independent, student-run newspaper of Stanford University. The Daily was originally founded as a small pamphlet known as The Daily Palo Alto in 1892.

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2021/05/24/analyzing-ideological-bias-on-the-supreme-court/

Expand full comment

"the sounds of activity and advancement on the side of democracy seem faint to me in comparison to the achievements, propaganda and performances from far-right/authoritarian forces"

Yes, correct. Fox News, One America News, and the thousands of AM stations sponsoring half day rants by fascists every day, well, those are plentiful compared to .... "Letters from an American".

Expand full comment

Louder for sure. Also, however, there are other excellent and reputable sources for the facts and reflection in addition to LFAA.

Expand full comment

Fern Thanks for pointing out my typo on Chief Justice Tandy’s date of death. After finishing my extensive, top-of-head commentary on the Supreme Court at four in the morning, I chose bed rather than proofing the sucker. P. S. You missed three other typos.

Expand full comment

I got a good laugh out of Ruth Badger Ginsburg.

Expand full comment

'Badger', Judy, I loved Keith's pairing with Ruth 'Badger' Ginsburg and then looked into the match more closely:

noun

1.

a heavily built omnivorous nocturnal mammal of the weasel family, typically having a gray and black coat.

2.

INFORMAL•US

a native of Wisconsin.

verb

repeatedly ask (someone) to do something; pester.

Similar:

pester

harass

bother

plague

torment

hound

nag

chivvy

Expand full comment

Judy a Freudian slip or just a 4 a.m. typo? Glad to claim credit for it!

Expand full comment

I was trying to be kind; now I know better. Are you not weary of using this four in the morning excuse? What's my opinion about that? I think you know it!

Expand full comment

Very educational on the cout's direction Fern, thank you.

Expand full comment

IMO that Robert's parsing away the Voting Rights Act and creating a whole new type of citizen (SUPERPAC) in the Citizens United case will go down as key historic moments whereby SCOTUS shifted from being the highest court in the land to becoming the greater branch of government owned by hard right conservatives. The likely demise of Roe will be the third most fatal blow to democracy by shattering the most vulnerable of protections (rights of women to control their options) afforded under the 14th Amendment. Revise history and whitewash inequities in protections afforded under our constitution and make Capital/Wealth the voter that matters and, volla, the constitution and all laws deriving from it protect and ascribe due punishments to those who deem to question laws based in ideology and dare oppose men of wealth.

Expand full comment

Kavanaugh's hypocritical arguments signal something very dire. He sounded as if the majority will rule in a way that encourages right-wing states to challenge all kinds of rights that are considered settled law. And leave it to individual states to ban gay marriage and many other liberties. Imagine what kind of damage Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Barrett, and others will do over the next few decades.

I wonder if there's ever been as egregious of an example of a justice lying in confirmation hearings as Kavanaugh regarding Roe v. Wade. Even for him, the rank dishonesty is breathtaking.

Expand full comment

I thought I was witnessing a hysterical defense. He looked like a maniac to me and could not believe a lack of response to that. Gingrich, Cruz, Trump et al. had paved the way.

Expand full comment

Proud and powerful maniacs these days

Expand full comment

Last night I watched part of HCR's Facebook talk from the day, before going to sleep. I woke up around midnight from a dream in which an alien invasion was happening, taking over the planet. As dreams do, it morphed into the realization that 'movement conservatives' were the aliens, and they were pushing their false narrative of rugged individualism to cover their real game plan, which was to create the greatest form of collectivism ever - the Borg-like 'hive mind' (for any Star Trek fans out there). It was 'bait and switch' on steroids.

If we pay attention, we can hear the old states' rights arguments from the periods Heather covered in that talk yesterday, the idea that 'if states vote for it, it's democracy and the federal government has no say in it'. Listen to Sen. Mike Lee, Utah, yesterday, arguing that the vaccine mandates are unconstitutional because the federal government has no role there. Listen to the arguments at the Supreme Court yesterday, where several Justices did likewise.

While Heather's talk yesterday was meant to reassure us that we've been here before and always pulled back from the brink, I fear that the odds of lightening striking twice in the same place are not as substantial as I'm comfortable with!!

Expand full comment

Is HCR's talk available anyplace other than Facebook? I don't do Facebook as a matter of moral conviction. Thanks in advance.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Thanks. But they are all old ones. Nothing more current than 10 months ago. Or am I not looking tint the right place?

Expand full comment

I should have read your comment first, before responding to Liz! I appreciate what you said about FB. I don't like being there, but some things are worth it to me, and HCRs talk is one of those things. I find I get more out of them than just the letters. But we all have to choose our poisons, I guess.

Expand full comment

That is the way it is for me. I am only on Facebook for Heather's talks and a few family and friends. In my opinion, seeing her several times a week and listening to her voice is so reassuring.

Expand full comment

Hmmmm. I’ve been looking into this. I also completely deleted my FB account. I just found it astounding how difficult it is to try and have an innocuous account. Do not trust that platform at all. I have to use someone else’s account to watch her talks. Hmmmm.

Expand full comment

You can, Charlie, catch her podcasts on Tuesdays that she does with Joanne Freeman.

“How can the past help inform today’s most pressing challenges? Every Tuesday, award-winning historians Heather Cox Richardson and Joanne Freeman use their encyclopedic knowledge of US history to bring the past to life. Together, they make sense of the week in news by discussing the people, ideas, and events that got us here today.

podcasting@voxmedia.com

Expand full comment

Wait, Texas bill restricts access and opportunities to vote, but at same time lessens the penalties for illegal voting? How did the politicians possibly spin this?

Expand full comment

I had the same reaction, Lynn.

Expand full comment

And ironically, the cases of voter fraud which have been documented in the 2020 elections were all perpetrated by Republicans voting twice using a deceased family member’s ballot. I’m not aware of any documented fraud cases perpetrated by Democrats. Maybe that’s why they want to lessen the penalties.

Expand full comment

Give the democratic districts 12 hour long lines to vote, while they waltz into their republican districts and cast more than ballot, yeah, let's lessen the penalties on that.

Absolutely sickening, and sickening that they seemingly got away with it.

C'mon federal voting rules.

Expand full comment

The way their cult leader taught them…”.as long as you can get away with it”…..

Expand full comment

Yes…at first I thought I read it wrong but there it was…”lessens the penalties…” haven’t yet had time to actually look it up

Expand full comment

... and yet, they say people who commit voter fraud should face a firing squad?

Oh, wait ... I know - time to invest in bullets?

Expand full comment

Bullets are not so easy to come by now; they have all been bought up by cult Republicans.

Expand full comment