After several informed comments by my Readers, I’m retracting my earlier post about Chief Justice Roberts and the Inns of Court.
Not deleting it — I’m not the New York fucking Times, FFS — just asking you to ignore it.
Mea maxima culpa for reacting to anything posted by Jim Hoft.
Here’s a complimentary earworm to take your mind off my stupidity.
I’ve looked askance at several of Chief Justice John Roberts’s activities in the past — first, and most notably, his decision that ObamaCare was actually a “tax” and not an un-Constitutional prescriptive power grab over the lives of U.S. citizens — and since then, several of his votes on Supreme Court decisions have made me furrow my brow. Here’s one example:
The Supreme Court on Friday let the Trump administration temporarily suspend $65 million in teacher-training grants that the government contends would promote diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, an early victory for the administration in front of the justices.
The decision was 5 to 4, with five of the court’s conservatives — Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Brett M. Kavanaugh — in the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. voted with the court’s three liberal justices in dissent.
Some commentators have asked the question: “Does someone have something on Judge Roberts?” as an answer to these of his decisions — what we used to call the “sex photos with a dead animal or child” kind of blackmail.
In fact, the answer is a lot simpler, and far less salacious.
Investigative journalist Bad Kitty Unleashed reported on Thursday that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is involved in an invite-only club for elite judges in Washington, DC.
The elitist club America Inns of Court also includes the radical America-hating judges James Boasberg, Beryl Howell, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Amit Mehta—all hard-left judges and Trump-haters.
Go ahead and read the whole thing. It will explain exactly why Roberts has voted the way he has.
I don’t know what the solution is — there’s that “freedom of association” thing in the Constitution — but what it basically means is that the nominally-conservative Chief Justice is in thrall to the hard Left judiciary in this country, and there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot we can do about it.
I think I’d have preferred the photos.
We always talk about “preparing for the worst”, but there’s an equally-compelling reason to prepare for the opposite. Here’s a good example of this.
I see that POTUS has increased the logging quota on federal lands by 25%, to the consternation of the Usual Idiots. Ignoring their wails (which is good advice anyway), his reasoning is sound:
The new order serves two purposes. One is to control fires. President Donald Trump said in January that the Los Angeles wildfires were partly caused by California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s refusal to clear brush and dead trees.
The other purpose, though unstated, is likely to increase the supply of lumber and head off potential price increases due to tariffs on Canadian lumber, which could have a cascading effect on the American construction industry.
The second reason is actually the better one. Of course we should not allow ourselves to be held hostage by the Canucks over timber — and in any event, the more self-sufficient a nation is, the better — but the very last sentence is equally telling.
You see, with Treasury yields falling (meaning that U.S. debt is being bought out — a Good Thing), what will follow the drop in yields is a drop in interest rates, which means that housing will become more affordable. And the construction industry cannot afford to be choked of its timber supply if building costs are to be contained.
As it is, construction companies face potentially higher labor costs because all the cheap (illegal, lest we forget) laborers are being deported — meaning more citizens working ergo more taxes being paid as opposed to untaxed dollars just being sent south of the border — so if the builders get cheaper and more-plentiful timber supplies, everyone wins.
I don’t see too many downsides to this — it’s a “two (actually three) birds with one stone” scenario — but this is after all a fairly superficial overview because I don’t claim too much expertise in this area to dig more. Am I missing something?
1957 Chevrolet Cameo
Connie Britton
Wait: red hair, freckles, dimples, long legs — and all that riding next to me on the bench seat of that exquisite Chevy truck?
Whichever route I chose, the trip would take me weeks…
And speaking of enthusiasts:
So on we go:
And to end this in similar tasteful manner:
Remember: as the weather starts to get warmer, always use the proper sunscreen or you’ll burn your sensitive bits.
Doomed by her contract to stand forever in the shadow of Ava Gardner and Lana Turner (the studio’s favorites at the time), Jane Greer was once called “the greatest actress never to win an Oscar”. And it’s quite true: as the femme fatale in so much of the 1940s-era noir genre, she showed a sinister stillness about her roles that set her apart from the overacting of most of her female peers. I think I only ever saw her in Out Of The Past, in which she was every bit the equal of the brooding, brilliant Robert Mitchum.
So let’s have a look, shall we?
And out of costume:
Of course, no look at a noir actress would be complete without a gun:
Deadly.