You know, ‘the thing’
The indentured servants at the Stately Manor are wrapping fresh tin foil around the b&w Philco’s rabbit ears … they are so watching the debate tonight (09-29-2020). … Chris Wallace will ask the hard questions.
⇒ To Sleepy Joe: Is Amy Coney Barrett’s religious belief fair game?
⇒ To Trump: What is your net worth and — if the NY Times is wrong — how much taxes have you paid?
⇒ Trump to Biden: When do you have to be back at the home?
Babylon Bee predicts Trump’s winning strategy for the debates: allow Biden to talk for the full 90 minutes.
The case for accepting defeat on Roe
What has the Right been saying for the past 47 years? Faced with a sixth conservative justice in Amy Coney Barrett, our … acquaintances are forced to drop their face masks. “Maybe it is time to face the fact that abortion access will be fought for in legislatures, not courts,” writes a contributor to the (failing) New York Times.
Often forgotten is that R.B.G. herself had decided that Roe was a mistake. In 1992, she gave a lecture musing that the country might be better off if the Supreme Court had written a narrower decision and opened up a “dialogue” with state legislatures, which were trending “toward liberalization of abortion statutes” (to quote the Roe court).
Roe “halted a political process that was moving in a reform direction and thereby, I believe, prolonged divisiveness and deferred stable settlement of the issue,” Justice Ginsburg argued. In the process, “a well-organized and vocal right-to-life movement rallied and succeeded, for a considerable time, in turning the legislative tide in the opposite direction.”
What Ginsburg called Roe’s “divisiveness” was instrumental in the rise of the American right. — Law prof Joan C. Williams.
Ann of Althouse on Trump’s taxes:
“I read the whole [New York Times editorial], and here’s what bothers me. First, they suggest that there are too many loopholes in the tax code that rich people take advantage of. …”
It makes me think of my old law school tax professor who liked to say that a tax return is an offer and you see if the government accepts it or makes a counteroffer. Trump made his offer in 2010, and the government accepted it, and sent him $72.9 million refund but also kept investigating. It’s 10 years later, and they’re still hovering over him, threatening to take it back — with interest and penalties.
The NYT … speaks of “the profound inequities of the tax code,” but the editors never get around to proposing eliminating loopholes and complexity. Why not? Is it because what they want is to get Trump, and changing the law prospectively is irrelevant to that goal?
The dogma is strong with this one
Letter from Trump’s EPA to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who announced a ban on gasoline-powered vehicles in 15 years:
“California’s record of rolling blackouts — unprecedented in size and scope — coupled with recent requests to neighboring states for power begs the question of how you expect to run an electric car fleet that will come with significant increases in electricity demand when you can’t even keep the lights on today.”