Raptorpat

"No worries, it's not legally an insurrection. Because they weren't plotting to overthrow the entire government - they were just conspiring to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to keep the president who lost in power!" So your argument pushing back literally just boils down to pushing back against colloquial semantics? That's not what she testified to.

happy birthday mex wherever you are!

Not saying he wouldn't be willing to side with Thomas in those future cases, but he felt the need to write himself a separate concurrence to explain his contorted rationale for the history books.

Kavanaugh's solo concurrence doubled down that this only applies to abortion and doesn't call into question the other rights. So he's at least one of Thomas' weak links.

He's saying "if you bring these issues to the supreme court, you'll have at least one of the five votes you need." The counterpoint is the reason Alito was specific that this only applies to abortion is because he needed to limit it to abortion to get the five votes. Because the legal analysis here is just filling in for the politics of a 50-year campaign to do this.

No, Thomas went out on a limb to say that because this legal holding only applies to abortion, he's ready and willing to apply the analysis to everything else.

The majority did say that background checks are a viable requirement. I think it was ACB who did a brief concurrence questioning where the line is, but it's been a few hours and my head hurts.

The majority specified that this only applies to the six jurisdictions with similar "just cause" requirements, and that NY and other states with the now-unconstitutional conceal carry laws could adopt laws similar to 43 other states. My own concern is the 50 pages of original intent/traditions analysis, and Thomas' specific call-out of the Establishment Clause as something to be reviewed by that analysis.

If the Republican Congress were investigating a failed insurrection led by Democrat-oriented extremists based on a lie who stormed the Capitol, and the Democratic minority tried to appoint members who were (1) a material witness or (2) publicly announced their intent to use their appointment to muddy the water and change subjects from the politically motivated insurrection (for example, by focusing on an irrelevant comparison to racial injustice protests that weren't an attempted insurrection and storming of the US Capitol), after the Democratic minority successfully blocked bipartisan legislation to empanel an independent, bipartisan committee, maybe the Republican Speaker would be right to reject those appointments. Which again, rejecting two flawed candidates out of five appointees and asking for two alternates is different than saying "your party gets no representation at all in an insurrection investigation." McCarthy is the only reason that Cheney and Kinzinger are the GOP's only representation, and we'll see how the gamble plays out. P.S. There is no jurisprudence underlying this parenthetical, it's a completely unlitigated question that won't be answered by the courts before Gym Jordan runs out the clock.

I reject the underlying premise of this whataboutism. Three of the five picks were accepted just fine, and she asked for two alternates to replace them. The two that were rejected were rejected were too close intertwined with a literal insurrection investigation, one of which was since subpoenaed by said investigation. If literally being a relevant witness isn't good cause to be excluded from running the investigation, I don't know what is. This isn't a generic partisan probe to catch a secretary misappropriating funds on office furniture or boinking their assistant on said furniture, it is an investigation over a literal insurrection mob scaling walls and storming the capitol. Obviously when the House flips the new majority will pretend and use this commission ask an excuse to lower the bar of good faith even further for regular issues, but we don't have to pretend that's not what it is.

I log in via the Pokemon Trainer Club that just requires inputting an account name and password in PoGo. I didn't realize the other login types don't work like that.

I'm confused. If you know the email and you know the password, why can't you log in? I'm not asking to be a tool, I'm just confused.

It won't let you do what?

Why can't you log into the old pogo account and change the Gmail tied to it? I don't think you have to be logged into the email to log into the game.

you have no way of recovering the original account?

They all but admitted beforehand that their goal was to run defense and muddy the water. But Jordan, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, and Banks, the head of the Republican Study Committee, have emerged as some of the most vocal Trump defenders in the wake of the insurrection, infuriating Democrats of all stripes who consider Trump’s allies to be complicit in the attack. Both Jordan and Banks have said in recent days that they were hoping to use their positions on the select committee to investigate what Pelosi knew about the security threat ahead of the violence. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/564122-pelosi-rejects-jordan-banks-for-jan-6-committee/ Is the working theory here that Dem leadership is at fault for not knowing or not recognizing that an actual lynch mob was going to literally try to kill them to prevent a peaceful transfer of power - rather than it being the fault of the maga mob and the maga people who incited it? Was it a "Palpatine kidnaps himself" 12-D chess level play? If belligerent Democrats mob the Capitol - scaling walls, breaking through windows, beating security, etc. - with the intent to hang the vice president, assassinate the opposition, and so on, hypothetical Democrat Gym Gordan probably shouldn't be on a commission to investigate them either.

Arkansas (pronounced "our-kansas")

Counterpoint is the despondency at how much control over their audience they have and how big that audience is. Never going to be one reality ever again.

Why?oming

nude jersey

Evidently their counter programming during the hearing was two hours (Carlson, Hannity) commercial-free. I wonder how much ad revenue that equals, to make sure there were no natural pauses to encourage viewers to flip over to the real thing.

This is false. The minority party provided five appointees, and two were rejected due to a direct conflict of interest (one of which was even subpoenaed by the commission), so the Minority Leader pulled the rest of his appointees and boycotted the commission out of partisan spite.

I had to step away in the middle, but I recall the documentary guy or someone basically testifying that some of those guys went out in advance of the speech ending to "secure" the route

Yeah, this is the opening hearing. They articulated what each of the individual hearings would focus on but I didn't note it. This one I believe is focus on the premeditated aspect.