Gromnir

am knowing there is no sympathy for landlords hereabouts, but both o' our current tenants (sadly, our best tenant, the butcher, moved and we sold the property in question. no more free meat to make up the difference in rent) whom we provided more than a year advanced warning we would not be renewing leases, has informed us they ain't gonna be moving out by may 31 and june 30 respective. ... at minimum is gonna take us 60 days to evict 'em, if we choose to do so. one o' the tenants is 85. am kicking an 85 year old woman out on the street? for chrissakes, we know her daughter lives w/i 2 kilometers and her sons are both in the sacramento valley. is not as if she has no family, but either our tenant refuses to move in with family or they don't wanna take her in, and her health/physical mobility is limited such that she no longer cooks for herself and family needs come check on her daily. 'course if we don't sell soon, the market is likely to change dramatic, which is exact what we anticipated. the thing is, if we let our tenants stay and collect rent after the end o' the lease, then am effective creating a new month-to-month lease, which means we are required to add another sixty days notice before starting the aforementioned eviction efforts; 120 days becomes the new minimum time frame to be rid o' would be squatters if we take rent. as such it makes more sense to not collect rent. how long am s'posed to not collect rents? we were also serious considering moving into one o' our two remaining rental homes as our current place is too big by far for one person... even if is one person and multiple dogs. so yeah, am not expecting sympathy, but we never expected both remaining tenants would screw us after we gave 'em years o' significant discounted rent and an extra long advanced warning on non-renewal o' lease. no good deed... HA! Good Fun!

laughy gif but am knowing you believe it, so... gd likes to ignore the substantial degrees o' variation. convinces self biden is no more corrupt or skeevy than trump? sure. andrew johnson and jimmy carter were both democrats and supporters o' racist policies during their political careers, but am suspecting even gd would agree the degree o' villainy those two Presidents displayed as it pertains to equitable treatment o' race were vast different in terms o' scale. nevertheless, 'cause is convenient and supports gd worldview, he simplifies to they are all bad. @Hurlsnotcontribution is noteworthy as it provides balanced context for lbj. converse, label a late 19th century and early 20th century US politician as racist and a believer in eugenics is less than helpful w/o context. is unfortunate but am suspecting such labels would apply in varying degrees to at least 90% o' US politicians circa 1910s. is not that woodrow wilson were racist and a believer in eugenics which made him a bad guy by the standards o' his day but rather the degree o' his belief and the efforts to which he attempted to have US policy reflect his racist beliefs. however, so is no misunderstanding, woodrow wilson were indeed vile. the following is woodrow wilson quotes used in the film, birth of a nation: Adventurers swarmed out of the North, as much the enemies of one race as of the other, to cozen, beguile, and use the Negroes.…In the villages the Negroes were the office holders, men who knew none of the uses of authority, except its insolences. The Policy of the congressional leaders wrought…a veritable overthrow of civilization in the South.…in their determination to "put the white South under the heel of the black South." The white men of the South were aroused by the mere instinct of self-preservation to rid themselves, by fair means or foul, of the intolerable burden of governments sustained by the votes of ignorant negroes and conducted in the interest of adventurers. *shrug* regardless, as is typical, gd jokes... but not really. HA! Good Fun!

racism were an official part o' the democrat national platform post civil war (andrew johnson arguable being our most racist President evar) 'til fdr, who himself were a running mate o' the venomously racist james cox, initiated japanese internment by executive order, and ignored jim crow laws. and let's not forget how truman, lbj and jimmy carter all at least flirted with the kkk during their political careers. 'course most (all?) republicans were racist, but the party platform were at least offering a nod to a paternalistic view o' post civil war racial inclusivity. have also mentioned more than once how american eugenics inspired euro fascists and not the other way around. it is not hard to find advocates o' eugenics from both sides o' the aisle for that sin as well, particular 'mongst the so-called intellectuals o' the late 19th and early 20th century. HA! Good Fun!

have been perpetual kinda dumbstruck by how few lessons were learned from the great recession. HA! Good Fun!

overlooked this. apologies. cast iron retains heat, but takes longer than the other choices to arrive at the temp you want and a pot or pan may have hot spots. takes a bit more skill and patience. stainless steel is a nice option as has higher conductivity than iron and is durable (no or minimal warping and unlike iron it isn't gonna crack) as well as light. aluminum is light and cheap and generally sucks compared to the other options, but good and thick aluminum is gonna heat as even as will a cheap layer o' copper. copper, btw, has fantastic conductivity (and anti microbial properties btw which is why adding a layer o' copper were so popular for the hulls seagoing vessels until cheaper paint solutions were discovered) but is difficult to keep looking pretty, is expensive and is not as durable... 'course you won't see all-copper pots and pans. will see pots an pans with a layer o' copper and the cheap stuff has a crap layer which is existing for no reason save for appearances. the sooper expensive copper actual includes a literal silver lining for even better conductivity. the qualities o' cookware is also gonna be dependent on your burner-type. for example, electric and non-induction hops/burners is gonna nullify some o' the benefits o' high-end cookware anyways and is why we initial asked 'bout your cooking surface. HA! Good Fun!

bad math. bill clinton only left office in 2001. 'course for @Guard Dog, woodrow wilson would be the most likely bearer o' the potus antichrist title, with the rest getting no more than a collective, "they are all bad." personal, am thinking calvin coolidge, donald trump, james buchanan, william harrison, thomas jefferson and andrew jackson deserve mention way before regan. btw, is more than a few o' our scholarly indian acquaintances who insist abraham lincoln and ulysses s. grant is among the most vile holders o' the potus office, and is tough to argue they is wrong if you look at the situation through a lens colored by the indigenous people's experience. every generation o' young americans needs a potus antichrist. from a european or canadian pov, am suspecting every post woodrow wilson potus (lending some credence to guard dog's position btw) has had the antichrist label hung on them for a time by some significant number... though obama benefits from a curious get out of jail free pass from all too many euros and kandians. HA! Good Fun!

@Guard Dogam a big fan o' cast iron cookware, and the enameled choices is not particular high maintenance. unfortunate, is a whole lotta terrible enameled iron. ironic, am also thinking some o' the problem with naked cast iron is people put in too much maintenance. the urge to clean is good, but cast iron don't want you to scrub and it dislikes anything but most minimal soap. this is why we got a dedicated fish pan. the fish gets into the carbon surface and stays there until you cook something else... multiple something elses and at high temps to boot. so, we got a dedicated 10" cast iron skillet which we use for cooking fish on our outdoor grill. am knowing folks who literal have special cast iron pans which they will only cook a single dish and they has done so for decades. am not quite so finicky so yeah, every year or so we do need season the non enameled skillets, but otherwise, is not too bad. ... hadn't really considered previous, but particular considering @Bartimaeus concerns, am suspecting a good litmus test for a non-stick pan is to check and see if it is induction capable. if you got a meaningful stainless steel base, is gonna work with induction. am suspecting is uncommon a terrible nonstick pan is gonna have a stainless steel base. HA! Good Fun!

observations: is best not to go super expensive 'cause even the best non-stick pan is gonna wear out in a few years (as such, buying a set o' non-stick is kinda silly. choose a couple pieces you know you will need replace.) ceramic actual wears out quicker go above medium or medium-high is verboten even in 2022 you are gonna want a durable reinforced stainless steel base to avoid the warping which annoys bartimaeus HA! Good Fun!

well, there were some kinda brainfart with this. simple breakdown: for nonstick am recommending the aforementioned zwilling (madura or forte). for cast iron, we recommend lodge. for stainless steel, made in is our first choice, but all clad and misen (5-ply for both brands) is comparable and as we noted, our 3-ply all clad is more than satisfactory. side note: have seen misen sets, which is already reasonable priced, offered shocking cheap, particular during the holidays. we rare want sets which invariably include items we will never use, but if you are willing to be patient, is likely you find a nice misen deal at some point. costco also does all-clad deals from time-to-time, but is ordinarily the large sets which is having special deals and we never need a full set these days. HA! Good Fun! ps misen cookware is made in china, so...

t-fal (tefal not US) is subject to the warping bartimeaus references. HA! Good Fun!

what do you want? non-stick? pretty? stainless steel? what is your cooking surface? a cast iron pan, properly seasoned, will cover most needs save eggs. cast iron is oven safe and a lodge cast iron skillet is extreme cheap and will outlive you if proper care is practiced. a cast iron enameled dutch oven (the 7.5 qt doubles as a stock pot) and braiser is also less than obvious workhorses which will handle most needs, are oven safe, distribute heat like a dream and is durable. 'course they is heavy, which is also part o' what makes 'em such effective cooking implements. with a cast iron skillet, braiser and large dutch oven, add a non-stick pan or two and most o' your cooking needs is gonna be covered. you may buy lodge for 1/3 to 1/4 o' le creuset but the difference in quality is not extreme. for most stuff not in the cast iron or non stick we use made in, but is not a great value pick. more reasonable, for non-stick, am gonna admit we love these: https://www.zwilling.com/us/zwilling/cookware/madura-plus/ these pans is heavy and durable. am s'posing if we didn't have our made in pots and pans we would go all clad or misen for any nonstick needs. we also have a bunch o' 3-ply all clad, and have little room for complaint, but our made in is the gear we use nowadays. HA! Good Fun! ps carbon steel is kinda the new thing and am admitted curious, but we got little personal experience with decent carbon steel cookware.

HA! Good Fun!

HA! Good Fun!

one thing to clear up is the misunderstanding 'bout J. Alito comments. have already commented we do not share Alito's faith in a history and tradition analysis, but is nothing inherent political 'bout it save how in practice it inevitably favours conservative interests. interpret a law is the role o' a Justice, and what objective measures is there for doing so? to question the traditions and history o' a law to give words meaning when the law were penned? tradition and history leading up to 1791 and 1868 is gonna necessarily exclude a whole lotta people, nevertheless, is not inherent political to decide such is a good approach to interpreting laws. Alito has been consistent with this nonsense and we got a low opinion for his legal and history scholarship, but am thinking is self serving o' liberals to dismiss Alito opinions as political motivated. oh, and so is clear, am most assured not an Alito supporter, mcconnell comments as you note is staking out a an irrefutable fact followed by a functional impossibility sans change to filibuster, a change am suspecting he would avoid even if republicans gain control o' the senate just so republicans would have an excuse as to why in spite o' their best efforts, they could not create a national ban on abortion. is the same kinda political strategy which went into the faux fight v. roe which has existed for five decades. and fair enough on ted cruz, but he is a senator from texas, so his constituency is the folks who created the heretofore improbable bounty scheme which gave private citizens the right to sue those individuals who aided in abortion. however, ted is most assured not a doofus even if he inexplicable shows he has limited people skills and an utter contempt for those he s'posed represents. ted cruz is arguable a superior legal authority than at least four o' the Justices current sitting on the Court and only two is clear outta his league. he wears cowboy boots and says stuff which resonates with the qanon and maga crowd. he is also as mercenary as mitch mcconnell with having the skill to pull off the machinations, but is only a handful o' people in Congress with as big a brain as ted cruz. HA! Good Fun!

we poach eggs frequent in part thanks to the bag hack. makes easier particular if am doing many at one time. for large numbers, we use different colored twist ties on the bags so we know the order in which our eggs went in the pot. we should learn a blender approach for hollandaise, but the reason we don't learn is literal 'cause we enjoy hollandaise too much. we got a glass bowl which works ideal as a jerry-rigged double boiler over one o' our sauce pans and we has become quite adept at hollandaise, but is nevertheless a bit more time consuming and finicky than the fool-proof blender methods we has seen recommended. problem is we would likely have hollandaise on something at least once a week if were ez to make in our blender. am recollecting shady is not a personal fan o' eggs, so is nice you did the eggs benedict for the missus. HA! Good Fun!

hard to believe the rock n' roll hall o' fame continues to snub pat benatar. shameful. converse, how many people here may name a paul butterfield blues band tune... other than Gromnir? heck, elvin bishop goes into the hall of fame in 2016 a year after the paul butterfield blues band which he were a member. am kinda a fan o' paul butterfield (harmonica) and elvin bishop (guitar) but even we can't explain how they get a hall o' fame nod and pat benatar does not. HA! Good Fun!

not sure where the disconnect is. first, don't confuse gop goals with the motives o' Justices or legal scholars opposed to roe. sure there is overlap, but not in the way you likely believe. roe is a particular noteworthy example 'cause as has been stated previous, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, previous to becoming a Justice, were public critical o' roe. lawrence tribe, perhaps the most recognized Constitutional law scholar in the country, and a liberal firebrand nowadays, were excoriating the reasoning o' the roe majority and concurrences in the decade after it were decided. legal philosophy is not same as party affiliation... which is why justice thomas' fall has been so disappointing. most Justices don't give a fig for politics, at least not where it conflicts with their legal philosophy. also, as we noted already, republicans is not monolithic. mitch mcconnell did not want a real roe fight, even if he deserves as much credit for making the overturning o' roe possible as any Justice. mitch still won't talk 'bout the implications o' roe. what is ted cruz talking 'bout today? the leak. again, 'cause may have gone unnoticed, polls show americans as a whole is overwhelming in favour o' maintaining roe, and mitch and other republicans concerned with winning back Congress and the Presidency is as aware o' that fact as anybody. sure, to keep the evangelicals happy, folks who has shown in the past they has questionable party loyalty, mitch and other national republicans put on a good show o' fighting for the demise o' roe, but killing roe is bad politics given the fact it galvanizes typical torpid democrats (as trump's mishandling o' covid did) and recognizing that near 50% o' republicans in fact support some kinda right to abortion. 'course the 50/50 split is not a thing in many red states, which is why we specific observed national republicans were having a different pov o' roe compared to those in states such as texas and louisiana. yeah, we has noted how 'cause o' our curious republican system o' democracy functions, the far-right has gained increasing and disproportionate influence in the gop. american politics as a whole has become increasing polarized in the last decade. the republican party has struggled with keeping working class whites, but trump came along and changed the dynamic. the one signature legislative effort passed during the trump administration were a tax cut which largely benefited the rich. nevertheless, when republican leaders criticized trump for january 6 on the days following the insurrection, the following happened: the thing is, is doubtful much more than half o' those folks calling graham a traitor wanted roe overturned. polls suggest is ~50%. again, so is clear, am not suggesting all republicans are disappointed by the prospect o' roe being overturned. particular for catholics and evangelicals who is convinced abortion represents mass murder on a scale measured in the thousands, overturning roe were a deadly serious issue and they will continue to fight in every state to undermine abortion protections. the thing is, other than a couple notable examples such as J. kavanaugh, thomas, and J. sotomayor, politics is a tertiary concern at best. and nationally, is no battle republicans wanna be embroiled when they maybe have 50% o' their own party supporting and democrats overwhelming oppose. is not good politics. heck, even joe rogan expressed his support for a woman's right to choose, although he clear weren't educated as to what the right actual entails. nevertheless, rogan's curious brand o' politics resonates with a whole lotta young and male republicans, more so than does mitch mcconnell or marjorie taylor greene. republicans are divided on roe. is why it is not an issue most national republicans want to fight. edit to avoid a double-post: while this kinda protest, as long as it stays on public streets and remains non-violent, is perfect legal, it is nevertheless unfortunate. the polarization o' national politics has brought us back to the bad old days o' the 1920s or 1850s. no doubt many believe J. Kavanaugh deserves this treatment, but consider your reaction if a maga crowd were protesting outside the home o' aoc or J. Sotomayor. HA! Good Fun! ps so it is clear, as much as am thinking most republicans have not wanted a real abortion fight, and they most definite don't want it to be a defining issue in the upcoming midterms, am thinking it is too late to take a more moderate stance. roe being overturned means the gop politicians needs pick a side and is gonna be impossible to sudden go pro choice after public advocating pro life.

After the leaked Roe opinion, Justice Thomas says the Supreme Court can't be bullied "We are becoming addicted to wanting particular outcomes, not living with the outcomes we don't like," Thomas said. ... Virginia Thomas urged White House chief to pursue unrelenting efforts to overturn the 2020 election, texts show The messages, which do not directly reference Justice Thomas or the Supreme Court, show for the first time how Ginni Thomas used her access to Trump’s inner circle to promote and seek to guide the president’s strategy to overturn the election results — and how receptive and grateful Meadows said he was to receive her advice. Among Thomas’s stated goals in the messages was for lawyer Sidney Powell, who promoted incendiary and unsupported claims about the election, to be “the lead and the face” of Trump’s legal team. Legal Scholars Are Shocked By Ginni Thomas’s “Stop the Steal” Texts Richard Hasen, an expert in election law who teaches at the University of California, Irvine, also believes that Justice Thomas should never have participated in the case weighing whether Congress had the right to review Trump’s papers. Hasen told me, “Given Ginni Thomas’s deep involvement in trying to subvert the outcome of the 2020 election based upon outlandish claims of voter fraud, and her work on this with not only activists but the former President’s chief of staff, Justice Thomas should not have heard any cases” involving disputes over the 2020 election or Congress’s investigation of the January 6th riots. It has now become clear, Hasen said, that “his spouse’s reputation, and even potential liability, is at stake.” is it possible justice thomas don't realize his comments would at best ring hollow given his wife's involvement in the Stop The Steal movement? regardless, the bullying thomas believes is current directed at The Court in the wake o' alito's leaked opinion is precise the kinda political free speech even his narrow reading o' the First Amendment is designed to protect. but perhaps we missed the hundreds and thousands o' roe supporters who stormed the United States Supreme Court building in a bid to prevent the draft opinion from becoming a final ruling? our opinion o' justice thomas has been complete altered these last couple o' years. pre 2016-17 thomas had earned our grudging respect for his role as a consistent and principled judge if not his skill as a justice o' The Court. 2022 thomas leaves us with feelings o' mild disgust given his new role as a partisan creature who obvious has no sense o' self awareness. HA! Good Fun!

since 2019, crime has increased in the US regardless o' whether is democrat or republican jurisdictions, so a bit o' the conservative wailing 'bout crime in california or democrat run cities is misleading. fbi and other law enforcement agencies predicted a pandemic related upturn in crime, so... duh. that being said, the post floyd responses by municipalities to address law enforcement concerns has exacerbated issues in a few burgs 'round the nation. expected post pandemic increases coupled with inefficiency due to changing policies and personnel is a double hit. as often as not, the changes made by cities were warranted and overdue, but is not ez to sell unavoidable costs of change... which is precise why meaningful change is so rare in politics. have linked articles in the past o' this thread showing how efforts to restructure law enforcement is not a one-year exercise but more a long-term goal. is ez to blame on defund (fox news exploits every opportunity to do so) but perhaps the biggest reason for more crime is inevitable resistance from police and their unions to change, at times requiring near complete change in personnel. those d-bag cops who contributed to the culture o' casual violence which resulted in the death o' george floyd (and the countless episodes o' excessive violence short o' homicide levels not captured by a bystander with a phone) become angry and indignant when is suggested that changes is warranted and all too often they decide en masse decide to quit or they silent protest by refusing to get outta their vehicles and actual do their jobs... is easier to ride out a a few years 'til they hit their 20. even before floyd, what happened in baltimore post freddie gray (2015) is illustrative o' obstacles facing a department attempting to bring change to law enforcement. 'course if you live somewhere which is seeing crime rates rise, being told things will get better, maybe better, in a couple years after they get worse is hardly reassuring news and a less than popular pitch for a politician. ny rejected progressive and principled candidates and instead chose a doofus for mayor, a tough-on-crime doofus. not a surprise and democrats nationwide need take notice. HA! Good Fun! ps keep in mind am not suggesting all cops is bad. am knowing such is a popular position on this board, but am not one o' those people.

recent reads we would recommend: At a shameful detention camp, an improbable football team Covered with Night: A Story of Murder and Indigenous Justice in Early America One Mighty and Irresistible Tide: The Epic Struggle Over American Immigration, 1924-1965 disappointed with the following: Empire of Guns: The Violent Making of the Industrial Revolution a hard read with little payoff HA! Good Fun!

am thinking most people in the US look to what is happening in russia when protesters dare to question the special military operation and those democracy loving americans are appalled. people have even been arrested and jailed for holding up blank signs in moscow, st. petersburg and elsewhere. thank goodness the US is different than russia, eh? The Year Montana Rounded Up Citizens for Shooting Off Their Mouths "Some 200 people were arrested, and approximately 125 people went to trial, under the Montana Sedition Law, which criminalized nearly everything said or written against the American government and its conduct when it passed in February 1918. The penalties--a maximum of 10-to-20 years in prison and up to a $20,000 fine--were tough, and the pressure on “disloyal” citizens was relentless. The vast majority of people were rounded up for casual statements, off-the-cuff remarks deemed pro-German or anti-American. Citizens turned against one another, joining “patriotic” organizations like the Montana Loyalty League with its stated goal of keeping the Treasure State from “going over body and soul to the Kaiser.”" and am thinking nobody would be surprised by a few o' the more racist state laws passed democratic in states after the civil war. Black Codes In South Carolina, a law prohibited Black people from holding any occupation other than farmer or servant unless they paid an annual tax of $10 to $100. This provision hit free Black people already living in Charleston and former slave artisans especially hard. In both states, Black people were given heavy penalties for vagrancy, including forced plantation labor in some cases. ALIEN LAND LAWS IN CALIFORNIA (1913 & 1920) California led the way for fifteen states to pass legislation preventing “aliens ineligible to citizenship” from owning land. Although occasionally used against other Asians, these laws were directly aimed at Japanese immigrants, who were perceived as gaining undue economic power through agricultural holdings. Legislation using the words “Asian” or “Japanese” would clearly be unconstitutional, hence the circumlocution. Violators would have their property revert to control by the state. But at least some Japanese manage to evade the law, and the legislature moved in 1920 to strengthen its provisions as well as prohibit the practice of immigrant Japanese (as guardians) placing land in the legal hands of their citizen children. ... we could go on and on and on. am gonna hazard the core disconnect here in the US, and in much o' the west, is we are taught democracy is the source o' freedom and rights. is sooooooo not true. the majority is all too quick to blame their problems on them and they. is always a few skeevy politicians trying to take advantage o' the greed and pettiness which is common in the human animal and our democratic republic makes it all too easy for those politicians to successful promote laws which ensure they have less rights. any government, by its very nature, places limits on liberty. needs be a monopoly on violence for a government to even exist-- day 1 and already liberties is being limited. democracy makes it so the majority chooses whose rights are most important and which o' those rights deserve protection. you don't need much imagination to guess what happens when the me and mine majority decides who should benefit from the efforts o' a working democratic republic, eh? the bill of rights, and many o' the amendments, represent those rights Americans has set aside as too important to leave to democracy. the Constitution, sans the amendments, grants almost no rights to Americans, but instead focuses on the structure o' a democratic republic the founders believed would avoid the tyranny of the majority which plagued athenian democracy. J. alito, whose questionable history approach is already being challenged by many, has us look at the history and traditions o' the US at the time a law were passed to decide which rights is fundamental but not enumerated in the Constitution. is a questionable approach for many reasons, but as we stated earlier, roe and other privacy rights is linked to a penumbra/gestalt o' the 1st, 4th, 9th and 14th amendments to the Constitution. is understandable why a considerable % o' the nation's women, ethnic & religious minorities and political/social undesirables is unnerved by the realization substantive due process rights need by reduced in a crucible based on values o' the majority o' Americans in 1791 and 1868. for democracy to work as envisioned by the founders, you need an informed and educated electorate. the war on crt and wokeism in classrooms across the country, along with the internet and cable tv networks making it possible for americans to only hear the news with which they already agree, makes an educated and informed electorate less likely than were possible ten or twenty years past. so we change the rules regarding substantive due process and count on the people in louisiana, florida and texas to look to the better angels of their nature? can't guess what could go wrong for people who were not favored by tradition and history in 1791 and 1868. as already stated, overturning roe as J. alito is trying to do ain't gonna result in an overnight apocalypse for american women, but am thinking most o' the freedom loving americans who is constant railing 'bout their rights is in for rude awakenings... though as one might expect, minorities and women is gonna be taking the brunt o' the pain. no surprise there, eh? is a continuation o' the history and tradition o' democracy at work in the US. HA! Good Fun!

vegas has excellent restaurant options, arguable challenging new york, san francisco, chicago and new orleans for the title o' best US food city. we don't gamble and most vegas shows ain't our thing, but am admitting vegas is worth the trip for culinary adventurers. HA! Good Fun! ps our actual favorite destination for dining experiences in the western hemisphere is mexico city which also turns out to be one o' the cheaper options for high-end dining. typical we go to ixtapa when we visit mexico, but from there we inevitable make the trip to mexico city (a full day's drive) to indulge our gastronomical needs.

Esper: Stephen Miller called for a "quarter-million troops" to respond to migrant caravan given the pause before "ridiculous," am betting a different and more colorful adjective were used to describe miller's plan. speaking o' speculation, Ted Cruz Speculates Clerk of Sonia Sotomayor 'Most Likely' Leaked Roe Draft so, w/o proof, a US senator public suggests a clerk o' J. Sotomayor were responsible for the leaked opinion? HA! Good Fun!

am embarrassed to reveal the joke were ruined 'cause we were aware hellman's as a commercial product got its start in 1913 ny. guy named hellman were a german (austrian?) immigrant working in a manhattan deli when he came up with his mayo recipe/formula. the hellamans brand didn't make it to the uk until the 1960s btw, though we don't know the exact year. what kinda person remembers the origins o' a popular US mayo brand? ... we can also tell you why hellman's is sold as best foods brand west o' the rockies. *sigh* HA! Good Fun!

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? as should be obvious by now, Gromnir is not a fan o' roe from a legal pov. there has never been a decent consensus Court explanation as to what were the basis for a right to abortion. weak. however, the manner in which J. alito dismantles the abortion protection in his draft opinion is placing numerous other implied fundamental rights w/i reach o' termination with naught but a suspect history and tradition analysis offering any kinda valid argument for their maintenance. abortion is getting all the attention at the moment, but all those misinformed folks who did rage for the past few years 'cause o' how the government, those jack-booted thugs, were trampling on their god given Constitutional rights by requiring patrons to don masks in the local piggly wiggly should be livid with the roe opinion by alito. most o' the rights the maga crowd believes they is entitled to don't actual exist, but the roe opinion puts at risk a whole lotta rights they do in fact enjoy 'cause the namby-pamby activist Justices o' the past created substantive due process rights and implied rights which is nowhere enumerated in the Constitution. is a whole lotta stoopid and misinformation guiding the current debate. any bets on whether fox news corrects the misapprehensions o' their audience? HA! Good Fun!