If it's so easy for him to figure out maybe he can explain it to his dimwitted colleagues.

Ossof not winning outright seems problematic

Spend multi millions and couldn't win when there were like 10 republicans in the field.

Probably gonna spend even more millions and get smoked head to head

Brady skipping the White House visit today for "family business." How many times did Giselle have to threaten divorce to make that happen?

This is a good article, but I prefer the much more efficient "lol originalism"

Well there's not being interrupty and there's never opening your mouth or showing the slightest hint of inquisitiveness, ever. The latter applies to Clarence.

This is what I was referring to earlier.

Kagan basically called him an idiot. It does seem monstrously remarkable that while on the appellate bench he never encountered a case where there were two competing, ambiguous statutes at issue. What he said is something Drunk Uncle would say as a drunk lawyer.

We could get rid of the whole debate about originalism or the Constitution and laws being living documents by just adding Amendments to the Constitution and updating laws so that the textual definitions of the laws actually align with the way we would like them to be interpreted in the present, but lawmakers are incredibly averse to this process and unwilling to come to any sort of agreements about anything.

That assumes 1. People who turned out for ossoff wont turn out in the runoff (no) 2. All the votes for the other 9 Rs will turn out to vote against ossoff (not likely)

Same reasons drumpf won are why ossoff inning is way likelier than people think. And even if ossoff loses if republicans aren't tripping balls over the midterm yet they should be

Mattis bending the knee to Saudi scum apparently. Sickening. Good news for you guys we're apparently getting Hillary Clinton foreign policy from here on out.

aren't there 2 months til the runoff election?

In 2 months Trump will do a lot more stupid things and very few useful things for possible swing voters. He will also do some more things that upset some of his supporters and there is ~nothing he can do at this point to win over those who oppose him. I can't see general Republican support increasing in the interim so they will actually have to boost relative turnout imo.

Disgusting

He's probably still too devestated over Aa-dawg. Who can celebrate at a time like this?

Republicans will spend a ton more money in the runoff than they did this go around.

Not asking questions in oral argument does not mean he lacks the slightest hint of inquisitiveness.

All he has to do is keep dropping bombs and his approval will go up up up.

Maybe he meant to go in the opposite direction?

If you look closely at the picture (and others from the meeting), there are subtle signs of intense disrespect by Mattis to the Saudis.

Elaborate

No. The lawyers have, in most cases, sparingly little to say that is of relevance and even less that is of (even potentially) persuasive value. By questioning them, the weaknesses in their positions can be more ably demonstrated and the Justices can force another Justice to confront a problem with their own position.

Before these arguments are heard, expansive briefing has taken place, and the Justices have in most cases already worked up a draft position paper or opinion, and they have already discussed the case for some time. As between the Justices, each of them know what the other 8 think (most of the time). The issues raised at oral argument have more to do with the direction from the Court, based upon its needs, than they have to do with the desires of the attorneys, which are relevant but not particularly important to the Justices.

That's part of what was so pedantic and ****ing stupid about Gorsuch yesterday. He literally ate up time in oral argument in multiple cases to implicitly argue in favor of his (stupid and incoherent Scalia v. 2 - Now Without the Wit™) judicial philosophy through loaded questions about an issue beneath the floor of intellect of everyone in the room - including him - and at one point actually encouraged one of the attorneys to continue reading a statute word for word. Everyone in the room had read that statute. The attorneys and Justices and clerks had read that statute probably LITERALLY hundreds of times. That served no purpose whatsoever, except sad and obvious political grandstanding and pandering.

It was an embarrassment.

True.

Unfortunately for all of us and for your implied position that he deserves greater respect or something, this Earth is without any evidence of any inquisitiveness, about anything, on the part of Clarence Thomas. A surefire WOAT Justice who has worked virtually nothing but harm on human beings for his entire professional life.

Voted with he majority 99.99 percent of the time !! Or whatever that was.

not saying he's a bad judge or legal mind, I just seriously don't get why they kept putting that out there like it was some sort of feather in his cap. How does being in the majority all the time make you a good judge? Especially since he's replacing a guy venerated for his snarky dissents. There's a book that is just Scalia dissents that is like FedSoc mandatory reading.

Well he was really inquisitive about who left those pubic hairs on his Coke.

IANAL but i did read that scalia dissents book once upon a blue moon and sure some of it makes sense which is why plenty of judges on opposite sides of the spectrum agree with each other the vast majority of the time but its just so patently obvious that textualism is just another excuse to work backwards and come to your desired outcome in the "hard" cases under the guise of not being an activist from the bench. the controversial cases pretty much always have semi-plausible interpretations on both sides. like what the hell is a "reasonable search and seizure"? i just think it is hilarious that people want to pretend like the SC isn't basically just its own political body. it clearly is. every single judge looks at the text of whatever first. the reason a case is controversial is almost always cuz the text makes no damn sense or leads to absurd outcomes

GRONK interrupted Spicer's presser today to ask "Sean, need some help?" as he was about to answer a question.

THE ONE TRUE GOAT

Shane he didn't respond "All I can get" for a rare moment of clarity