One colleague argued to Cannon that it would be better for a judge in Miami, rather than her satellite Fort Pierce courthouse, to deal with the case, in part because the Miami courthouse has a facility for sensitive documents, the paper reported. When Cannon demurred, the chief judge of the district called her and argued that her reversed decision earlier meant that her having this case would look bad. She again declined to hand it off.

Whether Cannon's colleagues were concerned about inexperience or bias is not clear from the reporting, but what is striking is that they seem to have reached the same conclusion that many outsiders did at the time and later: Cannon has no business presiding over the case.

The trial was once scheduled to begin in May; now no tentative date even exists. She's also ruled against prosecutors again and again. Even when Cannon has ultimately rejected defense claims, she has first held hearings on matters that few judges are willing to entertain.

The case is crawling forward at the same time that the Supreme Court has been dilatory in ruling on Trump's argument that he should be immune to prosecution for acts taken as president - a claim that could upend his federal indictment for subverting the 2020 election. And just as no mechanism exists to speed up the justices, prosecutors have little recourse with Cannon.

Statistically, Americans have a less than one percent chance of living to 100. And Carter faces particularly significant challenges in reaching the milestone. For the past 16 months, he's been in hospice, end-of-life care that focuses on comfort and foregoes medical intervention. Half of people in hospice die within 17 days, according to the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

According to friends and family, Carter continues to have a good appetite and eats meals made from the squash, peppers, corn and other vegetables grown on his boyhood farm, which is now a museum maintained by the National Park Service. They said he still recognizes people and smiles.

For several years he has not been able to walk, and the last time he went outside his home in Plains, Ga., was when he was wheeled into his backyard on Easter Sunday in March.

More recently, Carter has been sleeping or resting for much of the time, sometimes in a favorite recliner in the living room.

Since his improbable rise from peanut farmer to president in 1976, Carter has been an underdog. In 2015, he survived metastatic melanoma, which had spread to his liver and brain. He has long outlived all three siblings, who died of pancreatic cancer.

It's laughable how differently supposed evangelicals viewed this devoted man who openly lived his faith every single day of his life versus how they deify a philandering grifter who has never shown a moment of simple humanity - remorse, understanding or regret - as he daily breaks the very Commandments he claims to love.

Maybe Jimmy Carter was a living example of the abject hypocrisy that many people who espouse that religion guide and control our government and people obliviously represent. The Carter's lives were filled with continuous service to humanity and their own communities up until they were physically unable to do any more. What an American life - that isn't quite over yet.

#10

Let me be clear, basic rights and principles don't change over time; however, the practical application of those basic rights and principles relating to specific circumstances might change as society does.

It makes no sense - and defines illogic - to wed oneself to viewpoints based in the past when there is no direct analogue. Life nor society is the same as it was at the time of this nation's founding.

Originalism is the most illogical form of jurisprudence.

It's fully illogical to support beliefs and opinions based in the distant past when the breadth of relevant human knowledge and experiences were significantly lesser than they are in the present.

All the writings and wishes of the Founders were based on their bedrock understanding that the Constitution they codified then would obviously need changes and evolve as the nation matured. The last thing they wanted was for future Americans to feel that they were locked into how things were interpreted in their times. These thoughts are in writing throughout the letters and left us for posterity. There was never any ambivalence in understanding that even enumerated rights come with both practical limitations and group/personal responsibilities, for without them one person's liberty could turn into another person's tyranny.

Originalism is nothing but sophistry from those who actually want to see their religious views and morality codified into law by elevating their "belief" on how law should be interpreted sans any dispositive empirical findings or data. What they "know" to be true then is still true right now, - by God - even though no exact analogues from present to past exists. And then they claim that the same "belief" is indeed dispositive simply because they say so over any protestations by the other alleged co-equal branches of government.

And now this hits:

The divide became evident last week as the court ruled on what was expected to be an amusing but not terribly significant case over a trademark application for crude anti-Trump T-shirts. Despite the trivial subject matter, Barrett squared off with Thomas in such a confrontational manner that they seemed to be really fighting about something else.

Thomas wrote the majority opinion rejecting the trademark applicant's claim. Barrett (and all the other justices) agreed with that bottom-line result. The quarrel came down to methodology.

In a concurring opinion, Barrett used unusually blunt terms to skewer Thomas' history-based rationale for denying the trademark. She described his approach as "wrong twice over," and she made clear that her gripes went far beyond this case alone.

Barrett complained in her 15-page concurrence that her conservative colleagues have become so enamored of history that they're now employing it even when the record is ambiguous and the purpose of embracing a retrospective approach is unclear.

"The views of preceding generations can persuade, and, in the realm of stare decisis, even bind," Barrett wrote, using the Latin term for the principle that courts should adhere to past rulings. "But tradition is not an end in itself - and I fear that the Court uses it that way here."

"It presents tradition itself as the constitutional argument. ... Yet what is the theoretical justification for using tradition that way?" she wrote.

Barrett's next critique amounts to fighting words among legal conservatives: She compared Thomas' approach to the kind of amorphous, multi-pronged legal tests that conservatives frequently accuse liberal judges of concocting.

"Relying exclusively on history and tradition may seem like a way of avoiding judge-made tests. But a rule rendering tradition dispositive is itself a judge-made test," she asserted.

Last week's trademark case wasn't the first time Barrett has unfurled the yellow caution flag as the court turned to history to resolve a case. Almost a year ago, in a case involving the admissibility of confessions by co-conspirators, Barrett again accused Thomas of making too much of a very limited historical record.

"The Court overclaims. That is unfortunate," Barrett wrote in a solo concurrence, referring to Thomas' majority opinion. "While history is often important and sometimes dispositive, we should be discriminating in its use. Otherwise, we risk undermining the force of historical arguments when they matter most," she declared.

For those who follow the progression of legal interpretations, ACB is telling Thomas and Alito that not only are their references into history just another "rule" created from the bench, she also argues that the examples they use do not fully represent the totality of viewpoints or considerations of the issues at particular points in history.

"It does seem to me that Justice Barrett is trying to lay down a marker of at least some limitation or clarity in terms of where she and the others on the court see history and tradition' moving in the future," said Catholic University law professor Jennifer Mascott, who clerked for Thomas at the Supreme Court and Kavanaugh when he was an appeals court judge. "Justice Barrett is basically raising questions that could really shift and perhaps limit the impact of the way specific [historical] examples are used."

store closings due to rampant theft that goes un-prosecuted

Just another gullible mind wallowing in the ignorance spewed by the Trumpist right wing media:

Another view:

Don't assume the Biden's have clean hands.

No one has to assume anything about Joe Biden's income. For over 40 years, Joe Biden had one of the lowest - if not the lowest - net worth of all the members in Congress; it's documented. Barack Obama offered to loan Biden money after Beau's death because Joe was going to take out another loan on his property to pay for family expenses. These things are known in public.

Joe Biden only gained millionaire status AFTER he left the White House in 2017 due to book and speaking contracts along with his fellowship at UPenn. His tax returns are public record since he's continuously run for office for almost 50 years. If he's done something illegal or illicit it would have come out years ago.

This isn't saying that Biden is perfect because no one is. But we do know that he has no criminal acts or provable allegations in his past and there is no any evidence of questionable income in his financial records.

The Supreme Court has slow-walked Trump's criminal cases at every turn. In December 2023, the Court denied the Department of Justice's request to hear Trump's claim that he is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution, opting to instead let the question make its way up to the justices through the lower courts. After the D.C. Circuit heard Trump's argument and decided unanimously against him within 28 days, the Supreme Court waited 22 days before it announced it would indeed hear Trump's claim of presidential immunity, scheduling oral arguments for the last day of its term, 57 days later. The ultra-conservative Supreme Court has weaponized time to delay accountability for their friend Donald Trump and influence the November election.

It is increasingly obvious to Americans who are paying attention that the Supreme Court is no longer a neutral arbiter of the law, but a partisan outfit willing to protect its political allies and overturn long-established precedents like Roe v. Wade for ideological reasons.

Trump v. United States presents an obvious conflict of interest for Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Ginni Thomas' efforts to overturn the 2020 election are well known. Rather than recuse himself and despite the Court's new sham of a code of conduct, Justice Thomas ignored calls from legal experts and Democratic lawmakers. After revelations that a Stop the Steal' flag flew at Samuel Alito's residence, Justice Alito joined Justice Thomas in disregarding calls to remove himself from the case, thumbing his nose at Congress and federal laws requiring justices to recuse themselves when their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." We simply cannot trust the justices to rule without bias and uphold the integrity of our elections when they're so clearly aligned with Donald Trump.

Things are what they appear to be.

They're afraid of being ousted.

It's certainly the combination. For many of these folks, they've spent many years and beaucoup money to gain elected office and all it takes is pissing off Trump or standing against him to put it all at risk, for he will both call for and provide support to fellow MAGAs willing to primary anyone he claims offended or opposed him.

You don't believe those spineless legislators any more than I do.

I believe them completely because we continue to see what raising Trump's ire means if you're a Republican who has to run for elective office.