Guard Dog

To be honest I've only read one Star Wars book (other than the novelization of the movies). That was the first on, Heir to the Empire. It sucked. Completely sucked. I didn't bother finishing it. I did read a Han Solo book when I was a kid. I believe it was Han Solo at Stars End. Actually, there was another book I read as a kid too where Luke actually fought Darth Vader before Empire Strikes Back came out. I don't remember much about either of them though. I've read the novel version of all six movies and for the most part they were forgettable. Except for Revenge of the Sith. Matthew Stover absolutely nailed that one. Screenplays based on novels seldom live up to their source material and vice versa. That one is an exception. There was a bigger, better story than we got on the screen and is didn't have the painfully awkward dialogue delivery the actors gave us on screen, The narrative styles is weird, 2nd Person Omnipotent, but it works really well.

I think the answer to that is a resounding No in any court that actually holds the U.S. Constitution with any regard at all Let me know when you find one of those: http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/23/supreme-court-deals-blow-to-property-rig

I'm curious, why are you surprised? I'd have put a good amount of money on the outcome we've so far gotten, and would put a good amount of money on the 'travel ban' ultimately being reinstated in full, with a possible incoherent dissent from Ginsberg (though I could actually see her even supporting the reinstatement, I wouldn't put too much money on that). I'm surprised because the only thing being argued here is the injunction. Not the travel ban itself. It's unusual for the the Court to overturn an injunction upheld by two lower courts. Especially since the issue itself is going to be litigated pretty quickly. An injunction usually preserves the status quo until the case is heard for real. Courts tend to like to do that. The only standard there is to meet is does the party applying for the injunction have a realistic chance to prevail.

Conspiracy hypothesis does not roll of the tongue nearly as well.

Using executive action to nullify an executive action strikes me as not only proper but commendable. Especially since almost all of Obama's orders empowered regulatory agencies that are under Congressional oversight. Of course if Congress is going to just sit on it's hands and mutter impotently as the Executive usurps their authority we're already screwed.

I guess you don't care who controls the Supreme Court then. You want 8 more Thomases, you'd get 8 more Ginsburgs. And did you forget all the illegal executive orders Obama issued one after another, regardless of Congress? I didn't say a Clinton victory would have been desirable. I just would have been less worried about it than if she won and had control over one or both of the Houses of Congress.

So far yes. With two possible exceptions. The travel ban maybe, maybe not. It doesn't sound right to me and 2 out of three courts agree. But that will be sorted out once and for all this Fall. The other involved examining US trade deals for possible renegotiation. To me this is a gray area because trade deals are the responsibility of the Congress. But the executive order in question did not impart any actual authority to change anything. If it did then Trump would be no better than Obama. Since it didn't it really does not amount to much. Obama was setting himself up to be a real American tyrant with his pen and much to my disgust only Rand Paul and Mike Lee ever said a bloody word about it. Bohner and McConell were about as useful as scooping elephant dung with a rake. *OK, I fail Reading Comprehension. I thought you said LEGAL, not illegal. Trump has signed 30 executive orders so far. With the two exceptions I named all of them have been to roll back Obama's executive orders.

I posted this in a previous thread: The Court has declined to take Peruta v. California : http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/26/us-supreme-court-declines-to-take-up-2nd-amendment-case-look-at-california-law.html So the San Diego "good cause" rule will stand. That is probably for the better. I am not a fan of that rule, but I'm less a fan of the court telling the Sheriff of San Diego county how to enforce the laws the folks in Sacramento passed. This wasn't a gun rights case, despite what Goresuch and Thomas said. The right to keep and bear does not necessarily extend to permission to carry concealed. That is one of those reasonable restrictions Scalia described in Heller. So if the State is in a position to grant a permit the State is in a position to dictate the terms. If you don't like the terms, vote in a new sheriff and a new legislature. Or move to Nevada where a permit isn't even required to carry.

Here is a surprise. The SCOTUS has re-instated Trump's travel ban pending a hearing of the case. That injunction was upheld all the way up until the it got to the top, I must say, I am surprised. http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2017-06-26-US--Supreme%20Court-Travel%20Ban/id-d5738691d91f437d820f25c234304a4a In other news Anthony Kennedy is expected to announce his retirement at the close of this session. That will mean another Trump pick. I can't say that upset's me much. I'd rather it were him picking than Clinton.

The best thing about the new star wars movies is it took millions of words of truly awful writing of the "expanded universe" and rendered it moot.

I never touch the stuff. I wouldn't even if it was legal. Which it should be. I really don't get why rolling a dried plant in a piece of paper, burning it, and inhaling the smoke is such a god awful crime as to deserve a punishment of years in prison. That makes no sense. Yes it's bad for you. Everyone knows that and if they want to do it anyway then that's their call. Telling people they can't eat/drink/smoke/f--k/or snort what they please with their own body alone or in the company of consenting adults is nothing but big government nannyisim. The government is not your goddamned mother. And you do NOT want ti to be.

"So long and thanks for all the fish!" That's right! It's time to re-read The Guide. I suggest you all do the same!

Would that we had 8 more just like him: http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/21/clarence-thomas-attacks-civil-asset-forf

Yes?

And who are these mysterious masters? Bilderberg? Nazis? Wall Street? Zionists? Aliens? Lizards? Sesame Street? Scrooge McDuck?He means the joos, probably reffered to vaguely as "the elites". Or maybe the COMMUNIST COMPUTER GANGSTER GOD. In either case expect to be told to wallow in your ignorance or linked to a youtube video if you don't think either controls the world. I personally think that all this "they control the world" theories come frome the deep psychological desire for someone to be in control of this. The biggest fear of those people is not that "they" are in control but that no one is in control. That idea would make for a great South Park episode!

And who are these mysterious masters? Bilderberg? Nazis? Wall Street? Zionists? Aliens? Lizards? Sesame Street? Scrooge McDuck?

Prepare to have your minds blown! Prepare to lean that you have all been the victim of the greatest con in the history of politics! Prepare to lean the true mastermind of the whole Russia thing. And his ultimate motivation: the election of Hillary Rodham Clinton! We are through the looking glass now! Actually after that buildup the actual news story will be a bit of a let down. But there is something to it. If this appeared on Breibart or Infowars it would be worth a laugh. But coming from the NY Post does lend it a bit of credence. http://nypost.com/2017/06/24/inside-the-shadowy-intelligence-firm-behind-the-trump-dossier/

In other words it's perfect!

volo its offensive to compare Obama to the Nazis Don't worry Bruce. There are no Nazi's here. And even if there were who cares if they get offended.

That summer break is a nice perk to your chosen profession isn't it Hurlshot? This morning I took 22 bushels of corn to the farmers market in Covington. Subtract the cost of the bushel hampers, the seed, and assume the considerable labor expended is worth 0$ and i made $210. I bagged 30 ears of corn for the freezer. And I husked 60 ears and hung them from a rope line I strung between the shed and the corner of the porch. To keep the squirrels, bugs and crows off of them I ran two more rope lines and made a tent out of nylon screen. I'll led those dry in the sun for a few days then grind some for corn meal. The rest I'll shuck and mix with sorghum, millet, quinoa, and wheat germ to make chicken feed.

I think KP has the closest take on Clinton's political position. Although it it worth noting the Hillary Clinton that ran in 2016 is a lot more centrist than the one we were first introduced to in 1992. And the one that ran for the Senate in 2000. Perhaps she has moderated her positions after years of government service. That is certainly possible. Or she is savvy enough to show the voters what she wanted them to see. There is no way to know what is in her head. But from what I've read Ruth Bader Ginsburg was entirely her idea. So if that is the kind of justice she favors it makes her a non-starter in my book. But even in 1992 there wasn't much "socialist" to her. She did favor parts of it but never bought into the whole program that I ever heard. She was never a "true believer" like Sanders is. She was definitely to the right of Obama. After 8 years in office I figure we have a pretty good bead on who Obama really is as well. Like Clinton there are parts of the socialist program he likes. But also like her he was not willing to buy the whole thing. He was more of proponent of corporatism than socialism. He has a definite and unquestionable authoritarian leaning though. He believed in the absolute power of the state and all "rights" of the people come second to that. I'll be honest, until the Republicans took the House in 2010 he terrified me. After that I slept a lot easier.

I've got a hardcover collector's edition of Hitchhiker's. I've got to give that one a re-read. It's been a long time.

It's one thing to think that, it's another for one head of state to say it to another. Especially two countries whose cooperation has changed the course of history for the better. Sonst würden wir auf deutsch geschreiben.

About 10 PM on election night when it became clear the Republicans would retain control of both houses of Congress I stopped worrying about Hillary Clinton winning. Even if she did win she would be completely neutralized if the majorities in the House and Senate could keep their s--t together (by no means a certainty). Once Trump won I was worried again because nothing should frighten Americans more than one party control over the Federal government. A lot of very bad s--t happens in times like that. Now we are six months in and I'm less worried. The Congress has done little more than pass a VA Bill everyone (Democrats included) agree was needed and put out two ACA replacement bills. Neither of which will ever pass but will chew up their calendar for months to come. Six months and nothing? I can live with that. I've said it before but it bears repeating. I dislike the Republicans. But I despise the Democrats. They are the anti-liberty party. They are the no free speech party. They are the party of imminent domain, gun control, civil asset forfeiture, 1st amendment zones, and anti-Federalism. The are the anti-religion party, the censor the internet party, and the party of "mandatory compliance". They are the party that ignores Posse Comitatus, and thinks killing Americans with drones is OK. They are the party of "you can't say that. You can't do this. You can't make that. You can't eat this. You can't watch that movie, or visit this website, or listen to this radio show." In fact the only two areas where the Democrats actually favor liberty is Gay Marriage and abortion. And they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the former. There are times I think to myself "Donald f-----g Trump is the President of the United States. How the HELL did that happen?!" Then I think "Well, thank God it ain't Hillary Clinton". I'd still rather it were him picking judges than her. Presidents come and go. A Supreme Court Justice can f--k you over for generations to come. Case in point: http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/23/supreme-court-deals-blow-to-property-rig I didn't vote for either of them. I followed my better judgement and voted for the best candidate on my ballot, Gary Johnson. And as much as I dislike Trump and wish that any of the other Republican candidates were there instead of him (even Cruz) the outcome of this election could have been worse. Just my $.02

Do you feel like you're walking in a circle forever TN?