Gromnir

keep in mind miranda is alive and well; evidence illegal obtained in violation o' miranda will continue to be excluded. however, miranda is a due process implied right, so if justice thomas gets his way, it will be reexamined and obliterated. even so, this is yet another example o' Congress failing to address an obvious problem, 'cause while there is indeed a statute which identifies fed agents violating fed rules and laws exposes the agent to civil liability, the current Court is making clear that judicial decisions don't count as fed rules and laws... unless the Court specific carves out an exception. sovereign immunity is the Rule, and unless Congress (or in rare cases, the Court) creates an exception, the crown/government cannot be sued. perhaps you recall a similar issue came up with the recent warrantless search of a property on the border 'tween the US and kanada? weren't 'bout exclusion o' evidence but rather 'bout capacity to sue the bad agent... an agent who were fired btw. Congress could quite easily amend §1983 to fix this issue, but at the moment, with stoopid levels o' polarization, ez is much more difficult than it should be. HA! Good Fun!

yeah, we were aware o' the plagiarism accusations. had a university roommate who raged 'bout such frequent... keep in mid our university were late 80s. am thinking such criticisms is justified. the thing is, we were introduced to zeppelin via their blues stuff and for a number o' years we viewed zeppelin in the context o' being perhaps the whitest blues cover band evar (although the stones are serious challengers to the title,) so learning their other stuff were no more original perhaps bothered us a bit less than it shoulda'. HA! Good Fun!

have mentioned previous how the presence album is a bit o' a departure for led zeppelin and is vast underrated in our estimation. robert plant were not well for presence as he were recovering from a car accident, so the band had to make adjustments and compensate. were not what zeppelin fans had come to expect, but it were technical more sophisticated and arguable represents the best work o' bonham and page. HA! Good Fun!

one o' the more misunderstood phrases related to First Amendment is separation of church and state, 'cause thomas jefferson, the guy who came up with the wall o' separation bit, clear would disagree with gd. if jefferson had input, a school coach, acting as a school coach on school property most certain coulda and shoulda' been barred from any overt religious displays. HOWEVER, the Court has never actual recognized a genuine separation o' church and state approaching anywhere close to what jefferson described. also, the Court does not reexamine the facts as determined by the lower Court, so what we were talking 'bout were three instances o' voluntary prayer in which players were invited but not coerced to join. am thus not particular surprised by the decision and if one takes facts given as true, and that is what we is supposed to do, then voluntary and non coercive prayer after a game were unlikely to be prohibited. now admitted there is a bit o' the willful obtuse required to ignore coach behaviours as described by parents and others which suggests the prayer groups following games were less voluntary than they has been described. simple say is voluntary don't make true especial in a team situation and with a coach asking for participation. nevertheless, such questions is for the finder o' fact and the Court only reviews the law. disagree. the Court has upheld islamic, jewish and even santerian practices which offended christians. have referenced the la county court house nativity scene display case. practical result o' allowing the crèche on public property is that every denomination and religion may also have space for their display; can't have the government endorse one faith over another, so if one receives a benefit so do all the rest. Gorsuch, in particular, is gonna presumptive find in favour o' religion, regardless o' the practice... even to logic stretching extremes. that said, with the busted arse history and traditions approach to textualism Alito and thomas now use, does result in christians getting more leeway than other denominations 'cause there is necessarily gonna be more tradition and history supporting christian causes. need be aware o' thomas and Alito as they is going a dangerous route with their selective history approach which necessarily favours bigoted outcomes. HA! Good Fun!

you have met young people, yes? folks such as you and Gromnir expressing bemusement or curiosity is exact why the fad persisted, 'cause it were mostly young people with the pants and every time somebody older complained or questioned the fad, particular somebodies who didn't look much like those embracing the fad, it further legitimized and entrenched the fad. the quickest way to end virtual any youth embraced fad is for every "old" person to adopt the fad. HA! Good Fun!

given the recent overturn o' roe v. wade, we were considering which SCOTUS decisions were worst from our pov. is a disturbing number to choose from, however, near the top o' our list is the twin cases o' schenck v. united states and debbs v. united states. am not discussing the law of either case, but we recollected bernie sanders did a documentary o' eugene debbs and even read a number o' debbs speeches, including the one which sent the socialist firebrand to prison. am knowing is more than a few bernie bros on these boards and we thought we would share the linked video. aside, SCOTUS upheld the debbs conviction 9-0. sentence were ten years but President warren harding would commute debbs sentence in 1921, two years after debbs were imprisoned. HA! Good Fun!

am never taking the twitter length stuff 100% serious, but to be fair, guns didn't have a right to an abortion previous to today. women losing a right don't necessarily mean they got less rights than guns... particular as firearms literal have no rights whatsoever. that said, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is specific enumerated in the Constitution. you are gonna have difficulty finding abortion or privacy anywhere in the Constitution. Alito, thomas, Gorsuch ACB and Kavanaugh says non-enumerated rights may exist, but only if history and tradition circa 1789 and 1868 supports such a finding. republicans should be no less incensed as democrats by the manner in which roe were overturned 'cause is now a whole bunch o' rights important to conservatives on the proverbial chopping block, though as previous stated, women and minorities is the most obvious losers from the move away from Scalia's brand o' textualism to the history and tradition focused originalism o' the current conservative (but curious activist) Justices. regardless, and like it or not, the authors o' the Constitution specific identified firearms and a very small number o' other freedoms and liberties. one reason so few freedoms is enumerated is 'cause the founders as a whole trusted democracy, particular state and local democracy, to protect rights. even so, american democracy had five decades to fix the roe problem and every Congress since 1973 chose to instead ignore. HA! Good Fun!

have mentioned previous how we respected thomas as a judge if not as a Justice. fair. consistent. past couple years has forced us to reevaluate. HA! Good Fun!

is not your fault. SCOTUS opinions is poor understood by the public and the US media does a questionable job o' clarifying. the original roe v. wade were not a decision which balanced a woman's right to choose against the state's interests in the rights of unborn children, or not for the most part. "roe were decided 7:2, but there were three concurrences, which meant there were effective four different justifications for roe. ... "some ineffable alchemy o' the 1st, 4th, 9th and 14th amendments, in addition to griswold v. connecticut privacy notions plus a possible nod to substantive due process results in abortions being granted the status o' a fundamental right, but a fundamental right which nevertheless must be considered in light o' a state's desire to protect the lives o' unborn children. at conception, 'ccording to roe, a mother's privacy rights 'tween her and her doctor as she seeks medical treatment is paramount, but with each passing day, the state's interest in protecting unborn children grows. is why otherwise arbitrary trimesters is so important when discussing abortion law in the US." medical privacy were the linchpin for creating a right to abortion, and Alito and thomas just delivered a one finger salute to any/all fuzzy and non enumerated privacy rights. in the portion you linked, thomas specific calls out griswold as a potential future target for correction, yes? keep in mind, when tucker carlson and the maga nation raged about vaccine mandates, the basis for their anger were medical privacy and Alito and thomas just b!tch slapped the snot outta medical privacy. the maga crowd which is cheering today's decision have no idea what is the actual implications o' the change in substantive due process jurisprudence. can't have democracy work as envisioned by the founders w/o an educated populace but the law is intentional arcane. if the law were ez to understand and clear w/o reliance on counter-intuitive and issue specific jargon which further limits comprehension, you wouldn't need pay somebody many hundreds o' dollars an hour to handle your legal problems. lawyers have a vested interest in keeping the law complicated and confounding. nevertheless, when voters go to polls, all too often the issues o' the day has a significant legal component. is a fundamental problem but one poor recognized. HA! Good Fun! ps one additional point to observe is how most western democracies with some kinda abortion right is enjoying their right 'cause o' their national legislative body. it were monumental stoopid for the US to rely on roe v. wade for decades w/o Congress addressing and cementing a right. am not saying am ok with how Alito arrived with his decision, but this were a fixable problem and were more than enough time to address previous to 2022.

"the problem with the J. alito opinion overturning roe is it indulges the same kinda fuzzy reasoning as did roe while pretending to be a textualist interpretation. is a pandora's box scenario as the aforementioned griswold's right to privacy, as well as a whole bunch o' other substantive rights didn't have the weight o' tradition and history to support their recognition as fundamental when SCOTUS created. another J. alito opinion, american legion v. american humanist association (2019), held that giant cross were okie dokie on public land in part if it had managed to endure long enough. same tradition and history which supports giant crosses woulda' no doubt failed with an enormous star o' david or a colossal basalt statue o' baphomet, eh? the current abortion case might as well be a cf cite to the maryland cross case. tradition and history. history and tradition. is too many instances o' Justices getting history horrible wrong btw." and hard to believe, but not even technical true. is nothing in the Constitution 'bout "voting rights." voting is mentioned, and so the Court observes rights for voting is necessarily implied. worse, the Constitution does specific observe the individual state legislatures is responsible for elections, which is why jim crow laws which created literacy tests and discriminatory limits on voting were deemed Constitutional by the Court until Congress passed legislation to protect voting rights. however, there is nothing in the Constitution which forces or compels Congress to pass laws to protect implied rights. converse, there is a specific right to free exercise o' religion, which would be meaningless if it didn't cover jesus, odin and Gozer The Destructor. likewise, the process for admitting states is described even if the names is not pre established. etc. that said, there is a whole lotta implied rights in the Constitution most o' us take for granted. well of course interracial marriage is a right... isn't it? we mentioned in a linked post how loving is at risk from this Court. right to privacy. miranda rights. right against self incrimination. possible most immediate relevant is the right to die. according to the Court, a person suffering may forgo medical treatment or even take their own life, albeit unassisted. such a right to die as it were is based on much o' the same reasoning as roe. if roe fails, then why would a right to die persist, a right which also has considerable history and tradition which would weigh in favour o' state efforts to criminalize? also ... highlight the following: is no reason for most obsidian posters to recognize, but the real danger o' the recent 2nd amendment case, while unrelated to substantive due process, is that thomas relied on the same so not textualist busted arse "history" approach used by alito to overturn roe. women and minorities (religious, racial, etc.) were marginalized during much o' the history o' this nation and the substantive due process analysis applied by alito and thomas considers history contemporaneous and previous to 1789 (original constitution and bill o' rights) and 1868 (fourteenth amendment.) how many women want to turn back the legal clock to 1868 or 1789? those were the salad days for asian and/or jewish americans? the new conservative majority has abandoned textualism and instead embraced a skewed and self-serving history approach. the Justices has shown time and again their historical scholarship is selective and suspect but even when the do get it right, the history and traditions contemporaneous and previous to relevant Constitutional sections and clauses is gonna almost always burden women and minorities to a unconscionable degree. the new conservative Court is not only reactionary but it has become unabashed activist. is a whole lotta rights americans believe to be sacrosanct, rights which Alito and thomas has now made abundant clear they is seeing as unconstitutional, and they has managed to convince at least three other Justices to go along with their slash and burn approach to substantive rights on multiple occasions. is good reason to be concerned 'bout the future o' many US liberties and freedoms. will such fears be enough to get democrats to vote? history says no, but recent elections is changing the history a bit. there were record turnouts for primaries in places such as georgia even after the recent passage o' the state's new jim crow voting law. how long will democrats remain invested in outcomes? HA! Good Fun!

HA! Good Fun!

"ken klukowski" is the s'posed author o' the infamous jeffery clark memo. ... kinda major info just sortaa slipped into the hearing is klukowski, who weren't appointed to doj until dec. 15, 2020 (?), were working with eastman both previous to doj appointment and subsequent. representative perry and mark meadows both refer to kluwkowski as being involved in the overall january 6 effort. add another name to list o' those who should take 5th. HA! Good Fun!

we learned the info from watching a pbs series in the late 70s... were a bbc release in 1978 episode 8 is the installment which contains the gorrie reference. btw, even though connections is a 1970s science show, it holds up remarkable well 'cause is reflecting on past scientific discoveries and how those incremental advances... connect. highly recommend watching the series if you are able to find it. (edit) looks as if at least the first four episodes is available via youtube. is ten total episodes. HA! Good Fun!

generalizing that the left is adversarial to religion is a bit much, no? sure, is some liberals who believe religion is the source o' all evil, but such is a growing position 'mongst the not evangelical conservatives as well, and 'mongst younger people as a whole. @ShadySands grew up in the south yes? am thinking he no doubt knows more than a few ardent religious people and communities that is gonna skew towards liberal voting. as such, the book author suggesting race is an important correlative factor gains traction, yes? regardless, as usual, you are trying to cram an issue into your they are all bad meta ideology and it don't fit as easily as you believe. 'course the author o' the book you mention might not be 100% correct neither-- can't say as we ain't read the book. that said, am thinking gd misapprehension is illustrative o' the success o' the current gop strategy and conservative media efforts to portray liberals as anti-religion. reality is immaterial if folks such as gd believe. is a new kinda religion. and to be fair, evangelicals were indulging in the victimization mentality way before trump and the current gop rose to prominence. 'course the author's toxic masculinity as a driver takes a hit when you consider the abortion issue from pov o' enlightened historical reflection. pre mid/late 1960s, american catholics overwhelming voted democrat. what changed were the abortion issue, and more specific it were catholic women as the driving force behind the pro life movement. what gd dismisses is at the core o' the problem: religion often erases the possibility o' a balancing exercise. there are no pros and cons when once you put the fate of your immortal soul in the balance. abortion is a perfect example o' this dynamic. IF you honest believe thousands of unborn children are being murdered every year, and many christians do believe such, it is difficult to balance a scale with a counter argument. the murder o' innocent children yet to be born is evil. period. if an absolute position is the starting point, there is very little room for moral negotiation, yes? gonna repeat, catholic women drove the pro life movement and it weren't at all cynical even if you believe such beliefs is wrongheaded. evangelicals is kinda ahead o' the curve (bad way) in american politics as they has common suffered from hypo polarization on a range o' issues. for evangelicals, all too many issues is wedge issues which create the binary us v. them silliness have previous posted a link to a rolling stone article we found intriguing in part 'cause it caught us off guard. article questions why evangelicals embraced trump, albeit not initial, in spite o' his most unchristian values. "Trump was exactly the type of character you would expect “values voters” to summarily reject — even before the famed “grab ’em by the ****” tape, the optics weren’t great. He never gained a majority of Christian votes in the primary. Even after he secured the nomination and named Mike Pence to be his VP, a survey of Protestant pastors conducted by Christian polling group LifeWay Research that summer found that only 39 percent of evangelical pastors planned to vote for him." ... "By creating a narrative of an evil “deep state” and casting himself — a powerful white man of immense generational wealth — as a victim in his own right, Trump not only tapped into the religious right’s familiar feeling of persecution, but he also cast himself as its savior, a man of flesh who would fight the holy war on its behalf. “There’s been a real determined effort by the left to try to separate Trump from his evangelical base by shaming them into, ‘How can you support a guy like this?’ ” Jeffress tells me. “Nobody’s confused. People don’t care really about the personality of a warrior; they want him to win the fight.” And Trump’s coming to that fight with a firebrand’s feeling, turning the political stage into an ecstatic experience — a conversion moment of sorts — and the average white evangelical into an acolyte, someone who would attend rallies with the fever of revivals, listen to speeches as if they were sermons, display their faithfulness with MAGA hats, send in money as if tithing, and metaphorically bow down, again and again, at the altar of Donald Trump, who delivers the nation from its transgressions." ... “I don’t think he’s godly, Alex,” my aunt tells me. “I just think he stands up for Christians. Trump’s a fighter. He’s done more for the Christian right than Reagan or Bush. I’m just so thankful we’ve got somebody that’s saying Christians have rights too.” But what about the rights and needs of others, I wonder. “Do you understand why someone could be called by their faith to vote against a party that separates families?” “That’s a big sounding board, but I don’t think that is the issue,” says my mom. “But it’s happening, and I’m not OK with it.” My mom shakes her head. “No one’s OK with it.” “If that’s your heart, then vote your heart,” says my aunt. “But with the abortion issue and the gay-rights issue, Trump’s on biblical ground with his views. I appreciate that about him.” “As Christians, do you feel like you’re under attack in this country?” I ask. “Yes,” my mom says adamantly. “When did you start feeling that way?” “The day that Obama put the rainbow colors in the White House was a sad day for America,” my aunt replies. “That was a slap in God’s face. Abortion was a slap in his face, and here we’ve killed 60 million babies since 1973. I believe we’re going to be judged. I believe we are being judged.” abortion we understood as a wedge issue, but the rainbow flag? am recommending reading the entire article. as we noted previous, we didn't understand the evangelical pov quite the way we thought we did. HA! Good Fun!

our first competitive open water swim were not our finest athletic moment. HA! Good Fun!

those waters has always had shark issues. south o' monterey to north o' san francisco is relative dangerous and such were the case when we did matriculate at cal. the thing is, the statistics tell us shark attacks is considerable less probable compared to being involved in a car accident driving from san jose to monterey, but am admitting shark fear is a bit more primal. in any event, 'cause is so few shark attacks per year (again, relative speaking), is difficult to come up with meaningful statistics. a few extra attacks in a season results in a major change in the statistics. get these peculiar spikes and people blame on el niño, kelp bed decimation or even sunspots. correlation v. causation. regardless, am terrified o' few things, but sharks is near the top o' the list. no agency. life or death is depending on a dead-eyed eating machine? HA! Good Fun!

mechanical ac were invented in 1850, and it didn't work as intended. yes, the invention cooled air and eventual led to modern refrigeration, but a doctor were attempting to prevent his patients from catching malaria. at the time malaria were believed to be caused not by disease carried and transmitted by mosquitos but by bad air-- fetid swamp gasses and the like. look at the word: mal aria. so dr. john gorrie creates a contraption for generating cool air which would displace the bad swamp air o' his hospital ward. as kinda an afterthought, doc gorrie recommended patient beds be surrounded by mosquito netting to make the sick and infirm more comfortable. point is, ac has been around a fair amount o' time, perhaps longer than many suspect. weren't a last couple days kinda situation, so the "grumpy" posts (multiple posts and plural grumpies) 'bout sacramento heat almost certain did not predate the availability o' ac. am predicting a long summer. the good news for grumpy cat is the utility bills is not near as bad as one might suspect, even with peak and off-peak hour bumps. we used more than 2x as much electricity in december 2021 as July 2021. 'cause o' summer rate hikes we most certain did not pay half as much for the july bill, but we did pay $61 more for our december bill ($220) as 'posed to july ($159)... and keep in mind we got a not new, 2800 sqft and two-story home... with a water heater way past its replacement date. the only energy saving features we got is our wash and dryer is newish and we replaced the shake roof with steel. regardless, our home is not a model o' energy efficiency by any stretch. regardless, am always surprised by how relative not terrible is our summer bills for electricity. yeah, for us this is the worst part. is one o' the numerous reasons why the wildfires make life less pleasant. even if it does cool down outside when the sun sets, from mid july all too often the literal hazardous air quality means you keep windows shut. HA! Good Fun!

this is arguable one o' the big mistakes o' democrats in the US as they is framing the question similar as majestic. is reasonable and makes sense, but it should be irrelevant. if bob murders his wife 'cause he truly believed she were having an affair, is the murder ok? 'course not. insofar as murder charges is concerned, it doesn't matter if mrs. bob were a trollop or not, and it sure don't matter if mr. bob thought she were cheating. what bob did were wrong and he knew or shoulda' know it were wrong. now if bob aimed a gun at mrs. bob and he may convince a jury he honest believed the gun weren't loaded, then he could present a defense to murder with intent. trump loaded the gun and pointed it at America. a defense that trump believed the b!tch deserved to die is as irrelevant for tump as it is for bob. trump were part o' a plan to impede, obstruct and/or prevent the transfer o' power from his Presidency to biden's. doesn't matter he thought he were justified as if the question may be framed as some kinda moral question. converse, the individuals who were part o' the false state certificates part o' the plan has some legitimacy in declaring ignorance. if the not-electors genuine believed their alternative slates would only be used in the case o' trump success in court, as they were convinced by trump lawyers, then when such slates were used for another purpose, their ignorance could arguably bar some kinda specific intent threshold. many o' the false electors were conned into doing something illegal. now am understanding why political speaking it makes a difference if trump followers who believe the election were stolen and who is not wanting to admit even to themselves they were duped is embracing the honest belief nonsense as if it provides a defense to the particular crimes. Democrat politicians need convince some % o' trump followers that his actions were bad and not mere illegal. too many trump followers believe the b!tch deserves to die. however, notice how none o' the january 6 rioters is successful using a defense that they legit believed the election were stolen to avoid prosecution? trump don't gain some kinda special defense his followers is unable to avail themselves. am understanding why democrats is fighting republicans on republican terms, but it is irrelevant as a matter o' law. HA! Good Fun!

the january 6 hearings thus far make it clear the following people (at the very least) should all be taking the fifth: mark meadows rudy jeffrey clark john eastman and add ron johnson to the list the former President is an unusual case. as a practical matter, criminal prosecutions are gonna favour a well-represented defendant; the system is designed to the advantage o' defendants, but such benefits is only actualized if you are able to afford the best representation. conspiracy to obstruct the peaceful transfer o' power in general, and the january 6 electoral college count more specific, makes some kind trump belief he were robbed o' the election a non-factor from a legal pov, but such is gonna nevertheless be communicated ad nauseum to a jury, and a majority o' republicans as o' the most recent polling reveals they believe trump were cheated out o' a second term as President. trump is the current high priest o' the gop and his january 6 narrative has already become part o' the religious dogma o' the faith. am suspecting the doj is aware folks who don't wanna convict trump are gonna need more than an ordinary smoking gun to convince them to do so. any jury trial o' trump is gonna be a gamble and ordinarily the doj don't do vegas odds. HA! Good Fun! ps btw, try multiple o' the aforementioned fifth amendment candidates and get a couple o' em to turn on trump and be witness for the prosecution would change the dynamic considerable.

*chuckle* so, bout the sacramento valley heat today is first day of summer and wildfire season hasn't even started. mid july through late september is gonna be unpleasant given worsening drought. news report from last year o' a typical few days: HA! Good Fun!

a couple from sweet charity maybe or maybe not recognizing ben vereen in the linked vid sammy davis appreciation has fallen off a bit in Gromnir's lifetime, which is a shame as he were monumental talented. and what the heck... add the obvious can't help but admit am a fosse fan in spite o' his historic jerkdom. HA! Good Fun!

we became the king of siam last night, but then we realized we were dreaming we were yul brynner... again. HA! Good Fun!

no such excuse for us. starting tomorrow and for the next week the area temps is gonna be 100F. as a result we did yard work and a whole lotta cooking 'cause am not gonna wanna be using anything other than a microwave oven or outdoor grill for a while. heck, we didn't even go to berkeley which were part o' our ordinary pre-pandemic observance for juneteenth. color us embarrassed. HA! Good Fun!

gotta embrace us v. them. when china and russia do autocracy bit and pervert the rule of law it is bad. when the US does so it is also bad... but not if the US is trying to stop bad people? that said, have seen this same thing from boardies who vilify cops, conservatives and politicians collective and regardless o' the specific facts o' a situation; is not only a bruce fail. however, we will note dallas cowboys fandom is a special exception to our recognition o' the unforgivable and insidious nature o' bigotry. thou shalt not suffer jerry jones or a cowboys fan... unrelated (maybe) and in anticipation o' hearings tomorrow, brookings did a rather comprehensive review o' the georgia situation. is 'bout 110 pages if you wanna read the full report. am suspicious many save Gromnir has/will read, but is worth the effort if one is wanting a more nuanced perspective from folks who understand the relevant legal and political issues. is plenty to unpack, but for those with short attention spans, the shortest version o' the conclusions reached is as follows: even with only public available facts available to drive an analysis, trump and numerous members o' his administration is facing real and serious jeopardy o' criminal prosecution for their interventions in Georgia's efforts related to the 2020 Presidential Election. however, it cannot be ignored that those who would be bringing charges is democrats and it will be difficult to overcome the public perception o' a prosecution which amounts to political vendetta. but again, the reason am offering is for those curious 'bout possible trump crimes and defenses, which is a bit more nuanced than is gonna fit in a twitter length response. as such the short version is not offering much value. HA! Good Fun!

am gonna admit am mild surprise seeing the f-14. woulda' expected an f-15 variant. HA! Good Fun!